A Question on Being an Instituted Church (3)

Introduction

On her website First Reformed Church of Bulacan (FRCB) posted an article questioning the being of my mother, First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church, Bulacan (FORPCB).

FRCB weaponizes article 38 of the Church Order and thrusts even deeper into the being of FORPCB. First, FRCB unsheathes the article and then brandishes it by apprising that the principle of the article is that the organization of a church should be given “much care and prudence.”¹ And with the help of articles 22 and 24 of the Church Order, FRCB believes that she already has debilitated her enemy. FORPCB has no right to be called a legitimate Reformed church as the Church Order dictates, says FRCB.

Contrary to FRCB’s solipsistic reverie, the Church Order is set to maintain carefully the office of believers and the unity of the churches. My beloved Church Order is for the well-being of the church rather than for determining the being of the church. Article 38 is not hierarchical in any sense. Rather, article 38 is cautious not to harm the liberty of believers and not to disturb the unity of the churches. Article 38 serves the church because the law of Christ, which is true liberty by faith, is embodied in the Church Order.

FRCB uses the Church Order at her will to wage war against the church of Jesus Christ. FRCB’s war is not for the truth but for ascribing more power to herself. How self-fulfilling it is to determine the being of an instituted church. Like the mother of harlots, Babylon, who is drunk with the blood of the saints, FRCB murders the existence of Christ’s church. But like Jezebel, FRCB is not willing to repent of her lies and idolatry.

The Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and her worthy daughter, FRCB, are good at attempting to murder the church. It is their shortest way to end a controversy. Their attempts are not only especially aimed at dismissing believers who left their synagogues but are also strategically aimed at the very center of the church, the preaching of the gospel. Even the enemies know that ordained men in the church “stand or fall in relationship to the Word.”² Thus FRCB must attempt to nullify all FORPCB’s official works by tearing off the arms of those who were put into office.

Unqualified Men?

FRCB recounts the secession of our “group” this way:

This group was led by candidate Jeremiah Pascual (who passed his ‘classical’ examination last January 24, 2022 under Article 8 of the Church Order, making him eligible for a call to the ministry), former elder Ben Catalan (who resigned from the office of elder in 2021 prematurely before his term expired), former elder Jorge Baguhin (who irrevocably resigned from the office of elder and abandoned his office last May 28, 2022 and adamantly refusing to give opportunity to discuss with the consistory his grounds and legitimate reasons for resigning), and deacon Matt Raguirag, who unofficially abandoned his office as a current deacon of the FRCB just a few days before the scheduled Lord’s Supper on June 12, 2022.

Moreover, FRCB writes,

Technically, for a ‘reformed’ church to be organized, they should have at least 2 elders and a deacon to constitute a valid consistory, even when there is no ordained minister of the Word and Sacrament yet. An elder and a deacon does not constitute a ‘valid’ consistory. Plurality of elders is the biblical norm necessary in order to prevent hierarchical tendency in the congregation…

With very little time after the submission of their withdrawal of membership letters on the eve of June 12, 2022, the following day, they already declared their group as an ‘instituted church’ with pictures of the signing of the Formula of Subscription of the two ‘office bearers’ (an alleged elder and a deacon who just very recently abandoned his office) were posted.

Lastly, with regard to my ordination, FRCB claims that the officebearers who laid their hands on me were unqualified:

Candidate Pascual, was apparently ‘ordained (?)’ in the FORPCB as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament by one former elder (not a current active elder prior to their withdrawal), together with a newly ‘installed’ elder by their so-called ‘consistory’ (legitimate?) and a deacon.

FRCB argues that the two officebearers who went with us were questionable. However, questioning our political independence is hierarchical. We were no longer members of FRCB when the two men were elected to be FORPCB’s constituting officebearers.

Having seceded from our mother, the false First Reformed Church of Bulacan, we became free. We were then at liberty to reconstitute the church anew. After picking up from the rubble of the false church, we were left with few men in our fellowship.

Rev. Tyler Ophoff addressed FORPCB with these encouraging words:

If every officebearer in FRCB was corrupt and there were none to lead you out, an election could have been held that same night after your Act of Separation was signed, and all three men could have been elected right then and there.³

Concerning the men who were former officebearers of FRCB, we were not aware of their resignations. Nevertheless, it no longer mattered. The men left FRCB because of her desecration of the sacrament of holy baptism and primarily because of the corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the preaching. These former officebearers were with us and agreed with our reason for leaving. They signed the “Public Declaration of Agreement for Church Institution” in the spirit of articles 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession. We separated ourselves from FRCB because she had manifested herself as a company of those who do not truly belong to the church of Jesus Christ. And there is no other reason to arrive at that judgment than from observing that FRCB is a false church. She has corrupted the gospel and the instituted sacraments of Jesus Christ. Moreover, “she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God” (Belgic Confession 29, in Confessions and Church Order, 64). Because the former officebearers agreed with that spirit of our secession, we found them to be faithful to the truth and the cause of the gospel and qualified to be our constituting officebearers.

These officebearers are considered to be unqualified only in the sight of the enemies. FRCB attacks the officebearers’ freedom to resign and withdraw and thus deems them unworthy officebearers. Undoubtedly, this is calculated to mock the officebearers’ laying of hands upon the man whom God has called for the gospel ministry.

FRCB’s primary thought is that my pastorate is fake and should not be honored. By attacking the very being of FORPCB and the legitimacy of her officebearers, FRCB is aiming at the pulpit of the church of Jesus Christ.

Poisonous Tree?

The deplorable John Flores writes,

Most shocking of all: the initial “elder” (Jorge) went on to install another elder (Reuben Catalan), and together they ordained a minister of the Word—Candidate Jeremiah Pascual!

In a court of law, there’s a principle called the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.”

The “tree” is Brother Jorge Baguhin.

The “fruits” are his acts of oversight, installation of officebearers, and ordination of a minister.

Because the tree (his authority) is illegitimate, all that proceeds from it is null and void ab initio.

Consequently, anything done by these “fruits”—elders, deacons, ministers—is invalid: baptisms, the Lord’s Supper, discipline, preaching, marriages, etc.

The First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan is not an instituted church.

It has no legitimate elders, deacons, minister—or even the status of a church.

That’s the plain fact.

Was this the same as what happened to the Second RPCA, as Rev. Nathan Langerak claimed in his magazine Sword and Slander (oops, I mean Shield)—that PRCA did the same to them?

No.

I, along with the FRCB, believe there was injustice in how the officebearers of the RPC were treated by the PRCA. They were not judged fairly, and the real issue was PRCA’s unwillingness to admit their doctrinal error in the “Good Works Controversy”, which they should have dealt with long ago.

But in the case of the First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan, especially with Brother Jorge Baguhin—no injustice happened. He voluntarily relinquished his office and duties as an elder, and no one forced him at gunpoint to resign. He did it of his own free volition. You will not find any mention of doctrinal issues in his resignation.

This is not comparable to the Second RPCA.

But because Rev. Nathan Langerak’s tongue is quicker than his brain, he hastily compared the two situations and even criticized the previous financial support for the FRCB.⁴

In obsession with the rule of law, John Flores, the deplorable missionary of the false FRCB, cannot keep the world’s philosophies from dictating his judgment. He flaunts—as always—his knowledge about anything in the world. His judgment is not Reformed, as you can easily sense from the above quotation. All hat and no cattle.

As Flores recounts, the then elder of FRCB, whom we elected to be our constituting elder, voluntarily tendered his resignation at FRCB on May 28, 2022. Honestly, upon writing this installment, it is the first time that I have seen the man’s letters of resignation and withdrawal of membership. His resignation has a glaring weakness, as it does not deal with doctrine but speaks only of his failure to fulfill his duty in the office. His withdrawal of membership has the same weakness.

However, what really compelled the man to resign is implied in his withdrawal letter. Hierarchy is what he saw as the overwhelming error in FRCB. He also mentioned in his withdrawal letter the attitude of the officebearers regarding their handling of letters as they received them. Previously, he had sent a letter of concern to the consistory regarding the baptism of a child whose parents were not members of the church. Notice that the man was not merely telling something about the behavior of ordained men in the church, but his primary concern was the hierarchical attitude of the council, which very well reflects a mark of a false church. And this attitude was not a new thing in FRCB, but it has been a long-standing spirit in the consistory room. That hierarchy was so strong that even a seceding officebearer was intimidated as he tendered his resignation and withdrawal of membership.

The former elder of FRCB whom FORPCB chose to be her constituting elder has a weakness. Of course, he does. Upon seeing his letters, I cannot in good conscience say that his resignation and withdrawal of membership were exemplary.

Nevertheless, his letters were not in error. Looking at the face value of the letters, he was not in error. He is not a heretic, and he went through a lawful process. Only John Flores and his church say that the process was not lawful. They could have hindered the resignation, but the man had the liberty to resign and withdraw his membership. John Flores says, “In Reformed church polity, the special offices—including elder—do not reside in the man himself.”⁵ Then what is the point of taking issue with the man’s eldership in our church? He is no longer an elder of FRCB. If he were still an elder of FRCB, I could understand John Flores’ contentions. But the man is plainly no longer an elder of FRCB. Either John Flores is just barking up the wrong tree (poisonous tree, if you will), or his published contention is really moot and academic.

The man’s irrevocable resignation and his withdrawal of membership did not constitute grounds for not being chosen as one of FORPCB’s officebearers. FRCB could have a disputation on the installation if the man were a heretic or not the husband of one wife. If FORPCB had installed a heretic, she undoubtedly would have been in error because that would have concerned the truth. And if the truth were attacked, then and only then would FRCB have a legitimate disputation.

We did not install heretics. We installed men whom we judged to be faithful and qualified, not because they left FRCB or had indisputable resignations. Rather, the men were installed into their respective offices in accordance with the qualifications set by the apostles and out of our liberty as believers united with Jesus Christ.

Plurality?

FRCB’s second issue is plurality. She finds it very hierarchical that we had two constituting officebearers—one elder and one deacon. However, we had in mind that we would be electing additional men into office. The same Sunday of FORPCB’s organization, nominations were made. Two men were nominated, and their names were announced for two Sundays. By silent approbation the congregation approved the men, and thus they were installed on July 3, 2022. Then, having two elders and two deacons, I was ordained on August 28 that year. We never intended to have two men as our council. Again, we were just picking up rubble from the ruin of FRCB. We had only two men whom we knew had served very recently as officebearers.

Nevertheless, having two men is not, in any sense, against the apostolic mandate of plurality. In fact to have two men is a plurality. Matthew 18:20 can be the infallible explanation for why having two men is considered a plurality. The passage pertains not only to the gathering of believers but also, as the immediate context dictates, to the power of the church to discipline. There in the council of men, Christ is in their midst with an astounding declaration of their ecclesiastical authority and power: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

The two officebearers at the time of FORPCB’s organization were a plurality, like the two officebearers when Second Reformed Protestant Church was organized.

However, John Flores claims that the reason Second had two officebearers was different from the reason FORPCB had two officebearers. Flores explains the difference this way:

I, along with the FRCB, believe there was injustice in how the officebearers of the RPC were treated by the PRCA. They were not judged fairly, and the real issue was PRCA’s unwillingness to admit their doctrinal error in the “Good Works Controversy”, which they should have dealt with long ago.

But in the case of the First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan, especially with Brother Jorge Baguhin—no injustice happened. He voluntarily relinquished his office and duties as an elder, and no one forced him at gunpoint to resign. He did it of his own free volition. You will not find any mention of doctrinal issues in his resignation.

According to John Flores, the reasons that Second could have one elder and one deacon as constituting officebearers were the unwillingness of the PRC to admit error in the doctrinal controversy and her injustice to officebearers.

However, it is very noticeable that even three years after John Flores spoke at the Reformed Protestant Churches Family Conference in August 2022 and explained our certain controversy, nothing has changed. He is still not well versed on the doctrinal controversy between the Reformed Protestant Churches and the PRC. You can sense the struggle when he mentions “Good Works Controversy.” He stammers out the words. He gabbles on in staccato, with little fluidity in his thoughts. A stranger to the controversy, who thus lacks much knowledge of it, can explain in general terms what happened between these two denominations, but a true Reformed man is not content with general terms, and he makes sure that his language is characterized by distinct terms of the Reformed faith. He knows sharpness because he is taught by his antithetical Lord.

The issue regarding the legitimacy of having two officebearers, as Flores claims, was not the failure of the PRC to admit her doctrinal error, for Synod 2018 had determined that there was an error in the PRC concerning the covenant. However, in its decision synod gave obedience a ruinous place in man’s fellowship with Jehovah. This error teaches that fellowship, which in essence is an eternal life-union with God through Christ, is gained by man’s activities of faith and obedience. This is open theism clothed in Reformed terminologies and pedagogy. It is works-righteousness at its core, a righteousness that is outside Christ and foreign to the justification of the elect.

John Flores has not changed. He is still devoid of Reformed distinctives while very anxious of carnal things. Reverend Ophoff recounts what happened when John Flores visited the Reformed Protestant Churches Family Conference:

One morning he led the devotions. Afterward there was an opportunity to ask questions. In an attempt to get to what should have been the heart of Flores’ visit, a member of the audience asked a simple question to the effect of “What did you hear or read in Protestant Reformed preaching or writing that caused you to understand there was false doctrine?” Flores stood there, fumbling around for words. Another audience member restated the question. Flores’ answer was that he had to consult his notes, and he did not have them with him. The young people in the audience could have answered that meatball question! But Flores had nothing to say! No rousing defense of the Reformed faith. Instead, we later got a pathetic plea about how the people in the Philippines go to bed hungry while in America we go to bed with full bellies and fluffy pillows. Translated, keep giving us money because people are starving.⁶

However, doctrinal controversy does not merit exception from plurality. John Flores is wrong. Plurality is a Reformed principle in church government. Even Second is not excused, if you will. His argument quickly falls to the ground. In fact both Second and FORPCB were faithfully committed to Reformed church government in their organizations.

Rev. Cornelius Hanko has a wonderful explanation on the unity of the three offices in the church. It implies the union of believers with Jesus Christ, that even in their ecclesiastical life, in the special offices, Christ is one Lord of his body. Hanko asserts,

We commonly distinguish between those three, ministers, elders and deacons. Yet there is actually only a twofold office in the church, simply the office of elders and deacons. And these two are essentially one. Essentially the office is always one, for Christ is the Office Bearer, Who is at the same time Prophet, and Priest, and King. Thus also believers hold the same threefold office in Christ’s name. This also becomes evident in the special office.⁷

Such an assertion is in full agreement with the spirit of article 32 of the Belgic Confession, which teaches us that order in the church and the exercise of discipline through the officebearers should tend “to nourish and preserve concord” (Confessions and Church Order, 66). Good Reformed church order aims to serve not only the unity of the body of Jesus Christ as it is united with him but also the unity of essentially one office, which is twofold—elders and deacons.

Such an assertion is also in full agreement with the principle of article 37 of the Church Order, which says, “Whenever the number of the elders is small, the deacons may be added to the consistory by local regulation; this shall invariably be the rule where the number is less than three” (Confessions and Church Order, 391).

Rev. Richard Moore explains this article:

The last part of this statement, that “this shall invariably be the rule,” was added in 1914 as a matter of safety and sanctified wisdom. Because God providentially has kept our congregations limited in terms of membership, and because the preaching of the pure gospel of Christ is not attractive to the mass of people, the exception has almost become the rule in our denomination. For the majority of our congregations, the deacons have been added to the number of the elders to serve in Consistory. In many cases this remains necessary because of size limitation.⁸

Notice how he relates the provision of the fathers to the preaching of the gospel, which effectually calls the elect and hardens the reprobate wicked. Such a connection is beautiful. It does not give the impression that a church is defined by how many souls she has in membership but by the gospel she holds—a gospel which is offensive and unattractive to the flesh.

The implication of the addition of the deacons to the consistory is that they

must be included in all the decisions of the Consistory. They give advice and vote on all matters of the Consistory. This includes the matters of spiritual concerns within the congregation, and upon matters of Christian discipline as well. In effect, while they are added to the Consistory, the deacons also in these decisions are acting elders. The converse is also true, the elders together with the deacons make decisions concerning the work of the office of mercy. To do otherwise would be contrary to the church order.⁹

However, this explanation does not promote unity without distinction. An elder should function primarily as an elder; the same holds true for a deacon. But regarding the limitation of their number, they can still govern a Reformed church in plurality. One can function as a deacon (primarily) and as an elder (necessarily) at the same time.

It is not hierarchy to have one elder and one deacon. It is a legitimate council in accordance with the Reformed Church Order. Christ is there amidst them “to nourish and preserve concord” in the church of Jesus Christ. Christ was amidst the constituting councils of Second Reformed Protestant Church and FORPCB. What was not amidst them was the presence of the false PRC and FRCB, which wanted these churches to be chained in shackles. The churches were free from hierarchy, a God-given liberty of being in submission under their Lord, Jesus Christ. Deus nobiscum, quis contra? (If God is for us, who can be against us?)

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1).