[ad#inline-ad-in-article]
The Iglesia ni Cristo continues it’s relentless pursuit to obey God’s word and glorify His Holy Name by continueing to build Houses of Worship. For the Iglesia ni Cristo, Houses of Worship are of utmost importance because it is in these Houses of Worship the members congregate to perform a central purpose in their life and that is to worship the only true God, the Father in Heaven.
Completed Houses of Worship
[ad#Google Adsense - 250x250 box]
The first decade of the new millennium, 642 houses of worship were completed and dedicated to God. Among the largest are Araneta and the Makati House of Worship both with a seating capacity of 1000. The latter was rebuilt after fire damage it in 2008. The Houses of Worship are spread over the entire archipelago of the Philippines, from Paddaya, Cagayan in the North to Obrero, Cotabato in the South.
Praise be to God!
[ad#Google Adsense article footer 468x60]
FROM RESBAK:”The FIRST DECADE of the new millennium, 642 houses of worship were completed and dedicated to God.”
FIRST DECADE OF THE NEW MILLENIUM. WOW.
So I ask,was there an Iglesia Ni Cristo House of Worship BUILT in the 10th UP TO THE 18TH CENTURIES?
One has to wonder why IGLESIA NI CRISTO,the supposed “TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST” was NON-EXISTENT in the DARK AGES in Europe.
You are still in DENIAL with the BIOGRAPHY OF your highly respected church leader. All the sources regarding him mentions that he “left both the Catholic and the Protestant churches before founding the INC in 1914.”
That goes to show Manalo FOUNDED your church kahit pa you make a lot of excuses. Huwag kang BULAG dear.
Yup. how many has the Catholic church built? Please read my other article titled: Catholic Church uses drug money to build chapel
None. The re-emergence did not happen until 1914.
It was not in God’s plan.
So Bro Felix Y Manalo, joined and left other religions. What’s you point? The Apostles also belonged to other churches before they followed the Lord Jesus.
Bro Felix Y Manalo himself, whom you continuously insist to be the founder, says he is NOT the founder and taught and preached that the Iglesia ni Cristo’s founder is the Lord Jesus Christ. Why can’t you just accept that dear?
Really? By what evidence can you point at that indeed Jesus Christ founded your church? If you say from scriptures,then how come your church dates back only to 1914?
I could very well found a church and call it the “Church of Christ” and claim that “God” told me so. I could easily claim that the name comes from the Bible. I could claim that I did not found my church and that Jesus is the founder. Now between your church and my church,if a “catholic” wants to reject the teachings of the pope and wants to become a member in our respective churches,how then can he tell which church is really telling the truth?
You fell for the lies of Manalo’s claims that he did not found the Iglesia ni Cristo church? Yeah right.
Easy! Check the teachings and compare to what the Lord Jesus and his Apostles preached. I,ll give you three:
1. Who is God?
- Lord Jesus: And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY true God
- Iglesia ni Cristo: And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY true God
- Others: trinity
2. Nature of the Lord Jesus Christ
- Lord Jesus: But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.
- Iglesia ni Cristo: But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.
- Others: trinity
3. Who is the head of the church of Christ?
- Apostles: “He is the head of the body, the church”
- Iglesia ni Cristo: “He is the head of the body, the church”
- Others: the Pope
Why only 1914? Because of the apostasy.
FROM RESBAK:”None. The re-emergence did not happen until 1914.”
THE RE-EMERGENCE? SO WHERE WAS THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO CHURCH BEFORE THE RE-EMERGENCE?
How can you say Iglesia ni Cristo is the “true church”,its just that the name is in tagalog.
Bakit,mayroon din ba kayong church na yung pangalan is in english (well,there is indeed a church called “Church of Christ” but is NOT related to Iglesia) or french or swahili?
If you search “CHURCH OF CHRIST”,you will see that there are several churches bearing that name BUT IS NOT RELATED TO IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
INC and all these churches bearing the title “Church of Christ” have one thing in general:they all claim to be the true church,
*Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), the original name of the first Latter Day Saint church, founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith.
*United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination in the United States amalgamated from four congregationalist groups in 1957
*Church of Christ (Temple Lot), a Latter Day Saint denomination based in Independence, Missouri
* Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, which broke away from the Temple Lot church in 1929
* Church of Christ at Halley’s Bluff, which broke away from the Temple Lot church in 1932
* Church of Christ (Whitmerite), an extinct Latter Day Saint denomination
* Church of Christ (Brewsterite), an extinct Latter Day Saint denomination
* Church of Christ (Parrishite), an extinct Latter Day Saint denomination
* Church of Christ, Instrumental, also known as the Kelleyites, a Baptist denomination in Arkansas
* United Church of Christ in the Philippines, the largest Protestant group in the Philippines
Now,compared with the above mentioned churches, what makes you think your church is the “one true church” (besides bearing a tagalog name)?
The name is only the first test. How can a church be of Christ if it’s not even named after him? The church built by Jesus Christ is named after him, thus Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo in Pilipino.
After a church passes the first test, which is the name one then needs to test the teachings whether they conform to the teachings of the Lord Jesus and his Apostles. Please see response to your comment below.
FROM RESBAK:”So Bro Felix Y Manalo, joined and left other religions. What’s you point? ”
MY POINT? It serves as an undisputable evidence that IGLESIA NI CRISTO was still NON-EXISTENT BEFORE Manalo was jumping from one religion to another. Have you even read Manalo’s biography?
“Born On May 10, 1886 to a Catholic family, near Manila in the Philippines. His name Felix (happy) was chosen from the roster of saints from that month. was baptized a Catholic, His mother a devout Roman Catholic who had Felix attend Catechism class where he learned the fundamentals of the Roman Catholic faith. When he became a teenager he went on a spiritual quest through five known denominations. He became a follower of the ”Colorum” spiriting sect in the Philippines which was secretive and had pilgrimages to a sacred mountain. he left the Church as a teenager In 1904 after witnessing a debate between a Roman catholic priest and a Protestant minister on the use of images, he joined the Methodist Episcopalian Church, attended their Seminary and became a pastor. Iglesia puts it this way” He found that the arguments of the Protestant minister’ seemed nearer to the biblical truth, than the pointless rambling of the priest.” – GOD’S MESSAGE 1 July – September 1994
For a church to be called the “TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST”,aside from being biblical and following Christ’s teaching,it should be APOSTOLIC because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
Yet History refutes the claims of INC since your church was NON-EXISTENT before Manalo’s so-called “RE-EMERGENCE”.
Everything you wrote are dogmas of the Catholic church which under close inspection reveal are not even remotely biblical. All of them are inventions based on pagan practices.
You will be hard pressed to explain to anyone how these dogmas came to be and even more impossible to link them to any Christian doctrine taught by the Lord Jesus and his Apostles.
The Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines, on the other hand, can be easy traced to what the Apostles preached.
FROM RESBAK: “After a church passes the first test, which is the name one then needs to test the teachings whether they conform to the teachings of the Lord Jesus and his Apostles. Please see response to your comment below.”
FROM RESBAK:”The Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines, on the other hand, can be easy traced to what the Apostles preached.”
Yun lang? Its that clever enough for you? Every protestant church you can think of does the same.
Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices.
Yet INC cannot provide any historical links to the early Church.
Did you not understand what you’ve quoted? Protestants are not called Iglesia ni Cristo. Remember, name first.
Protestants are born from the Catholic church, the proof of this is they too believe in the trinity. And as you already know the trinity dogma is not biblical therefore it’s not based on the teachings of the Lord Jesus nor of the Apostles. So, the Catholic church and all the protestant church both fail in the name test as well as the doctrine test.
FROM RESBAK:”Everything you wrote are dogmas of the Catholic church which under close inspection reveal are not even remotely biblical.:
Oh really?
#1 the forgiveness of sins through a priest
Arent you forgetting that Jesus gave the apostles the auhtority to forgive sins?
In John 20:19–23. Let me read it: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
And yet who are the direct successors of the apostles at present? Can INC prove they are the direct successors of the apostles aside from just CLAIMING that “INC follows the teaching of the apostles”( na puro lang naman hangin)?
#2 Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
in John 6:53–58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is TRUE food , and my flesh is TRUE drink .”
INC doctrines does not hold weight. They are all just full of AIR because they claim this and that and nothing else
#1. only God and the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive sins. No one else even your priest.
#2. The eucharist is not found in the bible. it’s another catholic invention.
“#1. only God and the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive sins. No one else even your priest.”
oh really?
You are ignoring the fact that the priests were ordained by the bishops,who are successors of the apostles.
Basically,it is just your own presumptions. Prove your position and contradict John 20:19-23.
Yes. Only God and the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive sins and to believe otherwise is not only a sin to God and is a dangerous departure from the truth.
FROM RESBAK:”Yes. Only God and the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive sins and to believe otherwise is not only a sin to God and is a dangerous departure from the truth.”
AGAIN,you are operating based on your own presumptions. Then what was the point of Jesus telling the apostles on John 20:19-23? You still haven’t refuted that.
presumption? how about common sense. If you sin against your priest, go ahead ask for his forgiveness. If you sin against God, are you still going to ask forgiveness from the priest?
FROM RESBAK:”presumption? how about common sense. If you sin against your priest, go ahead ask for his forgiveness..”
iF we sin AGAINST THE PRIEST? That’s NOT the context of my argument dear. What I was to point out was that the priest has the AUTHORITY and POWER to forgive sins as evidence in JOHN 20:23 -
“Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
YOU STILL HAVENT MADE A DIRECT COMMENT ON THIS VERSE. ALL YOU SAY IS OUT OF CONTEXT.
John 20:23 talks about the disciples whom our Lord Jesus breathed on and told them they can forgive sins. When did the Lord breath on any priest?
Dandelionne wins the argument. Resbak does not answer the Mr. D’s previous entries, but writes another point altogether. Resbak’s arguments are circular.
Regards,
MC
Hi Mark,
You may want to read up on the definition of a circular argument. Here’s an example: Dandelione claiming that catholic priest can forgive sins based on John 20:23 because the Catholic church is Apostolic. Get it?
The catholic priests wrongly interpreted John 20:21-23. Where in the Bible it says that the Apostles established confession booths where the confessant will confess his/her sin to a confessor priest?
We should confess our sins to God.
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”– and you forgave the guilt of my sin. (Psalms 32:5 NIV)
The Bible clarified the way how the Apostles perform their authority to forgive sin written in John 20:21-23. It is not through personal confession of our sin to God to a priest in a confession booth but THROUGH BAPTISM.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36 NIV)
They are baptized in one body, which is the true Church of Christ because it was purchased by Christ’s blood. So their sins are forgiven. (I Cor. 12:13, Col. 1:18; Acts 20:28 Eph. 1:7)