Readme's ebooks are now available!

As part of my 15th-year celebration and at the request of others, I have compiled selected English and Filipino articles divided into two books. 

Book 1 is intended for nonmembers—it contains information about the Church, answers to frequently asked questions, explanations of why we share our a faith, and details about the membership process. Meanwhile, Book 2 is designed for Church members and former members—it includes trivia facts about INC and other religions, responses to attacks, and my opinions/thoughts on life and faith.

These ebooks are not for sale.

Book1

https://www.scribd.com/document/792723937/15-years-of-defending-and-sharing-my-faith-as-an-Iglesia-ni-Cristo-member-book1

https://archive.org/details/15-years-of-defending-and-sharing-my-faith-as-an-iglesia-ni-cristo-member-book-1

Book2

https://www.scribd.com/document/792726982/15-years-of-defending-and-sharing-my-faith-as-an-Iglesia-ni-Cristo-member-book-2

https://archive.org/details/15-years-of-defending-and-sharing-my-faith-as-an-iglesia-ni-cristo-member-book-2

Book 1 & 2 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 (𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝):
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1DRV7F3SLBBDi4igTd39XNgASQJl3pPXF

𝐀𝐌𝐀𝐙𝐎𝐍

Book1

https://a.co/d/6GgwaB9

Book2

https://a.co/d/88NvVTj

For those who have downloaded, please comment down below so i can know the number of people who would benefit from my hard work. Feel free to send your feedback thru my email at readme63@yahoo.com or thru leaving a comment.

I have no experience on making ebooks, this is all what i can do. I still hope everyone would appreciate it. I am giving permission to anyone who would like to make a hard copy/print of these.

OPINYON: "Pagkakasundo tungo sa Kapayapaan"

Gaano katagal na nga ba ko simula ng maging inactive sa pagbo-blog?

Dahilan ko, busy sa work. Pero bukod dun, may iba pa.

LAHAT PO NG MABABASA NYO SA ARTIKULONG ITO AY AKING OPINYON LAMANG. Alam ko pong maaaring may mga kapatid o maytungkulin man, ang hindi sumang ayon sa akin, o maaaring mainis pa, pero naiintindihan ko kayo. Pero itoy matagal kong pinag isipan, at gusto ko lamang maging totoo.

Ako poy isang ordinaryong kapatid sa Iglesia, na tulad ng marami, nananatili at minamahal ang Iglesia sapagkat itoy daan sa kaligtasan. Masayang sumasamba, nakikipagkaisa sa mga aktibidad at nakakatupad ng tungkulin--- ng payapa.

"KAPAYAPAAN" - payapa ang pusot isip. Payapang nakakapaglingkod sa Diyos.

Naniniwala po ako na ito ay ang nais ng lahat sa mga kapatid. 

Nagpapasakop sa Pamamahala, dapat. Nakikiisa sa Pamamahala, tama. AT naninindigan para sa Pamamahala at sa Iglesia, mismo.

Kahit pa pagbali baligtarin ng mga "fallen angels" ang mundo, ang mga TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ay mananatili sa PANIG NG PAMAMAHALA. Dahil ang PAMAMAHALA ay sa Diyos. 

Kung ako ay tatanungin nyo, walang duda sa aking pananampalataya. Ako ay sa Pamamahala, hindi dahil ako ay "uto uto, sunud sunuran, o minion" kung sabihin ng mga tiwalag, kundi dahil alam ko ang TOTOO. Hindi ko man alam ang BUONG KATOTOHANAN, pero alam ko ang TOTOO.


ANG TOTOO

Ang TOTOO ay sa loob ng maikling taon ng Pamamalakad ng Ka Eduardo Manalo, maraming tagumpay ang nakamit ng Iglesia: Mga naipatayong gusaling sambahan, mga nabiling properties abroad, mga proyekto sa pagpapalaganap, mga proyekto sa pagtulong sa mga tao, mga gusaling kinakailangan ng Iglesia tulad ng bagong CEM building, bagong New Era Hospital, Philippine Arena at iba pa, mga naordenang mga ministro, mga bagong nagsisipag aral sa ministerio at marami pang iba. Hindi makukwestyon ng sinuman, kahit ng iba pang mga lider ng relihiyon ang TAGUMPAY na ito sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng Ka Eduardo.

Ang TOTOO ay walang masama kung magbenta man ang Pamamahala ng mga properties ng Iglesia lalo nat kung itoy hindi rin naman napapakinabangan tulad ng walang masama sa pagbili nito. Sila ang nasa autoridad upang magdesisyon sa ikabubuti ng Iglesia. Mga matitisurin lamang ang makakapag isip na itoy isang kasalanan o itoy mali dahil sa pagpapatakbo ng isang organisasyon, may mga konsiderasyon at mahirap na desisyon na kailangang gawin. 

Ang TOTOO ay karamihan sa mga akusasyon ng mga tiwalag ay pawang kasinungalingan lamang na pawang paninira lamang sa Pamamahala at sa Ka Eduardo Manalo. Bilang blogger at matagal ng boluntaryong nagtatanggol sa Iglesia, madali kong malalaman kung ang isang akusasyon ay maaaring tama o malisyoso lamang. Tulad na lamang ng diumanoy pagkaka-perahan sa Scenic, South Dakota, Fort Victoria, kahit pa ang loteng kinakamkam nila Gng. Lottie at marami pang iba, itoy mga KASINUNGALINGAN lamang. Lalo na kung nababasa ko ang katotohanan sa blog ni Ka Pristine Truth.   

Ang TOTOO ay kung saka sakali man halimbawa na ang ilan sa mga akusasyon ng mga tiwalag ay tama, hindi ako kailanman papanig o magbibigay ng simpatya sa kanila. Dahil kahit gaano pa kabigat ang kanilang akusasyon, hindi ito isang malaking rason upang LABANAN ang Pamamahala lalo na ang Tagpamahalang Pangkalahatan. Kung ang magulang ay nagkamali sayo, wala tayong karapatan na labanan sila at pagsalitaan ng masasakit na salita o paninira dahil sa di maaalis na katotohanang MAGULANG PA RIN NATIN SILA. Ganun din ang sa Pamamahala, naniniwala ako na hindi ito rason upang magrebelde, kundi ayusin sa tamang paraan ng hindi sila nilalabanan.

Ang TOTOO ay mas dapat ibigin ang AMA kaysa sa magulang. Hindi ko sinasabi na huwag ibigin o igalang ang magulang, ang ibig kong sabihin ay mas HIGIT NATING IBIGIN ANG DIYOS kaysa ating magulang sapagkat yan ay nasusulat. Higit nating dapat sundin ang mga utos ng Diyos bago ang iba. Kaya sa aking opinyon, tama lang naman ang naging desisyon ng Ka Eduardo na itiwalag ang kaniyang mga kapatid kahit pa ang kaniyang sariling INA, sapagkat silay nagdulot ng pagkakabaha bahagi sa Iglesia.


NGUNIT...

Sa mga nangyayari ngayon sa Iglesia, kung saan habang tumatagal ay tila lumalala pa ang mga pangyayari, na lalong pasama ng pasama ang tingin ng marami sa Iglesia Ni Cristo. Na ang mga nangyayari ay di na mabubura pa sapagkat itoy nakatala na sa ating kasaysayan...

Isa lang po ang gusto kong sabihin at ipanawagan.

PAGKAKASUNDO

tungo sa

KAPAYAPAAN.


Naisip ko, bilang blogger, kung ako bay magpopost ng magpopost ng mga artikulo laban sa mga tiwalag kahit na itoy mga katotohanan, may maitutulong ba ito upang masolusyunan ang problema?

Sa totoo lang po, naka 5 artikulo na ata ko na hindi ko naipublished at marami pa sana kong nasa isip na gustong gawin. Sa umpisa ginaganahan ako, pagdating sa kalagitnaan, nagtataka ako bakit ganun parang hindi ko matapos? Kaya nasa draft na lang ito o dinelete ko nalang. Kasi pagkatapos ay maiisip ko, kung maipa-publish ko ba ito makakatulong ba ito para matapos na ang kasalukuyang kinakaharap na problema sa Iglesia? Kung magiging active din naman ako sa pakikipaglaban sa mga tiwalag gamit ang social media, sino naman kaya ang tatayo upang magpanawagan ng KAPAYAPAAN sa halip na digmaan?

Yung gulo sa Mindanao dahil sa mga rebelde, dati all out war ang gobyerno sa kanila. Ang tanong, nasolusyunan ba ang problema? Ngayon, sa halip na digmaan, peace process ang gustong gawin ng mga sumunod na Pangulo ng Pilipinas. Hindi man ito ang tutuldok sa problema doon ngunit tingin ko daan ito para makamit ang inaasam na kapayapaan ng mga nakatira doon.

Ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ay isang relihiyon. Atin muling basahin ang deskripsyon:

"The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) is a Christian religion whose primary purpose is to serve and worship the Almighty God based on His teachings recorded in the Bible.

Kaya po sa pagkakataong ito, ako poy tumitindig upang ipanawagan ito. Hindi dahil akoy sumusuko o dahil akoy duwag, kundi upang maging daan sa pagkakaayos at pagkakaroon ng kapayapaan.

Kung babalikan natin ang pangyayari, saan ba lahat nagsimula ito? At sino ang nagsimula nito? Naniniwala po ako na sana ay doon magsimulang magkaroon ng pagkakasundo. Sa bandang huli, kahit pa itiniwalag ang mga kapatid at ina ng Ka Eduardo, hindi maiaalis ang katotohanang silay kaniyang PAMILYA. INA. AT KAPATID.

Kahit pa sabihin natin na si Gng. Tenny ang mastermind lahat ng ito, at sila ay pagkasama sama, sa bandang huli, at kahit ano pang mangyari, naniniwala po ako di maglaon ay makakabalik pa rin sila sa Iglesia kasama na ang iba pang mga "fallen angels". At kung ganun din lang naman po ang mangyayari, sa halip na in the next 3-5 years pa, bakit hindi na lang ngayon? Madali lang sana ang laban na ito kung tutuusin kung hindi po sana kasali ang pamilya ng Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan. Kung sila Menorca at Samson lang ang may pasimuno, kahit all out war ang maging laban. Ngunit sa pagkakataong ito, naisip ko lang po, baka mas mainam gumawa ng tulay kaysa pandigma...
 
Sana alisin na ni Gng. Tenny, nila G. Marc, Angel, at Gng. Lottie ang kanilang PAGMAMATAAS, kundi magpakumbaba, at lumapit sa namamahala: humingi ng tawad, magkapatawaran, magkasundo, at magkaayos. Naniniwala at sumasampalataya po ako, na kapag nangyari ito, ay sunud sunod na ang kapayapaan sa loob ng Iglesia, at pati po sa Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan, isa po ako sa mga naniniwala at sumasampalataya sa tungkulin na ibinigay ng Ama sa kaniya, na maisaayos at masolusyunan ang mga problema sa loob ng Iglesia..

Lilinawin ko lamang po na personal kong desisyon ang sinabi ko sa artikulong ito at hindi ako nanghihikayat. Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo kung sa pagkakataong ito ay hindi na muna po ako makakapag blog o kung sa hinaharap man kung saka sakali, hindi ko po alam. Kung akoy babalik, makakabalik o hindi na.

Aantayin ko po ang panahong iyon, na walang makatututol na ang Iglesia Ni Cristo ay nasa kalagayang maluwalhati, banal, walang dungis, at walang kapintasan na ayon sa nasusulat.

Ang ating Panginoong Diyos ang bahala sa ating lahat. Manatili po ang ating tiwala at pag asa sa kanyang magagawa para sa Iglesia.




- readme

Bakit "Iglesia ni Cristo" at hindi "Church of Christ"?

Maaaring naguluhan kayo sa pamagat ng artikulo kong ito.


Ang binabanggit ko po ay ang official name ng "Iglesia ni Cristo".

Bakit sa tagalog at hindi sa english para mas maintindihan ng ibang lahi lalo na sa ibang bansa?

Kung open minded tayo at marunong MAKAINTINDI, hindi dapat ito maging BIG DEAL para sa kanino man. Hindi ito dapat pag-aksayahan ng panahon sa pag-iisip dahil pinapasakit nyo lang ang utak nyo tulad ng isang Catholic defender na nagpasimula ng usaping ito. Sino siya? Kung madalas kayong nagbabasa ng blog ko, kilala nyo siya! ^^

Siya lang naman ang nag-iisang Catholic defender sa Pilipinas na inggit na inggit sa Iglesia ni Cristo at ayaw maniwala sa kahit ano mang sinasabi ng kahit sinong INC member kahit pa tama dahil nga SARADO ANG UTAK nitong taong ito. Kilala siya sa paggawa ng mga istorya at mga usapin na walang kakawenta kwenta ang mga argumento. Mayroon siyang blog na "In defense of the Church" daw pero karamihan sa post niya ay puro anti-INC. 

Napapakamot tuloy ako sa ulo, bakit, Iglesia ni Cristo lang ba ang church ang sa tingin mong umaatake sa paniniwala mo? Ang sa pagkakaalam ko, sinasabi mo na ang Roman Catholic Church mo ang MOST PERSECUTED RELIGION sa buong mundo, bakit puro ANTI-INC lang ang laman ng blog mo?

Sa sobrang inggit nga nitong Catholic defender na ito, akalain nyo ba naman gayahin ang pangalang ng Iglesia ni Cristo at ipantawag sa CHURCH NIYA?

Hindi bat paglabag ito sa katuruan nila, dahil ang opisyal na pangalan DAW ng Iglesiang tinayo DAW ni Kristo ay ang One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. Bukod sa nilalabag niya ang aral ng simbahan nila, eh KINONTRA rin niya ang sarili niya dahil dati ay madalas niyang sinasabing hindi daw "Iglesia ni Cristo" (pansinin: capital letters, noun) kundi yung One holy etc... ang tunay na IGLESIA.

Maraming beses nang napahiya ang Katolikong ito dahil sa mga katotohanang inihayag ko sa aking blog, at siya mismo rin ay nakakabasa nito kaya unti unti nang nababago ang kaniyang paniniwala. Yung mga atake niya dati ay hindi na niya inuulit, dahil alam niya sa sarili niyang walang kakwenta kwenta ang kaniyang mga argumento.


Bakit "Iglesia ni Cristo"?

Dahil ito ang pangalang ipinarehistro ni Ka Felix Manalo:

 "To avoid problems in the future, the Iglesia ni Cristo was officially registered as a corporation sole with Felix Manalo as executive minister on July 27, 1914..." source: National Historical Commission

"To avoid accusations of preaching an unrecognized church, Felix Manalo decided to register the Iglesia ni Cristo with the Philippine government. He asked a lawyer friend, Juan Natividad, to assist him. On July 27, 1914, the Iglesia ni Cristo was officially registered, the date of its registration coinciding with the outbreak of World War I. It was registered as a "corporation sole" with Felix Manalo as Executive Minister." source: student631.tripod.com

Sasabihin ng ilan, eh bakit nga "Iglesia ni Cristo", bakit sa tagalog, pwede namang english para mas marami ang makakaintindi.

Sagot: Kahit kayo alam kong alam nyo na naman ang sagot diyan, bago pa kasi maiparehistro ang Iglesia ni Cristo noong 1914 eh may mga nag eexist na sa ibang bansa na ang pangalan ay "CHURCH OF CHRIST".

Sa mga malawak ang kaisipan, bakit mo naman ipapangalan ang church mo o kahit pa business mo o produkto mo sa isang pangalang may nauna na sayo? Para ano? Para malito ang mga tao?

Tama rin naman itong gumawa ng isyu, na ang pangalang "Iglesia ni Cristo" na may INC logo ay isang trademark.

Teka, ano bang meron sa trademark? Ano ba ito?

 "A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity."

"A trademark is typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements."

"The law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction."

"A registered trademark confers a bundle of exclusive rights upon the registered owner, including the right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorized use of the mark in relation to products or services which are identical or "colourfully" similar to the "registered" products or services, and in certain cases, prevent use in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services."

source: wikipedia

Kung tutuusin alam kong alam nyo na ang tungkol dito dahil nag aral naman tayo. Sa amin pinag-aralan namin to sa "Principles of Marketing". Siguro itong Catholic defender na ito ay hindi nag aral kaya ganyan, o kaya naman ay TULOG nung dinidiscuss ng professor niya. ^^

Wala akong nakikitang mali sa pagpaparehistro ng isang PANGALAN upang hindi magamit ng iba. Lalo na pagdating sa CHURCH, bawat church magkakaiba ng paniniwala kaya hindi pwedeng yung church #1 na naniniwalang Diyos si Kristo eh kapangalan din yung church #2 na naniniwala namang hindi Diyos si Kristo.

Ang isang napakagandang example ay yung Iglesia ni Mr. Soriano. Tignan nyo naman nakailang palit na siya ng pangalan ng Iglesia niya paano ba naman may kapangalang iba yung church niya. Kaya kinasuhan siya ng maraming beses, hanggang sa maging "Members church of God international" ang pangalan ng Iglesia niya.

Kaya importante na protected yung  pangalan na "Iglesia ni Cristo" para hindi magamit ng iba.

Isa sa pinakaimportanteng doktrina ng Iglesia ni Cristo ay tungkol sa PANGALAN ng Iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo kaya wag na tayong magtataka dito.

Eh ano kaya sa tingin niyo ang mangyayari kung saka-sakaling hindi ito nairehistro sa SEC?

Ang Iglesia ni Cristo nga nakarehistro na sa SEC, pero meron paring mga kapangalan sa PILIPINAS PALANG:

 source: sec.gov.ph



Eto naman ang mga church na may "Church of Christ" sa pangalan, daan daan itong nakarehistro, ipapakita ko lang ang sample:

source: sec.gov.ph


Paano pa kaya yung mga hindi nakarehistro? Ilan pa kaya sila?

Sasabihin ng ilan, eh sino ba kasi nagsabing iparehistro niyo sa SEC ang Iglesia nyo? San mababasa sa bibliya na dapat gawing trademark at dapat iparehistro sa SEC ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Kristo?

Ang pinag uusapan kasi dito ay BATAS. Wala kaming doktrinang kesyo dapat iparehistro sa SEC o kung ano pa man kaya sana ay wag nyo nang ipilit at huwag nyo kaming paghanapin ng mga bagay sa bibliya na alam nyo namang wala, napaghahalataan tuloy kayo... ^^

Eto ang sabi ng bibliya:

"Ang bawat tao'y dapat pasakop sa mga pinuno ng pamahalaan, sapagkat walang pamahalaang hindi mula sa Diyos, at ang Diyos ang nagtatag ng mga pamahalaang umiiral. Kaya nga, ang lumalaban sa pamahalaan ay lumalaban sa itinakda ng Diyos; at sila'y paparusahan." Roma 13:1-2

Yan ang sinasabi ng bibliya tungkol sa mga pinuno at sa batas, PASAKOP daw. Ang pagpaparehistro ng INC at kung ano-ano pa ay usaping LEGAL, may kinalaman ito sa batas kaya dapat ay sundin.

Pag sinabi mong "Iglesia ni Cristo" alam na ng kausap mo na ito ay yung Iglesia ni Cristo na nagmula sa Pilipinas, hindi yung LDS Church, at hindi rin yung ibat ibang Church of Christ o Churches of Christ sa ibang bansa. 

Kaya bakit "Iglesia ni Cristo" at hindi "Church of Christ"? 

Eto tignan mo:

The term Church of Christ may refer to:

• One of several New Testament designations for a local band of people following the teachings of Jesus, whom they believed to be the Christ; only the plural form is found in the NT (e.g., Romans 16:16)
• the entire body of Christians throughout the world, regardless of denomination or tradition, i.e. the Christian Church or Christendom
• a body of Christians who continue to use only the New Testament as the source for Christian doctrine and practice and who consider themselves to be part of the original church (in contrast to Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, or Protestant Christianity.)
• the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches (primarily used by members of these churches)
• Church bodies influenced by the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:
  • Restoration Movement groups originating in Scotland and the U.S.
    • Churches of Christ
      • Churches of Christ and Sponsoring church (Churches of Christ)
      • The churches of Christ (non-institutional), an identifiable subgroup within the churches of Christ
    • Christian churches and churches of Christ
    • Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
  • Non-US Restoration Movement groups
    • Churches of Christ in Australia
    • Evangelical Christian Church in Canada
  • Other historically related groups
    • Christian Connexion
    • Christadelphians
    • Churches of Christ in Christian Union
• Denominations with a shared heritage in the Latter Day Saint movement, which include:
  • Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), the original name of the first Latter Day Saint church, founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr.
  • 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
  • Latter Day Church of Christ, a Mormon fundamentalist denomination based in Utah
  • And other denominations called the Church of Jesus Christ

• United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination in the United States amalgamated from four congregationalist groups in 1957 (See also Christian Connexion.)
• United Church of Christ – Congregational in the Marshall Islands, the largest religious group in the Marshall Islands
• Church of Christ, Scientist, also known as Christian Science
• Church of Christ in Congo, the administrative and spiritual union of denominations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Iglesia ni Cristo (Filipino translation for "Church of Christ"), an independent church originating in the Philippines
• 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
• Church of Christ in Thailand, the largest Protestant Church in Thailand.

source: wikipedia

Siguro naman ay happy na si Catholic Defender na tinutukoy ko dahil sa wakas natupad na rin ang kaniyang pinapangarap, ang maipost ko at maipalam sa iba na marami ang church na may pangalang CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Pero ang tanong...

SO?

hahaha

Alam ko namang hindi niya katulad ang mga mambabasa at mga kaanib sa Iglesia ni Cristo. Siguradoy alam na nila na may mga church na may "Church of Christ" sa pangalan nila. Ang Mormons pa nga lang eh, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

Napaka IMPOSIBLE din naman kasing hindi mawawala ang words na "Church" at "Christ" sa mga pangalan ng relihiyon dahil alam nilang lahat na si KRISTO ang nagtayo ng IGLESIA.

Ang pinaka RASON kung bakit "Iglesia ni Cristo" ay upang ma IDENTIFY ng maayos ng mga tao ang church na ito sa ibang CHURCH na may kaparehas na pangalan. Ganoon lang kasimple yon. Kahit grade 5 student maiintindihan yon.

Pero kung mapapansin nyo, yung PANGALAN NILANG "Church of Christ" o "Iglesia ni Cristo" may kadugtong, tulad ng mga nasa taas: Church of Christ 1901 in Bagong Barrio Inc., Iglesia ni Cristo sa ibabaw ng bato, Church of Christ (Temple Lot) etc... siguroy nasa LIBO na ang mga church na may pangalang ganito sa BUONG MUNDO.

Pero ang TUNAY na "Iglesia ni Cristo/Church of Christ" kung mapapansin nyo, WALANG KADUGTONG. Kaya masasabi kong meron talagang NAG-IISANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO.


Alin ang TUNAY na "IGLESIA NI CRISTO"?

Yan ang tanong ng ilan. Kung napakarami palang church na may "Iglesia ni Cristo" sa pangalan, alin dito ang TUNAY na Iglesiang itinayo ni Kristo o ang tunay na IGLESIA NI CRISTO?

Hindi na nakakapagtaka kung maraming church ang may pangalang ganyan, dahil nung panahon nga ni Kristo marami na ring nagpapanggap na SILA DAW ANG KRISTO:

"Sumagot si Jesus, "Mag-ingat kayo upang hindi kayo mailigaw ninuman! Maraming paparito sa pangalan ko at magpapanggap na sila ang Cristo, at marami silang maililigaw." Mateo 24:2-5

Marami daw paparito at magpapanggap na sila ang KRISTO, at MARAMI SILANG ILILIGAW. Ganun din sa mga CHURCH na may "Iglesia ni Cristo" sa pangalan, hindi lahat ng ito ay TUNAY kaya marami silang MAILILIGAW. Pero kahit maraming PEKE na "Iglesia ni Cristo" mayroon at mayroong NAG-IISANG TUNAY sa mga iyon.

Hindi pwedeng wala sa mundo ang TUNAY na "Iglesia ni Cristo" dahil kung ganoon pala eh naglolokohan lang tayo, libo-libo ang relihiyon sa buong mundo tapos miski isa pala wala doon ang TUNAY at TOTOO.

Itatanong ng ilan, eh kung merong NAG-IISANG TUNAY na "Iglesia ni Cristo" sa daan daang churches na may "Iglesia ni Cristo/Church of Christ" sa pangalan, papaano namin malalaman kung alin dun yung TUNAY at TOTOO?

Sagot: Makikita at malalaman iyon sa DOKTRINA. Kung ang mga doktrina ng isang "Church of Christ" o "Iglesia ni Cristo" ay hindi galing sa BIBLIYA, hindi yon ang TUNAY. Tungkulin ng bawat isa sa atin na hanapin ang TUNAY na Iglesia na iyon, dahil nakataya dito ang ating KALIGTASAN.

Iglesia ni Cristo/ Church of Christ/ Iglesia de Cristo/ Eglise du Christ/ Εκκλησία του Χριστού/ キリスト教会/ Igreja de Cristo/ คริสตจักรของพระคริสต์/ Giáo Hội Chúa Kitô/ Ecclesiam Christi/ 그리스도의 교회/Chiesa di Cristo/  Cכנסיית המשיח

IISA LANG IBIG SABIHIN at TINUTUKOY NIYAN:

"At sinasabi ko sa iyo, ikaw ay Pedro, at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang aking iglesya at ang pintuan ng daigdig ng mga patay ay hindi magtatagumpay laban sa kanya." Mateo 16:18

Ang tinutukoy diyan ay ang IGLESIANG ITINATAG NG ATING PANGINOONG HESUKRISTO.

Kaya walang big deal dyan. Hindi yan ISYU. Kung sa bagay, sa kaniya lang naman ito naging isang ISYU. Ganun talaga pag masyadong MATALINO, kung ano anong naiisip, kahit MASAMA.

Romans 16:16, Church of Christ or Catholic Church?

Catholic defenders claim that the phrase "churches of Christ" in Romans 16:16 refers to the Catholic Church. Is the claim TRUE?


Let us see...

New International Version (©1984)
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.
New Living Translation (©2007)
Greet each other in Christian love. All the churches of Christ send you their greetings.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
International Standard Version (©2008)
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of the Messiah greet you.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Invoke the peace of one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of The Messiah invoke your peace.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Greet each other with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.
American King James Version
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
American Standard Version
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Salute one another with an holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Darby Bible Translation
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the assemblies of Christ salute you.
English Revised Version
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Webster's Bible Translation
Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Weymouth New Testament
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the Churches of Christ send greetings to you.
World English Bible
Greet one another with a holy kiss. The assemblies of Christ greet you.
Young's Literal Translation
salute one another in a holy kiss; the assemblies of Christ do salute you.
source: bible.cc

The verse said: "Greet one another with a holy kiss, all the CHURCHES OF CHRIST greet you" it doesnt say the "Roman Empire or the One holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" greet you, because that is impossible, want to know why?

In Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary in the same website here is what stated:

"...Though the care of all the churches came upon him daily, yet he could remember many persons, and send salutations to each, with particular characters of them, and express concern for them. Lest any should feel themselves hurt, as if Paul had forgotten them, he sends his remembrances to the rest, as brethren and saints, though not named. He adds, in the close, a general salutation to them all, in the name of the churches of Christ."

In the name of the churches of Christ it is said, and not in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. In 110 A.D we all know that St. Ignatius invented the name "Catholic Church" and the official name only created in 1870:

“In 1870, at the Vatican Council, the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ was proposed, but it was rejected. The bishops assembled unanimously decided upon this official name: ‘The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church’” Discourses on the Apsotle’s Creed, Rev. Clement Crock, p. 191

The book of Romans was likely written in A.D 56-58 long after the name of the Catholic Church was created:

Date of Writing: The Book of Romans was likely written A.D. 56-58. source: gotquestions.org

So, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Romans 16:16 will say "All the Catholic Churches greet you".


Catholic Church is the Church of Christ?

Let us see...

“This question poses itself with great urgency today. Does the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ still make sense? Is this claim, endorsed in the document of Vatican II, the last remnant of ecclesiastical pride…? For several reasons the Church’s claim to unicity has become a very difficult issue on our day. What are some of these reasons?

In the first place the traditional apologetical arguments in favor of the Catholic Church’s uniqueness are generally no loner regarded as valid. We cannot offer a strict historical proof that the Catholic Church is in essential continuity with the Church of the New Testament.” Gregory Baum, Faith and Doctrine a Contemporary View [New York: Paulist Press], pp. 91-92


“…Few historians would suggest that this continuing self-identity of the Church can be demonstrated historically. When for instance, we look at the profound change that occurred in the early Church when the monarchial episcopate replaced other forms of apostolic ministry, we realize that we cannot “prove” that throughout this change the Church remained identical with herself.” (p.92)

Church of Christ cant be the Catholic Church!

Let us read some interesting articles:

1. Is the Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
On this topic one can read apparently contradictory statements by theologian Avery Dulles.

Today, according to The Times Picayune (TP), Dulles said: “Many think the Council taught that non-Christian religions could offer a path to salvation. Rather …. they all have fatal flaws. The one true religion exists in the Catholic Church.” According to The Washington Times (WT) Dulles also stated: “The greatest post-Vatican II misunderstanding is that the Church gave up her claim to be the only way to salvation.”

Anyone who quickly reads these statements reaches the conclusion that Cardinal Dulles is talking about the Catholic Church and is defending the dogma extra Ecclesia nulla salus [outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation]. Hence, for this reader the Cardinal appears as a strong conservative and perhaps even a traditionalist. This conclusion, however, is not as objective as it appears from the first reading.

There are two problems involved with this statement. One is to know what Church Dulles is talking about. Another is to know if he in fact was defending the mentioned dogma. In my first question I will deal with the former, and in my second question with the latter.
When Cardinal Dulles affirmed that “the one true religion exists in the Catholic Church,” was he saying that the Catholic Church is the true religion? Or was he stating that there would be another religious entity broader than the Catholic Church existing somewhere else and sharing a part of its plenitude with the Catholic Church?

If one goes back to read what Dulles defended in the past, an interesting clarification enters the picture. Twenty-three years ago addressing the same topic, Dulles published the article “Ecumenism: Problems and future possibilities” for a book of collected works by various authors published in Italian: Toward the Church of the Third Millennium [Verso la Chiesa del Terzo Millennio, Brescia: Queriniana, 1979]. In that article he wrote:
“The Church of Jesus Christ is not identified with the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, it subsists in Roman Catholicism, but it is also present in various ways and in various degrees in other Christian communities in so far as they are also faithful to that which God initiated in Jesus and they obey the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ” (pp. 108-9).
If today Fr. Dulles still defends the same thesis that the Church of Christ is different from and broader than the Catholic Church, then his recent statements to the TP and WT should be understood as referring to this strange “Church of Christ.” If the reader is interested in knowing what is behind and who supports this “Church of Christ” he can refer to my recently released Animus Delendi II, part II, chapter II. This “Church” would encompass Catholics, Protestants, and Schismatics. Then, when Cardinal Dulles said that “the one true religion exists in the Catholic Church,” he would not be defending that the Catholic Church is the true religion, but that she shares the “true religion” that would exist elsewhere. It would be a Jesuit twist in a way of presenting the words to give the impression that he was defending a conservative position.

Also, when he stated that “many think the Council taught that non-Christian religions could offer a path to salvation. Rather …. they all have fatal flaws,” he would not be referring to Protestant and Schismatics, as a quick reading might suggest. These people would have open access to Heaven, since they would be included in the “Church of Christ.” Actually Dulles would be referring to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. That is to say, he would be dealing with an entirely different reality than what appears in the first reading. If this is the case, then he would be playing a trick: a subtle progressivist thesis is presented in a way that gives the impression that he is defending the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, but actually he is defending the opposite.

If Cardinal Avery Dulles would have used these hermeneutic ruses to appear conservative to his audience, then one would be dealing with a crafty sophist instead of a respectable teacher.

How can the dilemma be resolved? Without rushing to make a judgment, I choose the direct method. I respectfully place my question to him here:

Could Your Eminence be so kind as to clearly answer this question: Do you still defend what you wrote in 1979 about the Church of Christ? Id est, do you still defend that there is a Church of Christ different from and broader than the Catholic Church?

source: traditioninaction.org

Another one:

"The Church of Christ and Catholic Church"
With the support of numerous statements of the Magisterium, it was customary for Catholics prior to the Second Vatican Council to defend the thesis that they belonged to the "one, true Church" founded by Jesus Christ himself. For them, the Nicene confession of faith, "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" referred unambiguously to that Christian community which was united in faith and obedience with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
Since the celebration of the last Council, this sense of Catholic self-identity has been challenged and even denied. It is asserted that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not the same reality. The Council, which used both expressions, namely, "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church," is claimed to have drawn a distinction between the two, thereby indicating that they are not one and the same. In speaking of the society founded by Jesus himself, the Council referred to the "Church of Christ" and confessed that this "is the only Church of Christ which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."¹
It is, however, nowhere stated that this unique Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it affirmed that Jesus founded the historical reality which we know as the Catholic Church — at least so it is claimed. While teaching, indeed, that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, the Council explicitly recognized the right of other Christian bodies to be called "Churches," thus giving authoritative confirmation to a use of language which was long-standing and consistent, at least in respect to the separated Churches of the East, i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy.
The bishops at Vatican II, furthermore, formally admitted that the Christian Churches and Communities separated from the Catholic Church have been and are being used by the Holy Spirit as "means of salvation"² for those who belong to them.
Now it must be admitted that we are faced with three facts concerning the teaching of Vatican II about the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church: first, the assertion that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church; second, the admission that at least some Communities not in union with the Catholic Church are truly Churches; third, the recognition that such Churches and even other ecclesial Communities serve as "means of salvation" in the effectuation of God's redemptive plan in Christ. Since Vatican II did not give us an elaborated ecclesiology, theological reflection is left to give an integrated picture of its teaching, keeping in mind the three facts just mentioned.
That theological picture has developed in some authors in the following way. The one Church of Christ, founded by him, now perdures or subsists in various forms or manifestations, each of which retain—to a greater or lesser degree—the essential ecclesial characteristics willed by the Lord. No one of the various forms can claim exclusive identity with the Church of Christ — which now exists like some kind of Platonic form, which variously informs different communities. De facto, the unique Church founded by Christ now exists in different and separated bodies, although not necessarily in equal degrees.
The consequences of such a view are manifold. Among the more important may be cited the diminishment in appreciation of the Church's unique role as means and sacrament of salvation, and the necessity of the Sacraments and of sacramental grace. Questions have been raised about the true ecumenicity of those Councils held since the division among Christians became a fact, particularly about the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.

The missionary activity of the Church has likewise suffered, being reduced at times in theory and in practice to no more than efforts to better the temporal social, political and economic situation of peoples. Efforts for conversion among non-Christians and for the bringing of non-Catholic Christians as individuals into full communion with the Catholic Church have been adversely affected.

source: catholicculture.org

If the Catholic Church is really the Church of Christ, it will mean that Christ and apostles teaching still upholds by the Catholic Church, but if the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church changed and contradicts what was written in the bible, then clearly it CANNOT BE and WILL NOT BE the original church founded by Christ.

Are these doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles? You judge.

200 AD	Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
250 AD	North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.
257 AD	Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.
300 AD	Prayers for the dead
320 AD	Special dress code of the clergy in worship
325 AD	At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.
325 AD	The date for Easter was set.
379 AD	Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)
385 AD	In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.
389 AD	Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.
400 AD	Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)
416 AD	Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)
430 AD	Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus
502 AD	Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.
500 AD	The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)
519 AD	Lent
526 AD	Extreme Unction
593 AD	The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great
600 AD	First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I)
Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.
607 AD	First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.
608 AD	Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.
670 AD	Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian
709 AD	Kissing of Pope Constantine's feet
753 AD	Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.
787 AD	Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea)
787 AD	Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.
965 AD	Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD	Burning of Holy Candles
995 AD	Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
998 AD	Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden
1009 AD	Holy water
1022 AD	Penance
1054 AD	Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church
1054 AD	Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.
1079 AD	Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII)
1090 AD	Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit
1095 AD	Instrumental music
1190 AD	Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed)
1215 AD	Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council
1215 AD	Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council)
1215 AD	Mass a Sacrifice of Christ
1217 AD	Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
1230 AD	Ringing bells at Mass
1251 AD	The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock
1268 AD	Priestly power of absolution
1311 AD	Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)
1414 AD	Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance)
1439 AD	Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD)
1439 AD	Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1480 AD	The Inquisition (of Spain)
1495 AD	Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD	Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola
1545 AD	Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent)
1545 AD	Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent)
1546 AD	Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD	Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD)
1547 AD	Confirmation
1560 AD	Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed
1864 AD	Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned
1870 AD	Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)
1908 AD	All Catholics should be christened into the church
1930 AD	Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)
1950 AD	Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)
1950 AD	Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)
1954 AD	Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII
1995 AD	The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties
1996 AD	Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II)

source: bible.ca

Acts 20:28 Lamsa Translation

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed your overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood." - Acts 20:28 (Lamsa version)

There are those who criticize the Iglesia Ni Cristo for their use of the Lamsa version when quoting Acts 20:28. Critics say that the phrase "church of Christ" as written in the Lamsa version is incorrect and that the correct one is "church of God". Furthermore, they claim that there are no existing manuscripts that can be used to support the rendition "church of Christ" and that Lamsa is the only version which contains "church of Christ".

Other English Versions

These critics are misinformed because Lamsa is not the only version containing the phrase "church of Christ". Below are some other English versions containing similar renderings.

Etheridge Translation:
"Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of the Meshiha [Christ] which he hath purchased with his blood."

Disciples New Testament:
"Therefore, take care of yourselves, and of all the congregation in which you have been appointed through the holy Spirit as bishops, to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ, that which he established by his blood."

Early Manuscripts

Regarding manuscripts supporting the rendering "church of Christ", there are in fact existing ones. The English translation of the verse in Syriac Manuscripts such as MS Syriac 4 (12th century), MS Syriac 325 (12th Century), MS Syriac 27 (16th century), and the Novum Testamentum Syriace (17th century) read "Church of Christ."

Ezra Abbot, a New Testament Textual Criticism scholar, listed some of the earlier manuscripts containing the reading "church of Christ".

Admittedly, there are more manuscripts supporting other variant readings and that those manuscripts are even written in Greek. However, no rule of reasoning compels us to conclude with certainty that one particular reading is correct based on its quantity alone. We must remember that the greek manuscripts we have are not the originals but are just copies which can also contain transcription errors.

Ancient Versions

Also, there are evidence that the Syriac texts we currently have, whether they are transcriptions or translations, are better than some Greek texts, so we should not in any way disregard the value of the Syriac texts. Syriac is an Aramaic dialect into which most of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were first translated. Consulting Syriac manuscripts can help settle controversies in the Greek manuscripts.

Aside from Syriac manuscripts, the phrase "Church of Christ" can also be found in Acts 20:28 in Peshitta Aramaic Text which when translated into English, reads: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of Christ which he hath purchased with his blood." Peshitta Acts 20:28

Early "church fathers"

In addition to the ancient versions, we also have witnesses in the quotations of the early "church fathers". Among these are those of Athanasius, Theodoret, Pseudo-Athanasius, and Pseudo-Fulgentius.

Internal Evidence

Most importantly, we can turn to internal scripture evidence to see whether the rendition "church of Christ" is correct or not. Apostle Paul says, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13, King James Version).

Spiritual things will not contradict with other spiritual things when they are compared with one another. In no way will they manifest disagreement, but only harmony and unity. They go together perfectly well-at all times. With this apostolic method of teaching, nothing is added to or taken away from the Word. Consequently, when one Bible verse seems to clash in meaning with another verse, the former or the latter is either mistranslated or misinterpreted.

Based on scriptural evidence, we can conclude that "church of Christ" is the more accurate rendition because the latter part of the verse states, "which he purchased with his own blood". The rendering "church of God" would mean that it is God who died and shed blood on the cross. This would contradict other bible verses that teach God is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17) and that God is a spirit (John 4:24), has no flesh and bones (Lk. 24:36-39), and therefore has no blood. It is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood, which washed the members of the Church of their sins (I Pt. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5).

REFERENCES:

[1] The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and other Critical Essays, Ezra Abbot

[2] Khabouris Codex

Source: Mister and Misis

___________________________________

The word church as used in the bible refers to that entity that Christ built (Mt. 16:18). He called it “my church”. That church built by Christ had doctrines that distinguish it from those built by others which, because they were not built have no right to claim that they are of Christ. Such doctrines are written in the bible and the only church whose doctrines are identical with those written in the bible is that one built by Christ. Christ said he is the door and anyone who enters in shall be saved (Jn. 10:9). He also said that he is the door of the sheep (Jn. 10:7). Sheep means God’s people (Ps. 100:3) or the flock wjich is the Church of Christ (Acts 20:28, LAMSA).

Thus, if you are not in the flock or you do not belong to the church of Christ, you will not be saved. Lamsa’s version is accurate because the one who actually shed HIS BLOOD FOR THE CHURCH IS CHRIST. God, being a spirit (Jn. 4:24), has no flesh and bones (Lk. 24:36-39) and thus HAS NO BLOOD. The other bible versions is not accurate for God has no blood. The Bible list several names for the one church built by Christ. It is called “Church of God” (I thess. 2:14), “Church of the living God” (I tim. 3:15) and more. This Church of God is also of Christ because whatever is of God is also of Christ (Jn. 16:15;17:9-10).

It is called the Church of the Lord (Acts 20:28, American Standard Version) but the Lord referred to here is the one who shed his blood for the church and this is the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36) who washed the members of the Church with his own blood (Rev. 1:5).

A jesuit scholar, Rev. Francis B. Cassilly, in his book Religion: Doctrine and practice, states that the Church built by Christ from the earliest times has been called after him, the Christian church or the church of Christ, the only true Church and the one which god orders all men to join. To refuse to join this true church is to disobeys God’s orders.