Another Victory of Catholic Faith Defenders!!!

Another Victory of Catholic Faith Defenders!!!

By: Bro. G-one T. Paisones

 
It was a warmed Sunday of April 15, 2012 that the grand debate between Catholic Faith Defenders and Islam delegate was held in Public Mall in Ozamiz City. The time of the said debate was set in 1 P.M. in the afternoon. The proposition of the debate is “Resolve that Islam is the religion of all Prophets of Allah and founded by Him according to the Holy Qu’ran, Bible and standard references.”
 
 
The representative of each groups are the following; namely Bro. Wendell Talibong of Catholic Faith Defenders Incorporated and Bro. Ustadj Ibrahim Romas (Muslim).
 
 
By watching this debate you are able to witness how Brother Wendell Talibong of Catholic Faith Defenders Incorporated successfully negate and obliterate the affirmative side of Islam delegate.
 
 
On behalf of Catholic Faith Defenders; I have to congratulate Brother Wendell Talibong for his triumph in the said grand debate! Truly the truth shall shine above all.
 
Strengthens our faith while having fun….enjoy
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Muslim Finds the Catholic Faith…Through Geography and Theology

A Muslim Finds the Catholic Faith…Through Geography and Theology

by EDWARD PENTIN


Ilyas Khan

Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar was instrumental in helping Ilyas Khan, a British philanthropist and former Muslim, to become Catholic. But so too were many other distinctly Catholic influences, all amounting to a “pull” towards the faith rather than a “push” away from Islam.

Khan, a merchant banker by training and the owner of the Accrington Stanley soccer team, is also chairman of the prominent British charity Leonard Cheshire Disability — the largest organization in the world helping people with disabilities. In a revealing interview with Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin, Khan explains in more detail what drew him to the Catholic Church in 2009.

 

What brought you to the faith? Was there anything in Islam, perhaps Muslims’ devotion to Our Lady, which helped you to convert?

Yes and no. Devotion to Our Lady on a personal basis is a big part of my faith, but at the same time, I know it wasn’t anything to do with my upbringing as a Muslim. My first tentative steps towards Catholicism were taken in my very early infancy. My mother was very ill at that time, and I was raised till about the age of 3 or 4 by a grandmother who was determinedly Catholic and Irish. I went to a Church school, and I think that when I started classes I didn’t think of myself as anything other than being Christian.

I also benefited from being brought up in Lancashire, up on the Pennines and close to the Ribble Valley. If there was ever a Catholic heartland in England, that was it — the great stronghold that never really acknowledged the Reformation.

Later on, when I was entering university, divine Providence intervened for a second time, and I stayed at Netherhall House, which is an Opus Dei student hall of residence in London. But, in between, say from the ages of about 4 to 17, I had been raised as a Muslim in a Muslim household. I had gone to mosque, learned the Quran. So, yes, I was raised a Muslim, but I don’t think there was any aspect of Islam that might have nudged me towards becoming a Catholic.

 

Was that time in Netherhall very influential, in terms of bringing you into the faith?

Very much so, yes. However, at that point in time, I don’t think I had the guts to convert or be received into the Church, or even take formal instruction. Apostasy is something Islam takes very seriously. In the eyes of a great many, Muslims’ apostasy is actually (as opposed to merely theoretically) punishable by death. So Netherhall was absolutely instrumental. I remember very clearly my devotion to prayer was really formed there, surrounded as I was by living examples of a wonderfully spiritual faith.

 

Would you say you came to the faith almost subconsciously?

Not really. I think I came to my faith wholly consciously. By the age of 18 and 19, I was a reasoning and questioning young adult. And by then I had discovered there was a brilliant person called Hans Urs von Balthasar. There was a library in Netherhall where I started reading theology. That’s where I came across Origen, and, to a very large extent, that’s also where I was able to study and appreciate the work of St. Augustine. So I was very conscious but somewhat apprehensive. Both my parents were still alive at the time, and part of my reticence was my unwillingness to cause them hurt. I don’t know quite how I would have described myself by the time I graduated from university, but probably “a closet Catholic” comes close.

 

What gave you the courage in the end?

Apart from the Holy Spirit? A culmination of two things: a greater degree of certainty in my own moral compass; and if there was a push away from Islam or a pull, it was much more the pull of Christ. It wasn’t ever in my mind a negative thing [to convert]. The other important factor was my very regular attendance, over a decade prior to my formally being received, at a church — St. Joseph’s in Hong Kong. I went to live in Asia and Hong Kong in my mid-20s, and that’s where I discovered my affinity for traditional Catholicism. The simple acts of faith — ritual, the liturgy and congregational prayer — were the stepping stones.

 

Did you have a sense, in those years leading up to being received, of a growing sense that the Catholic faith is the truth?

Yes, though that’s perhaps slightly melodramatic. At this stage of my life, when my religion is at the core of what I do, it’s very difficult to differentiate between any actions that might or might not be motivated by faith. I would hope that everything I do in my life is motivated and guided by faith. To answer your question in a slightly different way: I never doubted, from about my mid-20s onwards, that I was a Christian, and my path towards Catholicism, as opposed to Christianity per se, was really quite a quick one. In retrospect, the heart of that journey actually took four or five years and was more academically or intellectually based. I have to say it was Von Balthasar who guided me.

 

Were Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also influential? Both have been described as so-called Balthasarians.

That’s a really good question. I’ve never been asked that question before. Yes, well, Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, definitely qualifies as being “Balthasarian,” and Blessed John Paul II raised Balthasar to becoming a cardinal. Obviously, John Paul II was an influence beyond his regard for Von Balthasar — how could one not be influenced by such a great man? Like a great many people, Balthasar himself was not just a gigantic intellect, but also articulated how the mystery of faith is central to our lives as Christians. And, in that regard, the single most moving moment for me happened when I was in my mid-30s. I was walking past the Pieta in St. Peter’s, and I remember being literally arrested in my tracks by a combination of four or five things all at once. You asked me about my relationship with the Blessed Mother of God — well, that moment in time was really important. That can be described as being the turning point.

 

Was it the beauty of the Pietà that struck you?

Yes — and the context. This is God, I thought. This really is God. You must remember that one of the big things when we look at traditional Islam is the heresy — in their opinion — of equating the mortal Jesus with God. And if there is ever an obstacle that a Muslim convert has to contend with, intellectually and emotionally, more than anything else, that is it. At that moment, in front of the Pietà, I realized, through sheer emotion, that the truth of our religion is so simple and so direct.

 

You mean the fact that Jesus is not just a prophet, but God Himself?

Yes, absolutely, and I think at that moment — I remember it distinctly; it still moves me to tears — there was no doubt in my mind. It was so clear. I’m afraid it would be impossible for me to articulate that feeling in mere words. If there was a “before” and an “after,” then that was my point of arrival, so to speak.

 

In terms of being concerned about the “apostasy” charge from Muslims — is it something that keeps you up at night? 

No, not at all. It doesn’t keep me up at night. However, I can tell you where it becomes relevant: In various different forums — in articles, magazines and on radio and once or twice on TV — I have tended to get a fair degree of coverage in Britain, where I’m also well known as the owner of one of our best-known football teams. I get described with a standard tagline saying something like: “The most prominent recent Catholic convert.” Whilst there have been many times when I have been on the receiving end of threats from individual Muslims or Islamic organizations who might read and react to these articles and interviews, I have to say that those occasions have absolutely never kept me up at night. I have received my fair share of hate mail and threats of violence, but I conduct myself with what I hope is a simple dignity and refuse to be drawn into a life governed by fear or undue caution.

Conversely, what I am interested in is where Islam and Catholicism meet; here, there is a degree of commonality. And my attitude is to exhibit for those who are not Catholics the beauty, purity, wonder and the privilege of being a Catholic. I’m just very straightforward and calm about this issue, and that’s a reflection of my faith.  

 

Some prominent converts from Islam can be very negative towards their former religion, but you don’t seem to have that view.

My views have the benefit of being blessedly simple. I don’t think there’s any complexity in my faith, and, as I said earlier, I was pulled towards my Christian faith, not pushed away from Islam.

However, I must admit that I do have a great deal of sadness in my heart when I contemplate people who use Islam to justify their actions. These actions aren’t just un-Islamic — they are inhuman and have nothing to do with my view of Islam as a religion. Sadly, there appear to be a very large number of Muslims for whom anger and violence seem intuitive first responses to anything they don’t agree with. Beyond that, I feel that the two religions, Islam and Christianity, might be described as “distant cousins.” Remember, I was raised a Muslim, and I have been to Medina and Mecca, and I can see some of the inherent qualities. But we must also admit that the point of departure, the difference between the two religions, is vast. So while there are similarities, and I can see them, they don’t count really for very much. … I celebrate the fact that Jesus Christ is love. It’s a simple statement. It is the defining difference.

 

And it is very simple in its totality.

Yes, it is; but then the thing we call “love,” that we as Christians concern ourselves (with) at the heart of our faith, is a living, real and tangible quality. Jesus is actually with us; we don’t need metaphors or vague conceptual examples of what love “might” be in order to inspire or inform us. We are blessed by the Holy Sacrament and nourished by the direct intercession of Our Lord through his sacrifice. In that regard, Von Balthasar has helped to change the basis of conversation about the relationship between the Church, Christ and the Holy Spirit. He created a new understanding around the semantics of “love” in a religious context. I, therefore, can’t really say much about the contrasts between Catholicism and other religions, be they Islam or Hinduism, for example, but simply affirm the unerring simplicity of my own faith.

 

 

Edward Pentin writes from Rome.

Wendell Talibong (CFD) vs Andrew Libut (SDA)_Clips

Panoorin ninyo kung paano ni lampaso ng isang Catholic Faith Defender ang pastor ng SDA sa isang debate……….. Wendell Talibong (CFD) vs Andrew Libut (SDA)_Clips lang sa naturang debate ang inyong matutunghayan… God bless and enjoy…………….

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Part V “Immaculate Conception”

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Part V “Immaculate Conception”

By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros’ false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers. This time we’ll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.

Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;

And Mary said, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47

Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross. Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin. Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for “all” is “pantes” which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from “all” and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is “hapas”. But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic. Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God’s glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John  1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you”. Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather  it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.

The Church do not teach that Mary’s sinlessness is by her own doing when the dogma of Immaculate Conception was defined by the Pope it was clear that Mary’s preservation from sin is a privilege granted by God in view of the anticipatory merits of Christ on the cross.

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus


Everything God created is good (1 Timothy 4:4), when God created the first Adam the material (soil) that he used is pure and without blemish. In like manner the new Adam (Christ) was formed from pure and without blemish womb of Mary the new Eve. In Gen.3:15, God in the beginning of time already foreordained that Mary will always be in enmity with the devil, because Mary like God’s first creation was pure and without blemish. In the letter of Paul to the Hebrews it was stated that Christ shared the very flesh and very blood of Mary (Heb.2:14) and this flesh and blood that he took and soon offered to the cross is without blemish (Heb.9:14). Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.

Simbahang Katoliko Aduna may Bayad?

Simbahang Katoliko Aduna may Bayad?

By. Bro: Jessie Fuertes (CFD Nasipit Chapter)

 

 

PANGUTANA:
Nahibalo ako nga dapat pari ang angayan kong pangutan-on nianing akong pangutana. Apan nanghinaut lamang ako nga matubag kini nga pangutana sa mga nagpasiugda niini nga website.

Ang akong pangutana mao kini: Ngano mang sa halos matag lihok sa Simbahang Katoliko aduna may bayad? Ang bayad ra ba gayud dili barato kundi mahal. Magpalubong naay bayad, magpakasal naay bayad, magpablessing naay bayad, magpabunyag naay bayad (kada maninoy maninay kahi ang bayad), magpamisa naay bayad, halos tanan adunay bayad nga dinagku. Pati pagpamisa sa kalag adunay presyo ang matag kalag nga ipamisa (sigon sa ubang parokya). Aha man gibase sa simbahan ang presyo sa mga balayronon?

Wala koy pangutana sa mga boluntaryo nga mga paghatag, sama sa mga halad ug sa mga pledges. Ang pangutana nako kung aha gibase ang mga presyo nga ipabayad as requirements sa mga nahisgutang aktibidades. Ug nganung ingon ani man ang sistema? (Nangutana: concernedCatholic <booter12041@yahoo.com>, date sent: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM)

TUBAG:

Kalinaw’g gugma gikan sa atong Ginoong Jesukristo. Sa akong pagsabot brod sa imong mga pangutana, nangita ka ug mga basihanan ngano nga sa mga simbahanong lihok duna may bayad ug nganong presyohan man? Mora mag nanapi niini ang Simbahang Katoliko kon pamation. Taas-taas man ning imong pangutana brod mao na nga nagkinahanglan pod ug taas nga explanation. Hinaut pa unta nga sa panabang sa atong Ginoo makahatag ko nimog katin-awan sa tubag sa imong naglagobo nga pangutana. Ang mga teksto sa Bibliya gikuha gikan sa “Maayong Balita” bible version.

  • Una sa tanan, ang Dios wala magkinahanglan niining mga bahandia tungod kay siya man ang tag-iya niining tanan, apan ang tawo nga iyang mga alagad sa Simbahan nagkinahanglan niini aron makapadayon sila pag-alagad sanglit nagsalig man lang sila sa mga halad sa mga sakop sa Simbahan sama sa pagkaon, sinina (bisting parianon), sakyanan, hinabang para sa misyon sa simbahan, pagtukod sa simbahan, mga seminary, mission house ug uban pa. Niining mosunod nga mga punto sa Bibliya gipahayag nga ang mga ministro ni Kristo adunay katungod sa pagdawat ug suhol sa ilang hinagoan ingon nga alagad sa Dios.
  • 2 Hari 12:13, 16 – Apan kining kwartaha (halad) dili mahimong gastohon alang sa mga planggana nga plata….kay isuhol man kini sa tanan nga nagtrabaho pag-ayo sa Templo ug ibayad sa mga materyales……. Wala dad-a sa Templo ang salapi nga gihalad alang sa sala kay kining salapia alang man sa mga pari.
  • Tinuod nga ang mga sacramento dili matumbasan ug salapi. Sa Mateo 10:8 ang Ginoo nag-ingon, “Ingon nga inyo kining nadawat nga wala’y bayad ihatag usab nga wala’y bayad,”
  • Busa tungod niini makapangutana kita: ngano man nga pabayran man ang bunyag, kasal, konpirma ug uban pa nga ihatag man kaha nga walay bayad? Dili ba usa ka negosyo ug panapi kining buhata?
  • Ang mga sacramento wala ibaligya ug dili usab mapalit. Usa kini ka dakong sala nga gitawag og “Simony”, nga mao ang pagbaligya sa mga sagrado butang. Gikan kini ni Simon Magus. Sa Buhat 8:19-24,  gitanyagan ni Simon Magus ang mga Apostoles ug salapi sa hunahuna nga mapalit niya ang maong Sakramento (Kumpirma).
  • Diha sa atong paghatag og salapi sa Simbahan, dili ang mga Sacramento ang atong gibayran kondili ang kahago sa ministro sa Dios.
  • Sa 2 Cor.11:7-8, si San Pablo miingon, “Wala ako magpasuhol kaninyo sa akong pagwali sa Maayong Balita sa Dios…. Samtang nag-alagad ako kaninyo, gisuholan ako sa ubang iglesia.
  • Atong timan-an nga si San Pablo usa ka pari. Sumala sa Roma 15:16 niingon siya – Nag-alagad ako ingon nga pari aron pagwali sa Maayong Balita nga gikan sa Dios…..
  • Roma 4:4 – Suholan ang tawo nga nagtrabaho, apan ang suhol dili maisip nga gasa kay iya mang gihagoan. (sa ato pa bayad o suhol sa iyang kahago)
  • 1 Corinto 9:4 – Wala ba god akoy katungod sa pagdawat sa ihatag nga pagkaon ug ilimnon tungod sa akong trabaho?
  • 1 Corinto 9:11 – Kon nagpugas kami sa espirituhanong mga binhi diha kaninyo, ikasakit ba ninyokon moani kamig yutan-ong kaayohan (butang materyal) gikan kaninyo?
  • 1 Corinto 9:13-14 – Sa walay duhaduha, nasayod kamo nga ang nag-alagad sa Templo nagkuha sa ilang pagkaon gikan sa Templo, ug kadtong nag-alagad didto sa halaran, may bahin sa halad. Sa mao usab nga pagkaagi, ang Ginoo nagbuot nga kadtong nag-wali sa ebanghelyo, mabuhi pinaagi sa ebanghelyo.
  • 1 Tomoteo 4:17-18 – Ang mga pangulo sa iglesia nga maayong motuman sa ilang katungdanan angayng ilhon nga takos sa doble nga suhol, labi na kadtong naghago gayod sa pagwali ug pagtudlo….. Nag-ingon usab ang Kasulatan,”Ang mamumoo angay gayod suholan.
  • 2 Hari 12:13, 16 – Apan kining kwartaha dili mahimong gastohon alang sa mga planggana nga plata….kay isuhol man kini sa tanan nga nagtrabaho pag-ayo sa Templo ug ibayad sa mga materyales……. Wala dad-a sa Templo ang salapi nga gihalad alang sa sala kay kining salapia alang man sa mga pari.
  • Tungod niini katungdanan sa usa ka Kristianos ang pagsuporta sa Simbahan kay baslan sa Ginoo kadtong naghatag nga malipayon sa walay pagbagulbol.
  • 2 Corinto 9:7-9 – Busa gihunahuna ko nga paunahon ko pagpa-anha kaninyo king mga kaigsoonan nato aron andamon nilang daan ang gasa nga inyong gisaad. Unya inig-abot ko diha, andam na ang tanan ug magpaila kini sa inyong gugma sa paghatag ug dili tungod kay gipugos kamo. (8) Timan-I nga ang nagpugas ug diyotay, mag-anig diyotay; apan ang nagpugas ug daghan mag-anig daghan. Busa kinahanglan mohatag ang tagsatagsa sumala sa iyang gusto, ug dili magbagutbot ni maghunahuna nga gipugos siya, kay ang Dios nahigugma sa naghatag nga malipayon. (9) Ug makahatag ang Dios kaninyo labaw pa kay sa inyong gikinahanglan nga tungod niini makabaton kamo sa tanan ninyong kinahanglanon, ug sobra pa gani alang sa tanang maayong buhat.
  • Ang mga unang Kristohanon panahon sa mga Apostoles gibaligya gani nila ang ilang mga kabutangan ug ang halin gitugyan sa Simbahan ug wala gyod tay mabasa nga gisayangan sila sa bahandi nga ilang gihatag ni sila gimahalan.
  • Buhat 4:34-35 – Walay usa kanila nga nakulangan. Kadtong may mga uma o mga balay nagbaligya niini, ug ang halin gitugyan nila sa mga apostoles; gibahinbahin kini sa mga apostoles sa tagsatagsa kanila sumala sa ilang gikinahanglan.
  • Busa brod kung gimahalan ta sa gipresyo sa Simbahan, wala man pod ta pugsa. Kung mahalan ta sa presyo sa kasal, pwede man pod ta magpakasal ug Mass Wedding nga dunay mo-sponsor kay wala may bayad. Sa akong kasinatian diha may gibunyagan dinhi sa among parokya nga wala pabayri sa Pari tungod kay pwerte gyong pobreha ug ako saksi niini.
  • Kon ang tawo nga maoy nanaad dili makaabot sa bili, kinahanglan dad-on niya ang tawo nga hingtungdan ngadto sa pari ug ang pari maoy mohatag ug bili sumala sa maabot sa tawo nga naghimo sa panaad.
  • Bahin sa pamisa sa mga kalag sa purgatoryo kung dunay gihatag nga presyo wala magpasabot nga gibayran ang ilang kaluwasan kundili usa kahago sa nag-alagad  sa ministro sa Dios. Ang pagpresyo mag-agad na sa mga lagda sa mga parokya.
  • Sumala sa balaang kasulatan sa 2 Macabeo 12:43-46 – (Nag-ulohan: Mga Pag-ampo Alang Sa Mga Tawo Nga Nangamatay Sa Gubat) “Nagpaamot usab siya (Judas Macabeo) gikan sa tanan niyang mga tawo ug nikabat kinig 2,000 kasalapi nga plata ug gipadala kini ngadto sa Jerusalem aron gamiton alang sa usa ka halad alang sa sala. Si Judas naghimo niining hamili nga butang tungod kay nagtoo siya sa pagkabanhaw. Kun wala pa siya nagtoo nga ang patay mabanhaw usa ka unta ka butang nga binuang ug walay kapuslanan ang pag-ampo alang sa mga nangamatay. Tungod niining malig-on ug diosnon nga hunahuna nga ang tanang mga tawo nga nagtoo sa Dios makadawat ug usa ka ganti nga kahibulongan, si Judas nag-andam alang sa usa ka halad aron malinkawas ang nangamatay sa ilang mga sala.”

Autoridad sa Pagpresyo

  • Levitico 7:7 – Adunay usa ka lagda bahin sa halad alang sa sala ug sa bayad nga halad….
  • Levitico 5:17-19 – Kon may magbuhat sa bisan unsa nga gidili sa Ginoo, nakasala siya, busa angay siyang silotan bisan pa kon wala siya masayod niini. Kinahanglan magdala siya ngadto sa pari ug laking karnero nga walay daot ingon nga bayad nga halad. Presyohan ninyo kini sa bili sa halad alang sa sala……Kini bayad nga halad alang sa sala kay nakasala man siya sa Ginoo.
  • Levitico 27:14 – Kon may maghalad sa iyang balay ngadto sa Ginoo aron mahimo kining sagrado,presyohan kini sa pari…..
  • Exodo 30:11-13 – Ang Ginoo miingon kang Moises, “Inigsenso ninyo sa sa katawhan sa Israel kinahanglan ang tagsatagsa magbayad kanako ug lukat sa iyang kinabuhi aron walay katalagman nga mahitabo kaninyo samtang magpadayon ang senso. Ang tanan nga mahiapil sa sensokinahanglan nga mobayad sa kantidad nga pangayoon. Timbangon kini sa timbangan nga gigamit didto sa Tolda. Kinahanglan mobayad niini ang tanan silbing halad kanako.”

Ang simbahan wala magpugos nga mohatag sa ikapulo (tithes) kondili sumala sa gugma sa pagka manggihatagon (love percent). Timan-an nato ang giingon ni San Pablo sa 2 Corinto 9:8 nga nag-ingon, “kinahanglan mohatag ang tagsatagsa sumala sa iyang gusto, ug dili magbagutbot ni maghunahuna nga gipugos siya, kay ang Dios nahigugma sa naghatag nga malipayon.

Si Cristo miingon:
Lucas 20:25 – …ibayad sa Emperador ang iya sa Emperador, ug ibayad sa Dios ang iya sa Dios.

Salamat sa imong pagbasa brod ug God bless!


Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part III

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part III

 By. Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

For Image Reference Only

Not contended with his caricature against the Catholic Church, Pastor Ballesteros strikes again and this time against the Virgin Mary. On page 13 of his book Important Questions and Answers he dealt with the question “What does the Bible say about the Virgin Mary?” He answered the question by quoting Luke 1:28, 34 and 42, we do not have any problem with these passages because they are telling the truth. What bothers us the more is his succeeding answer. Pastor Ballesteros asserts that Mary is just a vessel so that Christ can enter the history of mankind.

She was chosen by God as a vessel to give birth to a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ[1]

Notice that Pastor Ballesteros uses the term “vessel” pertaining to the Virgin Mary. But what exactly is a vessel and what does a vessel do? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defined vessel as a container for holding something.[2] Therefore for Pastor Ballesteros Mary is just a container for holding Jesus Christ for 9 months and worst of all he made it appear that as if God is the one who made Mary a mere vessel for Christ but in fact it was him who made Mary a mere vessel. Nowhere in Scripture ever stated implicitly nor explicitly that Mary is a vessel for Christ. But what does the Bible say about Mary? In Heb.2:14 it tells us that children shares the flesh and blood of their mother.

Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could take away all the power of the devil. Heb.2:14 Jerusalem Bible

Basing on the facts of this passage Mary is not a vessel because Mary is the one who gave Christ is very own flesh and blood! A vessel does not share its nature with the thing that it holds, like a jar it does not share its nature with the water that it holds. But Mary gave Christ his flesh and blood, the very flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross to save us. Not just an ordinary sacrifice but a perfect and unblemished sacrifice (Heb.9:14). Another anti-Mary bushing of Pastor Ballesteros is by reducing Mary as a mere decoration in the history of Christianity.

She is a very special woman who added color to the history of Christianity[3]

This is not a compliment but rather an insult to the dignity of Mary. God exalted Mary above every women, He chose her to be the Mother of his only begotten Son yet Pastor Ballesteros simply dismissed this by saying that Mary is a special woman who added color to the history of Christianity. If we put this statement in a literary context Mary is just a highfalutin word in a poem to make it appear better. But the Scripture says otherwise. In Luke 1:42 it tells us that Mary is above every women.

She gave a loud cry and said, of all women you are the most blessed.Luke 1:42

Pastor Ballesteros could have given more dignity to Mary if he just read his Bible, but basing on his knowledge and understanding of Scripture he is not fond of reading the word of God. In his next statement Pastor Ballesteros ate his words when he said,

A unique woman whose honor must not be demeaned or be extolled higher than what God intended.[4]

Pastor Ballesteros said “unique woman whose honor must not be demeaned” but in his previous statement he simply called Mary a vessel for Christ and merely a color added to the history of Christianity. Aside from the passages that Pastor Ballesteros quoted his other three statements are not supported by Scripture but merely a product of his anti-Marian mentality akin to all anti-Catholics.


[1] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997
[3] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997
[4] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997

Pagpatabang sa mga Santos

PANGUTANA:

Usa ka idolatria ang pagsimba sa mga santos, apan kamong mga Katoliko nagasimba sa mga santos, walay mabasa sa Bibliya nga simbahon ang mga santos, si San Pedro midumili nga ludhan og tawo (Buhat 10:25-26), si Juan gibadlong sa anghel diha misimba siya niini. (Gip. 22:8-9) 

TUBAG:

Si Cornelio gibadlong ni San Pedro, sanglit ang pagsimba ni Cornelio kang Pedro, usa man ka adoration kon pagsimba nga ikahatag lamang sa Dios, nagtoo man gud si Cornelio nga ang ingon niadtong pagsimbaha ang ikahatag kang Pedro. Ang anghel mao usab gisimba niya ingon nga Dios, simba man gud nga adoration ang gitugyan ni san juan kaniya tungud sa tumang kasilaw nagtoo si Juan nga ang anghel mao na ang Dios. Apan kon pagyukbo nga pagtahud wala kini idili. Si Saul miyukbo kang Samuel nga balaan, (2 Hari 2:15), (1 Samuel 28:14) “Ug si Saul nakaila nga kadto mao si Samuel ug iyang giyukbo ang iyang nawong ngadto sa yuta ug mihatag katahuran.: Si Daniel gisimba ni hari Nabucodonosor bisan kining maong hari nakaila sa matuod nga Dios. (Daniel 2:46-47)

Ug si Maria usab miingon mahitungod kaniya: “For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me BLESSED.” (Luk. 1:48) Sa American Encyclopedia Dictionary, giingon – BLESSED – WORTHY OF VENERATION. Ang bulahan, – takos sa pagpasidungog. VENERATION – profound respect; act of worship (Funk & wagnall, page 196)

Ang Santos nga nahalangit giampoan. (Luk. 16:27)

Busa matin-aw kaayo nga dili usa ka mugna o tinumo-tumo lang sa Iglesia Katolika kanang pasidungog sa mga santos ug sa paghangyo sa ilang tabang kondili gipasukad gayud kini sa mga kamatuoran nga gipadayag sa Dios diha sa Bibliya. WALAY PAGTULON-AN SA KATOLIKO NGA SIMBAHON ANG MGA SANTOS INGON NGA DIOS (adoration) KONDILI KANANG PAGTAHUD LAMANG KANILA, isip mga suod nga higala sa Dios, ug ato usab nga tawhanong modelo nga diay sama kanila matuman nato ang mga sugo sa Dios, sama sa ilang gibuhat.

Tinubdan: Katin-awan (Sa Pagtoong Katoliko) – Bro. Soc C. Fernandez

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part II

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part II

 By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

I received nasty reactions and comments from those who believed Pastor Ballesteros’ lies and deceptions against the Catholic Church. I know that you are hurt because your knight in shinning armor is slowly losing his radiance as his lies and deceptions are being exposed. I’ve tried to send him a copy of my response to his false allegations against Mary in his E-mail address j-and-t@dagupan.com but the E-mail address that he wrote in his book is not working, this gives me the impression that he is just another typical charlatan that enjoys attacking the Catholic faith. On page 19 of his book he began his discussion with the question “Are there other writings as important as the Bible?” After quoting Scriptures passages like Jude 3, Gal.1:8, Prov.30:6 and Rev.22:18-19 he turns his attention to the Catholic Church. Pastor Ballesteros said,

For Catholics, tradition, the Ex Cathedra (or pronouncements of the Pope) and the teachings of the Magisterium (Church council) are the bases of faith and practice.[1]

At first glance by an unsuspecting reader this statement appears to be accurately presenting the Catholic faith, but in really Pastor Ballesteros is dead wrong! Pastor Ballesteros has no theological knowledge of the Catholic faith thus he is not in the position to teach or explain what the Catholic Church teaches. Nevertheless he proceeds to explain the position of the Catholic Church no matter how inaccurate it is. The only point why Pastor Ballesteros do this is not really to present the Catholic faith in its fullness but rather to put the Catholic Church in bad faith. Let us scrutinize the statement made by Pastor Ballesteros. With his cunning and deceitful ways this evangelical pastor is trying to give the readers of his book the impression that the basis of the Catholic faith is not the Sacred Scripture but the teachings of the pope notice that he did not include Sacred Scripture in his list of Catholic’s basis of faith and practice, but this is far from the teachings of the Church. Pastor Ballesteros failed to distinguish the act of teaching made by the Pope and a Church Council and the sources or basis of the teachings of the Pope and a Church Council. In paragraph 10 of Dei Verbum it clearly states the basis of the Catholic faith.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers. . .[2]

Whenever teaching in matters of faith and morals the Pope or a Church Council has the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as its basis. St. Paul in his epistle to the Thessalonians also said that “Stand firm, then brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (II Thess.2:15) St. Paul seems to propose that there are two bases for teachings the written which we call the Bible and the unwritten which is the Sacred Tradition. This clearly reflects the teaching of the Church that the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form one sacred deposit of faith. So Pastor Ballesteros where did you get the idea that “For Catholics, tradition, the Ex Cathedra (or pronouncements of the Pope) and teachings of the Magisterium (Church council) are the bases of faith and practice? There are also flaws in his understanding of the word “Magisterium” for him “Magisterium is a Church council. This error displays pastor Ballesteros lack of scholarship. The word Magisterium is derived from the Latin word Magistere which means teacher. The Dictionary of Fundamental Theology defined Magisterium as;

In modern Catholic usage the term Magisterium has come to be associated almost exclusively with the teaching role and authority of the hierarchy. An even more recent development is that the term Magisterium is often used to refer not to the teaching office as such but to the body of men who have this office in the Catholic Church: namely, the pope and bishops.[3]

Pastor Ballesteros’ understand of the nature and definition of Magisterium is offshoot. Pastor Ballesteros never run out of deception technique in his next statement he tried to fool his readers that the Catholic Church in the past do not encourage reading the Bible.

Catholics nowadays are encouraged to read passages in the Bible to find comfort through personal reflections on the promises it contains.[4]

Notice how he use the word “nowadays”, the word “nowadays” means “at the present time(s)” he is trying to imply that previously before “nowadays” the Catholic Church do not encourage reading the Bible. Aside from being ignorant on the word of God Pastor Ballesteros is also ignorant of Church history. If he would not mind picking up spiritual writings of the saints he will notice that it is full of quotations from the Sacred Scripture. The writings of the Church Fathers and doctors of the Church voluminously quoted the Sacred Scripture. His accusation that the Church do not encourage reading the Bible is baseless and pure hearsay. Furthermore, Pastor Ballesteros continued his deception and lies,

The whole doctrinal system of the Roman Catholic Church is still founded on the three Vatican-sanctioned sources mentioned above. Idolatry, veneration to Mary, purgatory, signing of the cross, repeated prayers, prayers for the dead and many more other unbiblical doctrines are still being held and practiced.[5]

As for the lie of Pastor Ballesteros that the doctrinal system of the Catholic Church are the three Vatican-sanctioned sources he mentioned previously was already debunk and proven wrong. Pastor Ballesteros like other heretics loves to bear false witness against the Catholic Church. Pastor Ballesteros included idolatry as one of the teachings of the Catholic Church, Pastor Ballesteros if what you are saying is true then can you provide us a quotation from the Catechism, Council decrees, Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bull and Apostolic letter that idolatry is a Catholic doctrine? In paragraph 2113 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church it condemns idolatry. So who is the liar here? Pastor Ballesteros who made an accusation without any basis or the Catholic Church who explicitly denounce idolatry? In his short list of allege unbiblical teaching of the Church he included veneration of Mary as unbiblical. In Romans 13:7 St. Paul said “Give honor to whom honor is due” during the annunciation the Angel Gabriel rendered respect and honor to Mary when he said “Hail, Full of grace” Luke 1:28. For Purgatory and prayer for the dead read my article about the dogma of Purgatory. Pastor Ballesteros keep on piling up his blunders. He said sign of the cross and repetition of prayer is unbiblical, in Rev.4:8 the angels in heaven never stop praising God. It is evident that Pastor Ballesteros is not reading the Bible in Ezekiel 9:4 it says Go all through the city, all through Jerusalem, and mark a cross on the foreheads of all who deplore and disapprove of all the filth practiced in it. Pastor you said that the sign of the cross is unbiblical? How come we read in the passage the sign of the cross? To conclude his lies and deceptions he again related a bogus story.

The worst is, I have Catholic friends who pronounced judgment upon the Bible as incomplete and unreliable when it does not substantiate their beliefs.[6]

There is no way that the readers can verify this statement, I suspect that this statement is intentionally made up by Pastor Ballesteros in order to add suspicions to against the Catholic Church, this act by the pastor is a subtle trick that can only be learned from the devil.


[1] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997
[2] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum No.10
[3] Rene Latourelle, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, p. 614, 1994
[4] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997
[5] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997

[6] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo) Part II Divinity of Christ

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo) Part II Divinity of Christ

By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

 

 

One of the distinctive teachings of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is their belief that Jesus Christ is just a man and not God. While they boast Felix Manalo as an angel sent by God, they ridiculed Jesus Christ by teaching and believing that He is only a man. They inherited their teaching that Jesus Christ is just a man from an ancient heretic named Arius. Arius was the one who vigorously defended the heretical teaching that Jesus Christ is just a man and not God. This brings us to another point where is the Iglesia ni Cristo during this great council (as founded by Felix Manalo) to defend their heretical doctrine that Christ is just a man? If they are the true Church  as what they claim then they should be the first one to raise a defense on this theological matter, yet, they are not able to do so because the Iglesia ni Cristo did not exists yet during those time.

 

 

The INC And The Divinity Of Christ

A close analysis on the contentions of the INC ministers on the nature of Christ will give us an insight that their arguments are not really arguments at all. If we are going to observe an INC minister preaching or debating about the nature of Christ notice that all the biblical passages that he will quote are the ones that will prove that Christ has a human nature thus they would emphasize on the qualities or elements that tells us that Christ is a man. Upon hearing statements from an INC minister that Christ is just a man we do not have to hassle and refute each and every scripture passage that they quote in proving that Christ is a man because the Catholic Church teaches that Christ has two natures, Human and Divine nature. The Catechism is very clear on this matter;

The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against heresies that falsified it. CCC 464


For an INC minister to prove that Christ is a man in front of a Catholic apologist is irrelevant in a debate concerning the nature of Christ for we Catholics do not deny the fact that Christ is a man. However what we do believe is that Christ is true God and true man. For the INC arguments to prosper they should be debating people who do not believe that Christ is a man, but in front of a person who believes that Christ is true God and true man their efforts in proving their cause is futile.

In our exposition we no longer have to prove that Jesus Christ has a human nature since this is part of the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church about Christ. Our foremost concern is establishing the divinity of Christ using the Scriptures. There are numerous passages in the Bible that tells us that Christ is God but the INC ministers preferred to give a twisted and at times hilarious interpretations just to do away passages that clearly points to Christ’s divinity.

Let us start with the Gospel of John in proving the divinity of Christ, for John’s Gospel is highly theological and gives emphasis on Christ divinity. In the opening chapter of John’s Gospel we are told about the “Word” or logos in Greek.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

The Word that St. John is talking about in this passage is none other than but Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament Scholar Antonio Garcia-Moreno he said;

The Logos is neither a philosophical abstraction nor a divine being merely clothed with a human appearance, as the Docatae taught. For the Evangelist the Logos is the personal and pre-existent Christ who, in a specific moment in history, had taken unto himself a human nature.Antonio Garcia-Moreno, Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews: A study on Johannine Christology, p.62, 2010

In a debate between a Catholic apologist and a district minister of INC Rizalito Ocampo, the minister was asked “if Christ is not the Word in John 1:1, then who is it?” The only response that can be heard from the district minister was “in John 1:1 you cannot read Jesus Christ”. Such is not even an answer but an escape goat to avoid answering the the unanswerable question hurled to him. But how are we to know that the Word in John 1:1 is truly Jesus Christ?

John 1:1 is a very short passage yet it is very much sufficient to prove the divinity of Christ. Upon close reading of the passage it tells us of three important elements of the Word which is also applicable and belongs to Jesus Christ.

 

 

In the beginning was the Word


This passage points not to the time wherein the world was created but on the time before the world was created, this tells us about the preexistence of the Word. Jesus Christ on the other hand manifest his existence before the world was created in John 17:5 Jesus Christ said,

Now Father give me in your presence the same glory I had with you before the world begun. John 17:5

Jesus Christ is speaking here in the past tense which means that he was already with God before the world was created. This is a very clear and explicit words from Christ that he himself confess that he was with the Father before the world begun. So who are we to believe? The INC ministers or our Lord Jesus Christ himself? St. Paul in his epistles also affirms this truth, in his epistle to the Colossians he speaks about Christ preexistence.

He is the image of the unseen God, and for all creation he is the first-born, for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, thrones, rulers, authorities, powers all was made through him and for him. He is before all and all things hold together in him. Col.1:15-17

St. Paul is telling us that it was through Christ that everything was created and this would only be possible if Christ has a preexistence. But on the same passage Christ’s preexistence is affirmed with the words “He is before all”. 

 


And the Word was with God


This statement tells us of the distinction between the Father and the Son, some pseudo Christians believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same, this is a serious error concerning the relationship of the Father and of the Son. Since Christ has a preexistence as proved by the passages we quoted above this brings us to a logical conclusion that Christ is distinct from the Father. This distinction was already been prefigured in the Old Testament when God showed himself to Abraham under the appearance of three men.

Yahweh appeared to Abraham near the oak of Mamre. Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent, in the heat of the day, when he looked up and saw three men standing nearby. Genesis 18:1-2


In this passage we are told that Yahweh appeared to Abraham under the appearance of three men. But why three men? Because it is a revelation that there is one God in three distinct persons. In like manner Christ was with God in the beginning because they are distinct yet shares that nature of God. In the Gospel of Matthew such a distinction is also mentioned by the Gospel writer in Mt.28:18-19, Jesus Christ said,

Go therefore, and make disciples from all nations, Baptize then in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Mt.28:19


Notice that the Gospel writer wrote “in the name” not “in the names” which is plural, because the Gospel writer is referring only to one God in three distinct persons which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

 

And the Word was God


St. John when writing his Gospel carefully wrote “Word was God” and not “Word was a god” which would imply that Jesus Christ or the Word is a God lower than the Father as what the Jehova’s witnesses believed. He did not also write “Word was the God” because it would mean that the Father and the Son are one and the same. What St. John wrote was crystal clear “And the Word was God” referring to the nature of the Word which is divine. In St. Paul’s epistle to the Colossians he is telling them that Christ possess a divine nature, hence Christ is truly GOd.

For in him dwells the fullness of God in bodily form. Col.2:9


Such a fact is irrefutable but the INC ministers will surely find a way to beat around the bush and raise hilarious and illogical explanations regarding this passage. In Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8 it is no longer the apostles who professed Christ divinity but it was already the Father who is telling us that Christ is God. Who then shall we believe the INC ministers who are famous for deceiving people of God?

But of the Son we read this: Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a rule of justice is your rule. Hebrews 1:8


Beyond any reason of a doubt it is quite clear from the passages of the Holy Scripture that Jesus Christ is God. Any person who deliberately refuses to believe such truth will have nothing in the end of times but the fires of Hell.

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo)

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo)

By: Bro, Isahel N. Alfonso

The Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Ysagun Manalo in the Philippines on July 27, 1914. The doctrines that they teach are anti-Christian since it goes against the basic tenets of Christianity like that of the Divinity of Christ, and he (Felix Manalo) is an angel sent by God as the last messenger. Since this cult has victimized so many innocent people bringing them to perdition it is an opportune time for us to establish our case against this cunning and deceitful group.

 

The INC And The True Church

While reviewing debates between Catholic apologists and INC ministers on the topicWhich Is The True Church. The INC ministers do not have any good arguments to prove that their Church as founded by Felix Manalo is the true Church of Christ. Their main contention when arguing their position is that the name of their Church which is Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ in English) is found within the pages of Scripture. They are argue that since Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church henceforth the true Church should also be named after Him thus the name of the true Church is Iglesia ni Cristo or Church of Christ. Quoting erroneous Bible translation like the of Lamsa just to the read the phrase “Church of Christ” then they would say that the name of their Church is Church of Christ and concluding that theirs is the true Church. Later on they would ask for the official name of the Catholic Church and ask the Catholic apologist whether he could find the official name of the Catholic Church within the pages of Scripture and if he cannot find it the INC minister would conclude that the Catholic Church is not the true Church since its name is not found in the Bible. Such a line of reason is very illogical since it would imply that the basis of a Church for being the true Church is whether its name can be found within the pages of Scripture and not on the person who founded such Church. If this is the case then the INC ministers has no reason not to accept those man made Churches as a true Church since they too patterned the name of the Church from phrases that can be found within the pages of Scripture.

The name of the Church is not basis for knowing whether such church is the true Church or not, the name of the Church is irrelevant in proving for the authenticity of the Church. Regardless whether the name of the Church is found in the pages of Scripture or not, if it is not founded by Jesus Christ then it is not the true Church. Granting without admitting that the name of the church founded by Felix Manalo is found in the pages of Scripture but the mere fact that it is not Christ who founded it then it is not the true Church. Felix Manalo is the true, real and only founded of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, it is not Jesus Christ who founded their Church, but only a man named Felix Manalo. Thus it is futile for his ministers to proclaim that their Church is the true Church.

Historically and Biblically speaking the Catholic Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ. The establishment of the Church as founded by God was prophesied by the prophet Daniel he said;

In the time of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom never to be destroyed or delivered up to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and put an end to them. And it will endure forever. Daniel 2:44


There are two important facts that can be deduced from this prophecy of Daniel first is that God will be the one who will established His kingdom here on earth and secondly this kingdom will last forever. These facts point us to the establishment of the Church, the kingdom of God here on earth by Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus Christ said;

And now I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church; and never will the powers of death overcome it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven.Matthew 16:18-19

The prophecy of the prophet Daniel finds its fulfillment in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Chris is the God (Jn.1:1. Rom.9:5, Ti.2:13) who will establish His kingdom here on earth and His kingdom or Church will endure forever for this Church is no religious building or a group of people professing the same faith rather this Church is His mystical body (Col.1:18, Eph.1:22), and He is perpetually present in His Church when He said that I will be with you until the end of time (Mt.28-20). This Church which professed to be the true Church is the Catholic Church. In the early days of Christianity the Church that Jesus Christ founded was called Catholic;

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. . . St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

At the early days of Christianity there is only one Christian Church and that is the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic Church has more legitimate reasons for claiming to be the true Church than the Iglesia Ni Cristo which was founded by Felix Manalo. The Church of Felix Manalo is unheard of prior to 1914 not an iota or even a speck of stain ever points to the Church of Felix Manalo. For the INC to substantiate their claim as the true Church they should provide us with solid historical evidences that their Church is the Church that Christ founded in Matthew 16:18-19 and not some silly name game. But as far as truth is concerned the INC minsters failed to prove their case that their Church is the true Church of Christ.

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Exposed – Part 1

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Exposed

By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

Rev. Emilio “Jun” A. Ballesteros Jr. is the author of the
book Important Questions and Answers. He is a pastor and a
member of the Southern Baptist Churches. He is a graduate of the Philippine
Baptist Theological Seminary. This protestant heavy weight is praised by his
colleague for being a good writer.

Clear and understandable, illustrations are entertaining.
We need this kind of writer and literature in our times. May we continue to
have more writers in evangelical circle like you.
Rev. Nanding
Paunil, National dicrector, Prayer-life Seminars, Philippines

Many
have been victimized by his book that appears to be scholarly yet upon close
inspection you can clearly see how he perpetuated lies and deceptions against
Catholics. The quality of his work also manifests his gross ignorance of Sacred
Scripture, so much more for a Bible Christian. I do not want to prolong my
preliminary comment about his credibility, so let us dive into the some of the
part of his book that contain lies, deceptions and ignorance of Sacred
Scripture. On page 16 of his book a question is raise “Does She really show
herself [Mary] through apparitions? Can she [Mary] perform miracles?

Mr. Ballesteros answered the question by quoting Mt.28:18 and
inserting his interpretation of this passage that means that Christ alone has
the authority and no one else.

Note what Jesus said
in Matt. 28:18, “All Power (authority) has been given to Me in heaven and on
Earth.” It is clear that all power belongs to Him; therefore no amount of power
is left for anyone including Mary. She does not have any power to perform any
miracle! The devil may have some powers but uses these to destroy and to
deceive![1]

Mr. Ballesteros ignorance of Sacred Scriptures betrays him; the
passage he quoted above does not endorse his interpretation that divine
authority exclusively belongs to Christ alone. He said “no amount of power
is left for anyone”
, “anyone” is an indefinite pronoun that has a general

application.[2]  The general
applicability of the word “anyone” includes also the Father and the Holy
Spirit. This would be the logical implication of his statement. Mr. Ballesteros
is not only Anti-Mary but also anti-God. What would be the proper
interpretation of Mt.28:18 if pastor Ballesteros interpretation is dead wrong?
This passage tells us that Jesus Christ’s authority is universal “all power”
and thus he sent his apostles to a universal mission to make disciples and spread
the gospel to all nations. Even a Protestant commentary does not support his
interpretation that this passage speaks of exclusive authority of Christ.

The risen King
gave 11 disciples the great commission, couched in terms of applicable to the
present form of the kingdom. His authority, which extends to every realm,
supported His commission, which involved enlisting men under His lordship
(‘make disciples’), identifying them with Himself and His followers in the rite
of baptism, and teaching them the truths of His Word, 18-20.
[3]

The commentary says “His authority, which extends to every
realm”
connotes that Christ’s authority is universal and not exclusive as

what Pastor Ballesteros asserts. The succeeding passage suggests that Christ
commissioned his apostles to make disciples to all nations by baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This great
commission entails that the apostles have the authority to perform what Christ
has commanded them. What happens now to his interpretation that Christ alone
has the authority? Can Christ not designate nor mediate his authority to his
apostles including Mary? It is now clear that pastor Balusters’ argument boils
down to the premise that if Christ has all the authority and this authority is
exclusive for him then Mary cannot perform a miracle. We see here again how his
gross ignorance of Sacred Scripture betrays him. In Acts 2:4 upon the decent of
the Holy Spirit the apostles were able to speak in different languages, isn’t
this a miracle? If Christ kept all the power to himself can the apostles
perform this kind of miracle? Certainly not! Therefore pastor Ballesteros’
interpretation of Mt.28:18 is erroneous and are intended to deceive his readers
especially Catholics. Another instance where the apostles exercise the power to
perform miracles is in Acts 5:15-16 wherein the people would gather around and
wait for Peter to pass by so that their illness will be cured. So much more for
being a Bible Christian pastor Ballesteros I could not believe that you ignored
these passages. Pastor Ballesteros also uttered another misleading statement
and has nothing to support it but his cunning and deceitful ways.

Man only fabricated
the alleged wonders and miracles of Mary
![4]

This is a blatant error committed again by this evangelical
pastor he did not even bother to check the Sacred Scripture if his claim is
true or not. My I ask pastor Ballesteros where in the Bible does it say or
teach explicitly and implicitly that Mary did not perform wonders and miracles?
We all agree that a miracle is a supernatural act by God performed through his
creation. God could have use people as instruments to perform miracles like
that of the apostles. Mary is not only a mere instrument has a special
participation in Gods plan of salvation. In the Bible there are three miracles
and wonders that Mary performed though the power of the Most High. First, is
conceiving Jesus Christ in her womb without any sexual contact which means that
she is a virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ.

Listen you are to conceive and bear a son and you must name him
Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God
will give him the throne of his ancestor David; he will rule over the House of
Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end. Mary said to the angel, but how
can this come about, since I am a virgin? The Holy Spirit will come upon you
the angel answered and the power of the Most High will cover you with its
shadow.
Luke 1:31-35

The virginal conception is truly a miracle performed by the Holy
Sprit through Mary! Another instance of Mary’s wonder and miracle is in John
19:26-27 wherein Christ made Mary the mother of all his disciples. Who made
Mary the mother of all Christians? Is it the Catholic Church? No it was not, it
was Christ himself! And since Christ is God and He made Mary the mother of all
believers, and His action of doing so is a supernatural act. Since miracle is a
supernatural act of God and Mary motherhood of all believers was a supernatural
act performed by Christ therefore Mary’s motherhood of all believers is a
miracle! And lastly Mary manifested herself in a form of apparition in Rev.12:1
“Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, adorned with the sun,
standing on the moon, and with the twelve stars on her head for a crown.
There

is a significant reason why in the entire Bible during a very climactic scene
Mary is address as woman not on first name basis because it tells us that the
woman in Gen.3:15, Is.7:14, Jn. 2:1-11, Jn.19:26-27 and Rev.12:1 is one and the
same, Mary. Pastor Ballesteros ignorance of Sacred Scripture leads him to make
preposterous conclusions. To bolster his opposition to Mary he cited a story of
the allege miracle in Agoo La Union.

The media disclosed
that the supposed miracle in Agoo was synthetic. Anyone can manufacture a
mirage. More disgusting is the news, as aired on radios and shown on leading TV
stations, that people involved in this mirage have amassed a great amount of
wealth, purchased real properties and luxurious cars. Read the warning from 1
Tim.6:5! Everything was proven to be a great hoax and millions of Filipinos
were deceived, including those who are highly educated.[5]

This is another trick of Pastor Ballesteros pulled out from his
bag of trick. In Pastor Ballestoros’ version of the story he said that it was
the media who disclosed that the allege miracle was a sham. At end of his
statement he said that this allege miracle was proven to be a great hoax. But
there is something wrong with his version, there is something he hides and does
not want his readers to know. Pastor Ballesteros failed to mention that the
Catholic Church did not approve or accept this as a genuine apparition and
miracle of Our Lady as a matter of fact the Church even condemns this[6].  But for the sake of his
opposition to the Mother of God, like how the serpent opposes Mary (Gen.3:15,
Rev.12:2-5) he intends to hide this fact in order to mislead his readers into
believing that the Catholic Church approved and recognized this apparition. And
who was able to discover that this apparition is a sham a “great hoax”
according to Pastor Ballesteros? He did not care to mention because it was the
Catholic Church through the Theological Commission headed by Bishop Salvador
Lazo who declared this alleged apparition a hoax. Pastor Ballesteros cannot use
this as an argument against Mary because this is utterly irrelevant. The great
hoax that was performed in Agoo was not performed by Mary or the Catholic
Church. They have nothing to do with this in fact the Church is the one who
meticulously investigated the matter and found out that it is a hoax and
announce it to the people so that the people will not be deceived. How about
you Pastor Ballesteros? What did you do during the wake of this hoax? You,
yourself cannot even discern if this is a true miracle or not because you are
not guided by the Holy Spirit, you are not the pillar and bulwark of truth, but
the Church is (1 Tim.3:15). Not contended with his half truths he again related
another story.

Rev. Nards Briosis, a former Roman Catholic priest, attested

that the crying Lady in Bicol was a hoax. He personally went to investigate the
said miracle when we was still a priest, only to discover the small holes
between the image’s eyes and a container full of watery salt inside the top of
its head. Aha! The salt gradually melts, then finds its way slowly down through
those holes! A very subtle deception. This must be a big joke![7]

This kind of deception technique employed by Pastor Ballesteros
is very common to anti-Catholics. They will relate a story and make it appear
that as if it is the Catholic Church who fabricated such miracles. With this
kind of technique it is very hard to verify if what he is saying is true or did
he just made it up? Is there really a priest named Rev. Nards Briosis? If there
is then he should have provided us with documentary evidence that this “priest”
actually exist so that we can verify his statement. But no pastor Ballesteros
left us hanging whether such priest or hoax really existed. Granting without
admitting that this account actually happened but the question is did the
Church recognized this as a genuine miracle? The subtle deception seems to have
not occurred in the story he related to us but to the way how pastor
Ballesteros retold the story. Furthermore to oppose Mary pastor Ballesteros
quoted the Sacred Scripture.

This can also be a
work of the devil. II Thess.2:8-12 says that devil can perform all kinds of
miracles and all types of deceptive signs and wonders. He is so keen and
clever, the master of crafty signs and wonders, the lord of lies![8]

Pastor Ballesteros got fooled by his own deceptive techniques,
now he is contradicting himself moments ago he said “that all power belongs
to Him; therefore no amount of power is left for anyone including Mary.”
But

now using the Scripture he is saying that the devil can perform miracles. This
inconsistency in Pastor Ballesteros would imply that (1) The Scripture
contradicts itself and (2) Pastor Ballesteros understanding and interpretation
of Scripture is wrong. So which one is it Pastor? Moreover the pastor said “This
can also be a work of the devil”
The word “can” leaves a room that it can

also be a work of God. Now this would put pastor ballesteros in an impossible
position to prove that the miracles performed by Mary and the saints are a work
of the devil. Pastor Ballesteros is about to commit the most grievous blunder
in his book, when he claimed that Mary never performed any miracle in the
Bible.

In the Bible, there is
no record that Mary ever performed a miracle, not even one, from the time of
Jesus’ birth to His death at age 33. Therefore, how can she perform one now
that Jesus has resurrected from the dead and is alive and holds all power and
authority in heaven and earth as well?[9]

I have already addressed this argument of Pastor Ballesteros, so
there is no need to rewrite again I will just copy what I said previously. We
all agree that a miracle is a supernatural act by God performed through his
creation. God could have use people as instruments to perform miracles like
that of the apostles. Mary is not only a mere instrument has a special
participation in Gods plan of salvation. In the Bible there are three miracles
and wonders that Mary performed though the power of the Most High. First, is
conceiving Jesus Christ in her womb without any sexual contact which means that
she is a virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ (Luke 1:31-35).The virginal
conception is truly a miracle performed by the Holy Sprit through Mary! Another
instance of Mary’s wonder and miracle is in John 19:26-27 wherein Christ made
Mary the mother of all his disciples. Who made Mary the mother of all
Christians? Is it the Catholic Church? No it was not, it was Christ himself!
And since Christ is God and He made Mary the mother of all believers, and His
action of doing so is a supernatural act. Since miracle is a supernatural act
of God and Mary motherhood of all believers was a supernatural act performed by
Christ therefore Mary’s motherhood of all believers is a miracle! And lastly
Mary manifested herself in a form of apparition in Rev.12:1 “Now a great
sign appeared in heaven: a woman, adorned with the sun, standing on the moon,
and with the twelve stars on her head for a crown.
There is a significant

reason why in the entire Bible during a very climactic scene Mary is address as
woman not on first name basis because it tells us that the woman in Gen.3:15,
Is.7:14, Jn. 2:1-11, Jn.19:26-27 and Rev.12:1 is one and the same, Mary.
Furthermore Pastor Ballesterosaid,

The easiest way for
the devil to mislead humanity is to perform miraculous signs through dead
material objects which were cursed by God. If millions and millions of people
were deceived with just a drop or smear of blood, what more when these images
move and speak in the latter days? Rev. 13:14,15[10]

Pastor Ballesteros is out of his mind the devil cannot mislead
all the people by just making objects move by itself. The ancient pagan
religions did not survive to this day even if their statues, gods and goddesses
were influence by the devil. A person without the Church as his guidance can be
deceived by the devil, but the Church can never be deceived by the devil no
matter what because Jesus Christ said “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell can never overcome it.”
(Mt.16:17-18).

How can the devil deceived the body of Christ (Col.1:18) to whom his presence
will perpetually be with his Church (Mt.28:18-20), the pillar and bulwark of
truth (1 Tim.3:15)? Another exaggeration and deception of Pastor Ballesteros is
when he claimed that millions and millions of people were deceived with just a
drop or smear of blood. Where is your proof pastor? Did you individually
interview millions and millions of people to know whether they believed and
were deceived? Anti-catholic pastors have a lot of deceptive styles and lies
just to lure Catholics out of the Catholic Church and lead them to perditions.
Books like this one must be debunk and expose its errors.


[1] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 16, 1997

[2] An
indefinite pronoun is one that is general and indeterminate in its reference to
objects and living beings. The most commonly used indefinites are all, another,
any, anybody, anyone. . . John B. Opdycke, Ph.d, Harper’s English Grammar,
p.55,  1983

[3] Merrill
F. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Handbook, p,381, 1984

[4] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 16, 1997

[5] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 16, 1997

[6] http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/judiel%20nieva.htm

[7] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 16, 1997

[8] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 17, 1997

[9] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 17, 1997

[10] Jun
A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p. 17, 1997