Thursday, July 28, 2011


In a desperate attempt for the Catholic Church to justify Infant Baptism in biblical point of view, simple rules on evidence are grossly disregarded. Using invalid assumptions, their reasoning only shows how far they are away from truth.

They are using the verses, 1 Cor 1:16 and Acts 16:15 which both say that a “household” was baptized. With a presumption that a “household” , the entire family has children and babies with them, they conclude that infants can receive baptism. This inconclusive line of thinking even begets more irrational consequence. Even some domestic animals are considered “household pets”. So, it is not far fetched that in Catholic Church even animals will get baptism too!

In order to fully come to the knowledge of truth on this issue, there are basic questions that must be answered:

a. What is baptism for?
b. Who and How did the early Christians get baptized?
c. Is there any biblical record where infants received baptism?
d. What is the Christian practice of receiving babies and children?

Baptism in the Bible

Baptism is for remission of sins. As written,
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:6)
Having a remission of sin, one shall receive the holy spirit. As written,
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
Baptism is also baptism to the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As written,
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)

Follow-Up Clarificatory Question: If baptism is for remission of sin, then why did our Lord Jesus Christ receive baptism from John if our Lord had never committed sin?
The answer is directly from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself when John the Baptist was hesitant to administer the baptism to our Lord. As written,
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (Matthew 3:13-16)

Before receiving baptism, the person must be a believer (i.e capacity to believe)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)
But how can someone believe if not receiving the words of God? As written,

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10: 14)

It is necessary that a person must hear the words of God before believing. In the case of early Christians, they heard the Gospel before receiving baptism. As written,

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
Baptism is for men and women. As written,

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12).
Men and Women are mature individuals that are capable to receive teachings and capable to observe all things commanded by Christ. As written,

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Baptism is also into one body. Thus,

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

The body being referred to is no other than the Church (Col 1:18).

In terms of method or procedure of baptism, the bible is so vivid to describe it. Baptism requires a lot of water. As written,

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:23)
The person to be baptized and the one who will administer it shall both go down into the water just like the case of the eunuch being baptized by Philip. As written,

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38)
Baptism is described as “burial” with the death of Jesus Christ. As written,
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)
In IGLESIA NI CRISTO (Church of Christ), baptism is conducted in places with much waters such as river, sea, and pool. The method is by immersion just like burying.


Is there any biblical record that infants and babies get baptism? NONE. Based on above-mentioned biblical truths, infants and babies are not capable to receive baptism.
a. Babies and infants do not have faculty to believe.
b. Babies and infants do not have the faculty to discern the concept of sin.
c. Babies and infants do not have the faculty to receive teachings and commandments of God for them to observe.
d. It is physically unsafe for babies and infants to receive the method of baptism as written in the bible.

With all these limitations, how did the early Christians receive babies and infants into the congregation? When our Lord Jesus Christ was born, he was offered to God under Jewish custom as written in Luke 2: 22- 32.
At the time of Christ, infants were brought unto our Lord Jesus Christ for Him to put hands and pray for them. Parallel accounts are written in the gospel. As written,

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. ( Matthew 19:13-15)

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16)

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. (Luke 18:15-17)

In IGLESIA NI CRISTO (Church of Christ), infants and little children are offered to God by laying on of hands and prayer by minister in a congregational worship. The child is called “HANDOG”.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)

Catholic defenders use this verse to deny the apostasy of the first century church. In their reasoning they say that nobody (even death) could topple the church.

Their interpretation is very far from the context written in the bible.

What does Christ mean by His pronouncement that "gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

If we search the old scriptures and find for related pronouncement, the expression is taken from Isaiah 25:8 saying

“He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”

When Apostle Paul used this verse, he did NOT mean “continuity” or “dominance” of the church as interpreted by the Catholic defenders. “Victory over death” is no other than resurrection. (1 Cor 15: 54-55).

“So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So then, what is the most strong biblical proof that rebukes the claim of Catholic defenders about their so-called "continuity" of Church?

The answer is from the statement of Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying,

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

How can "other sheep" which are NOT of this fold be one fold with one shepherd?

Thursday, November 5, 2009


The verse says,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Those who believe in the deity of Christ are one in agreement that this prophecy concerning Christ directly calls Christ as the mighty God. However, this understanding begets contentions even from among them. There are valid remarks such as

1) How can Jesus be the everlasting Father?
2) How can a God be born and a son is also the Father?

I would like to cut to the chase in understanding this verse. This post doesn’t intend to invite “granting-without-conceding type of argumentative debates”.

For clarity, the verse should be translated as follows:

"For to us a child is born, a son is given to us, and the government shall be on his shoulder, and his name will be called Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom."

The long name “Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom” literally means “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, (calls) The Prince of Peace.”

It is very much obvious that it is a name that will be called such. Hence, it is a theophoric name that is common in the bible.
Jesus Christ has a theophoric name which is Immanuel (“God with us”) Mt 1:23.

There are many biblical characters who have theophoric names. The Wikipedia has its article on the Theophory in the bible.
Having theophoric name does not prove the deity of Christ. Otherwise, there would be lots of Gods.

Saturday, October 24, 2009


This verse has been the subject of much debate because bible versions do not agree as to how the verse is translated. The verse is,

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (King James Version)

There are two major versions of verse 8,

1. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God… (King James Version)
2. He says of the Son, ‘God is thy throne… (Mofatt)

Although the said versions are not directly opposing in their meaning but the argument lies as to whom the statement is addressed. Accordingly, the KJV would say that the writer is addressing someone as “God who has a throne” while the Mofatt would say that the writer is telling that the “God is himself the throne”. The argument becomes relevant because this would suggest the alleged deity of Jesus Christ on the basis of being called as “God”.

The Iglesia ni Cristo does not have its own bible version. We will not meddle with the translation.

The Iglesia ni Cristo does not subscribe also to the above premise that Christ is God on the basis that Christ, allegedly is being called as “God”. (On a personal note, I just could not believe that such primary article or doctrine of faith will be based on “who said so”. Our Lord Jesus Christ deserves a formal introduction, so to speak. )

Not taking either side, we have the holy spirit to guide us in understanding this verse. Again, we employ the rule: Compare spiritual things with spiritual.( 1 Cor 2:13)


The verse Hebrews 1:8 is among the references directly copied from the Old Testament by the writer. As references, we must understand the verses as to how they are used by the writer to support the main point or “thesis” of the chapter.

Before any further discussion, let us clarify what I mean by “REFERENCE”.

For example, the style of this blog is to make references to the verses in the bible. It begins with an assertion, a stand or point. Then, I copied the verses verbatim from the bible to support my claim. I left the understanding to the reader whether my statement are biblical or not. I just intend to use it as my guide.

At times, this blog may also employ “QUOTATION” as oppose to REFERENCING. In “quotation”, the verses are directly used during the course of discussion. I use the same phrasing used by the bible. For instance, we say that

“In order to understand a verse we are comparing spiritual things with spiritual”.

This is a quotation from 1 Cor 2:13.
If I rather choose to make a REFERENCING to this verse, I would say

“In order to understand a verse, we compare it to other verses of the bible. As written in 1 Cor 2:13, thus, Which things also we…..”

If we go back to the entire Chapter 1 of the book of Hebrews, we observe that nine(9) out of the 14 verses are taken from Old Testament. Six(6) of this nine verses are verbatim REFERENCES including the Hebrews 1:8. The first four verses (Heb 1:1-4) contain the main statement of the chapter while verses 5-13 are supporting verses. The last verse is the transition from chapter 1 to the next chapter.

The main statements of chapter 1 are

1) God has spoken through prophets in the past but now through His Son (Jesus Christ).
2) God appointed Christ as heir of the universe and through Christ, God made the worlds.
3) Glorious Jesus Christ is sitting on the right hand of Majesty.
4) Christ is much better than angels because Christ inherited a NAME that is superior to those of the angels.

The supporting verses from Old Testaments cited in verses 5-13 are as follows:

1. Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:26,27 for verse 5
2. Psalm 104:4 for verse 7
3. Psalm 45:6-7 for verses 8-9
4. Psalm 102:25-27 for verses 10-12
5. Psalm 110:1 for verse 13

The supporting verses are copied from Old Testament verbatim and pasted in series with conjunctions such as “but to son he say..”, “and of the angels he said”, “and” etc.

Had the book of Hebrews written in a formatted layout and not in a paragraph form, the whole chapter 1 of the book should only contain 5 verses with footnotes as REFERENCE.

As REFERENCES, we should look into each verse and find out how these supporting verses are connected to the main statements of chapter 1.

1. Verses Psalm 2:7, 89:26-27 support the first statement that Christ is the Son of God.
2. Psalm 104:4 supports the 4th statement. Angels are ministering spirits for the heir of salvation.
3. Psalm 45:6-7 support 2nd statement. Christ is anointed by God. The throne of God is forever. This supports 3rd statement since Christ sits on the right hand of God or throne of God (Heb 8:1)
4. Psalm 102:25-27 support 2nd statement. God created the world. He doesn’t not change.
5. Psalm 110:1 supports 3rd statement. Christ is sitting on the right hand of God.

The verses of Hebrew 1:8 and verse 9 were taken together from same part of the book of Psalm. The verses from 10 to 12 were taken from different chapter of the book of Psalm. This discontinuity suggests that Hebrews 1:10-12 is not anymore related in sense to Hebrews 1:8-9.

Now that we know that Hebrews 1:8-9 is copied from Psalm 45:6-7, our next step is to determine how these verses are used as references to the Son( But unto the son he saith…). We need to know who spoke the said verses in Psalm.

If we inspect all supporting verses taken from Psalm, we note that the above-mentioned five (5) references have different point of views. Reference #1 is spoken by God Himself as quoted by the writer of the PSALM. Reference #2 is spoken by the writer of Psalm while praising God. Reference #3 which is part of Psalm Chapter 45, is spoken by writer of PSALM addressed to a King and to a daughter. Reference #4 is spoken by the writer of PSALM while praying to God. Reference #5 is spoken by third person which is David talking about his Lord speaking to a Lord.

Who spoke the Psalm 45:6-7? Who said about the Son?

The verses are,

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”(Psalm 45:6-7)

The entire chapter 45 of Psalm is spoken by the author for a king (Psalm 45:1) and also to a daughter (verse 10). It is NOT the God who spoke these verses. If we read the entire Chapter 1 of book of Hebrews as one whole article, the pronoun “he” in the phrases “And of the angels he saith..(v.7”) and “But unto the Son he saith..(v.8)” appears to be spoken by God. The two should not contradict one another. Therefore, this validates our point that the supporting verses (Hebrews 1:5-13) are appended as REFERENCES.

As REFERENCE, it is not of primary importance who and for whom the verse was spoken. It is the content of the verse that matters. For instance, if we quote inspirational verses from the bible, it doesn’t matter anyhow if the verse was spoken by God, by prophets, by Jesus, by apostles for anyone like Israel, to brethren, to loved ones etc. Likewise, if the verses from Psalm are used as references, the author of the book of Hebrews doesn’t take into account whose point of view is the Psalm 45:6-7 and for whom it was uttered.


If we inspect Psalm 45:6-7, it appears that someone being called as God has a God. This is true if we are reading a continuous and coherent statement. However, the book of PSALM is a POETRY. In Poetry the point of view is very dynamic. Consider this verse

“Thy God hath commanded thy strength: strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.” (Psalm 68:28)
To whom this verse is talking to?

Is there a passage in the book of Psalm where a verse is addressing to God yet the following or even the preceding verse is not directed to God? YES. Lots of them.


“Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee. For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.” (Psalm 116:7-8)

The first sentence (or line of a song) is addressing to his soul yet the following line addresses to the LORD.

There is even a single verse in Psalm where it addresses to two beings. Consider Psalm 104:1,

“Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.”

This verse has two(2) second person point of view: o my soul and o Lord my God.

Therefore grammatical continuity of reference point of view is NOT consistent and coherent in the book of PSALM. However, this inherent property, similar to that of other poetry should not in any way set against our understanding of the book.

Thus, Hebrew 1:8( or Psalm 45:6) is addressing to God having a throne that is forever while Hebrew 1:9 (or Psalm 45:7) is talking to the anointed one who has a God. The conjunction “But unto the son he saith” of Hebrew 1:8 applies to Hebrew 1:8-9 which is taken from the same chapter of book of Psalm. Moreover, Hebrew 1:10-12 verses were taken from separate chapters of the book of Psalm. As references, these verses are not in any way connected to Hebrew 1:8-9.

The subsequent questions now are: Why does the writer of the Book of Hebrews use the two verses from Psalm as references to the Son? What does the “throne of God” associate with the Son? The answer can be found in Hebrews 12:2, saying

“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Christ is the heir of all things. It might as well proper for the author of the book of Hebrews to describe the throne of God of which Christ would sit into. (Acts 2:30)

Thursday, October 22, 2009


This is a response to an open question of an apologist challenging the belief of Iglesia ni Cristo with regards to the nature of Jesus Christ.

The questions go like these:

1) How does INC differentiate the worship to the Father to that of the worship to Jesus Christ?
2) Iglesia ni Cristo revere and worship Jesus Christ yet they believe that Jesus is human- a creature. Then this would be like worshipping a creature. Isn’t this contrary to what is written in Roman 1:25?
“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

Our answer:

Naturally, we worship God, the Father because He is our God and the Creator. As written,
“O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Psalm 95:6-7)
We also worship our Lord Jesus Christ in order to glorify God our Father. As written,

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11) (emphasis mine)

The NAME of Jesus Christ and his LORDSHIP that were given to him by God, the Father do NOT qualify as CREATURES. As written,

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11 emphasis mine)

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”(Acts 2:36 emphasis mine)

We worship Jesus Christ NOT because he is a creature but because he bears the name given to Him by the Father. As written,

“Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.” (Psalm 148:13)

Is Jesus Christ a Creator in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16?

Christ-is-God believers profess that Christ is the creator of the universe. They use the following verses to support their claim:

1) John 1:3
2) Colossians 1:16
3) Hebrews 1:10 (discussed in a separate post)

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16

The verses are as follows:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1:16)

There is no argument that the pronoun “him” refers to Jesus Christ; our contention is on the way we understand the verses.

Although I am not a good English speaker but I believe a little review of our English grammar would be handy. Try to consider the sentences,

All things were made by him. All things were created by him.

These are sentences in passive form. In order to convert these sentences to active form, we must assign a doer of the verbs “made” and “create”.
Christ-is-God believers insist that the doer of the verbs is Christ. If they convert the sentences to their active forms, they would say,

He(Christ) made all things. He(Christ) created all things.

However, we cannot see any other supporting verse that says actively and categorically that Jesus Christ created all things.
If we inspect Colossians 1:16, it says,

For by him were all things created…

The phrase “by him” is an adverbial clause. The sentence “ All things are created by him” is the same as “By him all things are created”. The object represented by the pronoun “him” is NOT the doer of the verbs. Hence, Christ is not the one who made all things and he is not the one who created all things.


In Ephesians 3:9, we can read the answer, thus,

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”

It is the God, our Father who created all things. As written,

“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph 4:6)


What is the meaning of the adverbial clause “by him” or “by Jesus Christ”?
The second clause of John 1:3 says that “without him (Christ) was not anything made that was made”. This is a type of a “reason clause”. God created all things for a purpose. As written,

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:” (Eph 3:9-11) (emphasis mine)

What is the purpose of God?

In Ephesians 1:9-10, it says

“Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:”

Heir of All things

Christ is the appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). It does make a lot of sense that God the Father created all things for His heir. If Christ is already the creator and maker of things, then how can he be a heir?

If Christ is the maker and creator of all things, then what is the sense of saying “without him (Christ) was not anything made that was made”? Is not this an empty redundant statement?

As a heir, all things will be put under Christ and Christ himself will be subject to God so that the God may be all in all.(1 Cor 15:27-28)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Does fullness of God suggest being God?

This is one of the circumstantial proofs used by Christ-is-God proponents. Accordingly, in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). So their conclusion is: Christ is God.
But in Ephesian 3:19, it says that even to people of God, the fullness of God is expected to be filled also as written, “And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.”

It therefore follows that from above reasoning all people of God are Gods also.

Definitely absurd!