Skip to main content

Iglesia Ni Cristo - Is it really the Church of Christ???

+
JMJ

Recently a member of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), handed out pamphlets at an SSPX chapel.  While the Catholic Church is in a crisis on numerous levels, it remains today the Church of Christ.

As for the INC, there were a number of claims under the heading of "What We Believe and Why".  These are summed up as "the Iglesia Ni Cristo" upholds the pristine teachings of the Bible.

This will make our job of determining the veracity of their claims as to being the Church of Christ much simpler. 

Why?

Because if their belief can be found at fault in one aspect of the truths found in the Bible, then obviously their religion is not the Church of Christ.


I believe that the key is their rejection of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here's what they believe on the topic:

The Lord Jesus Christ
The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 3:17), is the one and only Savior given by God (Acts 13:23). Christ is the sole mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:5) and the only way to God (John 14:6).
But we do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is God-Man. He is man in nature according to His own testimony (John 8:40) and the teachings of His Apostles (I Timothy 2:5; Matthew 1:18).
The attributes of a human being were found in Christ. He hungered (Matthew 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), became weary or tired (John 4:6), slept (Matthew 8:24), and died (Matthew 27:50; I Corinthians 15:3). However, Christ as distinct from all men, is the only one who did not sin (I Peter 2:21-22; Hebrews 4:15).
He has been exalted by God and given a name above all other names, that at the name of Christ every knee should bow, those in heaven, and those on earth (Philippians 2:9-11). He has been placed by God far above all principality, power, might and dominion, and every name that is named, and all things have been put under His feet (Ephesians 1:21-22). Christ will eventually subject all His power and authority to the true God (I Corinthians 15:27-28). He had in so many instances introduced Himself as the Son of God but never did He appropriate the title “God?nor “God the Son?for Himself because He is not God but man.

So, did Our Lord Jesus Christ ever claim or be acclaimed to be God in the Bible???

Looking at the "Textual Concordance of the Holy Scriptures" by Thomas David Williams, we find a number of references under the section "Christ is True God". Here is a sample of citations:
  1. John i. 1-3, 10,
  2. John viii. 57,58
  3. John viii. 25
  4. John x. 30-33
  5. John xx. 28, 29
  6. Acts iii. 14, 15
  7. Acts x. 36
  8. Coll. ii. 9.
  9. 2. Peter i. 1.
Obviously, just from looking at these scriptures it is obvious that Our Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed to be God.

Thus we can conclude that the claim of Iglesia Ni Cristo to being the Church of Christ is false.

As a Catholic, I state with St. Thomas:
28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
Would that others who have not seen, would believe.

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year:  "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'.  The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage.  The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

 + JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden  communicatio in sacris  [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014  District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on  supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity  exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles,  The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X  which in summary demonstrat...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3