Ad Hominem

In this article I correspond partly with an article written on the official website of First Reformed Church of Bulacan (formerly First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan). What is written on the website is specifically addressed to First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church, Bulacan (FORPCB), the church of which I am the minister. Thus the section, which has three articles, is titled “Response to Orthodox RPC.” The first two articles are position papers concerning the history of FORPCB’s secession in June 2022 from First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan. The articles lay out the defense of First Reformed Church of Bulacan (FRCB) for the baptism of a child whose parents were withdrawn communicant members of another Reformed church (specifically the Berean Protestant Reformed Church, Philippines). These two position papers are two parts of a document titled “Position Paper on the Issues Raised by the FORPCB Against the First Reformed Church of Bulacan.” I suppose that these first two articles come from an official document of FRCB since they are designated as position papers.¹

However, it is regrettable that FRCB refused to send the position papers as official documents to the church to whom FRCB was responding. As far as I recall, on August 16, 2022, the council of FORPCB ensured that its official position paper on baptism and church membership was received by FRCB prior to the paper’s distribution to the September 2022 classis meeting of the Reformed Protestant Churches in America. The document was sent to FRCB twice.  FRCB did not correspond with FORPCB regarding its position paper, but FRCB ignored the paper and set it aside. Total silence. No public preaching, no doctrinal classes, and not even any articles were made available online to refute FORPCB’s position paper. However, FORPCB consistently ensures a fair debate by making all her preaching, doctrinal classes, and writings available online.

To censure FORPCB—though she sees the humor in the situation—after more than two years, all FRCB did was to take a screenshot of my face during a FORPCB worship service and post it on FRCB’s website without prior consent. No interactions with my sermons, doctrinal classes, or doctrinal articles were made. FRCB appears to be more interested in undermining her opponent’s integrity than in interacting with his doctrine. I know that FRCB is too invested in making herself look smart, but using her opponent’s photographs (for the third time) is not smart but childish. FRCB is found guilty of violating the eighth commandment, which the Heidelberg Catechism explains in Lord’s Day 42: “That I promote the advantage of my neighbor in every instance I can or may, and deal with him as I desire to be dealt with by others.” The prohibition of committing theft (in FRCB’s case, acquiring photographs without consent) hangs on the principle of promoting the advantage of the neighbor. FRCB is also found guilty of violating the ninth commandment, which the Catechism explains in Lord’s Day 43: “That I defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor” (Confessions and Church Order, 132–33). Even the wicked Philippine magistrates prohibit such unauthorized use of someone’s photographs under the provision of R. A. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This is how careless and evil the actions of FRCB were. Those actions prove FRCB to be guilty of violating God’s law and culpable of violating the laws of the land. In FRCB’s constant attempts to avoid a doctrinal defense regarding the controversy, those who wrote the articles consciously put themselves in a battle over personalities. The disregard of God’s law and even of civil law is prevalent and inevitable when the battle is of this kind.

This disregard for the law is clearly the result when a church is built upon the will and doctrine of man. Man—the persona per se—always has the preeminence, so that when the truth is spoken and defended in the church, the hunt against the person begins in order that certain men’s names are maintained and given due respect. Man, man, man. All about man. Whether against or for man, the controversy is always characterized by fighting about man. No doctrine. No gospel. No principle is needed since a church that is built upon man is equipped to engage with worldly ways and philosophies. Obsession with man hastens the spiritual demise of a church. Worse yet, obsession with man exhibits a church’s carnal and natural state, which only proves her to be destitute of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. These words of the apostle Paul rightly fit FRCB’s obsession with man: “Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:15–18).

The first two articles on FRCB’s website intend only to incriminate the officebearers and members of FORPCB. The minds behind the documents have no desire whatsoever to defend the gospel. It goes without saying that incrimination involves only man’s reputation but never serves the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Reformed Protestant Churches witnessed how this way of thinking rightly fit the attitude of Rev. John Flores when he spoke about the controversy at the Reformed Protestant Churches Family Conference in August 2022. His speech was consistently humanistic but never Reformed.² And by reading the articles on FRCB’s website, you can easily judge them for yourself and see how they are written to defend certain prominent names in the church while inflicting harm to the names of those who left FRCB in June 2022. Relying on mudslinging is undeniably dirty and ugly. Moreover, such a ploy can be used by only cowardly and lazy persons who are accustomed to stepping away from the heart of an issue and who eventually resort to worldly brawling.

FRCB’s litany defending the baptism of an infant whose parents were not members of FRCB offers no substantial biblical and creedal arguments. I think my previous articles published in Sword and Shield since June 2024 disprove FRCB’s claims as she stubbornly defends her procedural-error argument (since FRCB insists that baptizing an infant whose parents are not members of the church is just a procedural mistake).

I do not intend to interact with the first two articles on FRCB’s website since FORPCB’s position paper has not received any official correspondence from the consistory of FRCB. Besides, way before these supposed positional articles of FRCB were published online, the position paper of FORPCB had presented and defended the Reformed view of the relationship of church membership with baptism. Falling on deaf ears, consequently, the position paper of FORPCB would find no substantial and new arguments from FRCB in her positional articles. Nevertheless, I do not wish to outrun our church and get ahead of her to fight her enemy. Let FORPCB officially correspond with FRCB. I am no match for the wisdom of FORPCB’s council of men.

Clerical Magicians

I intend to respond to only the third article published on FRCB’s website under the title “Instituted Church?” The author of the article is unknown. But the assumption on which I make a judgment is that, along with the first two articles, the third one is an official statement of FRCB. However, since this particular article does not touch the heart of what is mainly in dispute (that is, the article skirts the controversy itself), I will give my personal take on the third article. I will do so not because I am mentioned specifically in the article nor because my character is being questioned. I have no intention of defending myself no matter how hard the document tries to malign my character. FRCB is always free to throw mud at me. I can confess with the heart that I am more wicked than that for which FRCB accuses me. A sinner I am today, the chief of sinners, until my last breath. Rather, I am set to defend the church as she is manifested in the world and the liberty of the believers constituting an instituted church.

The Romish church always questions the office of the believer and the liberty the believer has in Christ. Boasting about her mothership, Rome abuses her power and shackles her children to traditions and superstitions. She stands tall before her children, using every means to make them obedient by imposing laws and regulations in order to restrain them from doing what is biblical and godly—suppressing their rights to fulfill their godly callings as dictated by the law of Christ and tyrannically deciding for her children through manipulation—whether in a secret meeting or in a public meeting. And all these are only possible when her children are shackled to her religion, so that whenever liberty is achieved by some of her children, she gaslights the remaining children to make them believe a lie and to provoke them to anger against those who left. She attacks the seceders and accuses them of many evil things. She calls them Protestants to connote that they are unruly enemies of the church.

This attitude of Rome is seen in every false church that has existed in history. For instance, an ancient false church impugned the godliness of Christ’s religion by calling the believers Christians and accused believers of being followers of a con man whose body had been robbed by his disciples. Then some years later, after the apostles had died, believers were called cannibals because they ate and drank Christ. Or in the time of the Protestant Reformation, a false church called the Reformed believers Sacramentarians and Calvinists, giving despite to their sacraments and the gospel of sovereign grace. In the late modern years during the time of Rev. Herman Hoeksema, Rev. Henry Danhof, and Rev. George Ophoff, the believers were branded as Anabaptists because they rejected Abraham Kuyper’s theory of common grace and the well-meant offer of the gospel of the three points of the Christian Reformed Church and insisted on the spiritual separation of the church and the world. And more recently in the 2021 reformation that led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, the believers were called troublemakers and schismatics.

Finally, in the case of those who left FRCB and formed First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church, Bulacan, FRCB continuously impugns the legitimacy of FORPCB’s being a true church institute. FRCB ascribes more power and authority to herself than to the word of God (Belgic Confession 29). FRCB makes herself a judge over the very being of an institute.  She does not judge whether a church is a true or false church, but she judges even the legitimacy of the institute, despite the fact that the church she is judging was organized out of the office and liberty of believers. Thus over and over again she refers to FORPCB as a mere “group.” In the third article FRCB refers to FORPCB as such almost ten times. If FRCB would call FORPCB a false church, I could appreciate that. That is all right. No hard feelings. Nothing personal about that because that language is biblical and confessional. But if FRCB wants to secure the remaining children inside her synagogue, there is something amusing in calling the ones who left a mere “group” because, after all, for FRCB the battle is consistently over who is right, and who is wrong; who is more convincing, and who is far-fetched; and who is more influential, and who is insignificant. The battle is about man. Amusing, is it not? Imagine how comical it is to see a man brawling over his opinions and principles. “Those who left? Oh, they are just a group of people blindly following a leader. They are just a group of people related to an eloquent man.” I ask, why call FORPCB just a “group”? Why not a false church? The explanation lies in the heart of the controversy—baptism and church membership.

The controversy is confessional. No matter what the church does, the dispute weighs more heavily on the doctrinal side than on the procedural one. Baptism and church membership are both implications of our being one with Christ by intimate fellowship through faith. Baptism and church membership in principle have covenantal implications. They are not mere procedures, nor can they stand apart from the doctrine of Christ’s mystical union with every member of his church. The Reformed confessions and creeds understand the relationship clearly, so that making baptism and church membership mere procedures undermines the authority of Christ and his word as expressed in the Reformed confessions and exposes the false church and her superstitions.

Calling a doctrinal disagreement a “controversy” is an exaggeration for FRCB. She writes,

Take note that since this group took an issue with the First Reformed Church of Bulacan (i.e., a mere issue which they exaggerated to be a ‘controversy’) without even exerting efforts to engage in exhaustive deliberations or even a series of discussions to categorically come up with a sound position on doctrine and practice pertaining to what is being disputed.³

This statement strategically dismisses the people and the doctrinal controversy. FRCB has to do this so that she can belittle and dismiss her glaring doctrinal error in the baptism of an infant whose parents were not members of FRCB. Also, by dismissing the people who objected to FRCB’s error, she can divert the attention of the laity from the doctrinal error toward the seceders. The leaders of FRCB are like magicians—clerical magicians—from Egypt who perform manipulation in the realm of doctrinal illusion. Through diversion FRCB’s focus is now on the people who left rather than on the error she committed in the administration of baptism. Why? Because she knows that a false church does not administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his word (Belgic Confession 29). If FRCB would delve into the heart of the doctrinal issues, it would give a hint to the laity that she is despicably a wolf in sheep’s clothing. One hint could make the laity hear her howl. Her error in illegitimately administering baptism betrays her true identity—that is, as an instituted church she constitutes the false church. From her old mother, the Protestant Reformed Churches, she inherited her character and skill in manipulating the laity by eloquently saying, “There is no controversy here. We are fine. The issue is just a dispute over semantics. There is no doctrinal error. There is peace.”

The prophecy of Jeremiah condemns these seemingly comforting words:

13. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

14. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

15. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord. (Jer. 6:13–15)

There is no peace when the law of God is despised; when Christ’s institution of the sacraments is profaned; when membership in the church institute is deemed a merely procedural matter; and when the Reformed confessions are thrown down in pretense of love for the supremacy of scripture.

God’s Witnessing for the Truth

If baptism and membership are not a controversy, what are they?

First Reformed Church of Bulacan writes,

There were no follow up meetings nor further discussions re: this so-called ‘doctrinal’ concern (i.e, not even a protest) after only a single meeting between candidate Jeremiah Pascual and the consistory to clarify and resolve his apparent serious concern on this matter. And yet everyone in this group who sent their letter of withdrawal of membership used this same issue as one of their main grounds for withdrawing their membership. They simply followed blindly this malicious and baseless allegation. They all claimed that the issue is such a serious matter and even made it a blown-up controversy declaring the matter as a heresy; hastily concluding that the FRCB has altogether thrown the creeds and confessions. They maliciously judged the FRCB to be guilty of ‘bibliolatry’ without even giving tangible proofs nor further deliberating, clarifying and carefully evaluating their judgment.⁴

In this statement it seems that FRCB qualifies a “serious matter” as a controversy only if it is “a blown-up controversy.” Let me ask FRCB: Was the controversy between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the then Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan on April 25, 2021, a “blown-up controversy,” so that suddenly on May 16 of that same year, members left the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (PRCP) and formed First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan? Was it? After the 2015 sermon of Rev. David Overway, those of us in the Bulacan church never heard the word controversy regarding faith, good works, and the covenant. But all seemed quiet and at ease with the PRCP. Her pulpit was silent. She made no effort to write against the doctrines of the PRC. But after individuals of First Reformed Protestant Church gave the assurance of financial support to members who intended to leave the PRCP, suddenly there was “a blown-up controversy.” Abruptly and surreptitiously, plans were orchestrated. I ask again, were there any efforts made to have a series of meetings with the PRCP? All we heard at the PRCP meeting of classis on April 25, 2021—the day that Rev. John Flores was given a hint that the RPC in America would be very willing to support a newly seceded church financially—was Reverend Flores’ allusion that his church would be leaving the PRCP. After members withdrew from the denomination on May 16 and formed First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan, did the church send a single letter to the PRCP concerning the controversy? Did the church initiate a meeting to discuss the matter? All we had was April 25 and May 16. That is all. According to FRCB’s judgment now, should she consider the 2021 separation as if it were caused by “a blown-up controversy”? She lies if she answers positively. A hypocrite she is, to say the least.

A controversy is not qualified by the process it has to go through but by the subject in dispute. Doctrine is the highest priority, for a controversy is always about the justification of the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked (Deut. 25:1). A controversy is between the truth and the lie, not primarily about the process or if everybody is following the ordinary way of protest and appeal or writing this or that to the council or consistory. Controversy is, first of all, conviction of the truth. “The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land” (Hos. 4:1). “The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah” (Hos. 12:2). “Hear ye, O mountains, the Lord’s controversy” (Mic. 6:2). Jehovah has the truth, and upon examination of sinners, controversy with them arises. He exposes the lie in the lives and lips of sinners because the priority of Jehovah is his truth as it stands against the lie. Thus every controversy between men should be done before Jehovah (Deut. 19:17) because only God is true, while every man is a liar (Rom. 3:4). Thus every controversy should never be between men alone. Man has no right to quarrel against his kind since he is a liar, as is everyone else. Mudslinging must only be done outside of or apart from God. It is never an activity worthy of God. It is not something prescribed to those who are before God or to those who are in his fellowship. Thus the dispute should be made before God. He is the highest implication of truth and the final arbiter of disputes. This applies also to every controversy in the Reformed Protestant Churches or with other churches. That should be done before Jehovah because he himself will witness for the truth; and when he witnesses for the truth, true liberty is attained (John 8:32). His word determines the end of every controversy.

True enough, according to Deuteronomy 19:17, standing before Jehovah implies resolving controversy before the ordained officebearers. But exegetically speaking according to the context of this verse, the controversy was between men in Israel, not between men and the church or the officebearers. One instance in the Old Testament where a controversy was between the members and the officebearers is recorded in Numbers 16:1–35, and history tells us that God defended the officebearers against the members, and the members were killed or excommunicated through destructive and painful deaths. But there was another instance in which a controversy between officebearers and members of Israel, the daughters of Zelophehad, was resolved through inquiring of God regarding what to do, and God vindicated the cause of the daughters, and the laws in the land were adjusted in response to the need of the people (Num. 27:1–11).

Whether a controversy happens between men or between officebearers and members of the church, the priority is the truth. When we conclude that that is the case, we simply mean that God witnesses for the truth. God resolves the controversies by himself. And in Reformed churches today, the Reformed creeds, as summaries of biblical truths, settle doctrinal controversy because God himself speaks through those creeds with authority coming from his own word.

In our case the council of FRCB has no regard for the Reformed creeds and thus has no regard for the truth. Upon receiving a letter of concern on April 30, 2022, about the April 24, 2022, infant baptism and meeting with the letter sender on May 29, 2022, the officebearers of FRCB proved themselves to be destitute of the truth. They proved this especially on June 5, 2022, when FRCB made an announcement gaslighting the congregation that the problem was the letter sender, who FRCB claimed was rather confused about the procedure in baptizing an infant who belonged to another church.

Members of FRCB heard the announcement and some members were convinced that the sacrament of holy baptism had been profaned and the importance of membership in the church had been set aside. They were convinced that these two things are confessional truths that FRCB persistently despised. The council left those members with no other option than to secede since it was clear that the council would not listen to the truth. God convicted the believers that there was no truth in the lips of the council and that there was no interest in the truth. The priority was the truth. The priority was not to write letters upon letters to the council. One improper administration of the sacrament and one announcement defending the glaring error in that administration were enough for those believers to be fully convinced that the church was heading toward destruction and walking in the way of Rome.

That God had truly witnessed for the truth was evident since the conviction of the truth was prioritized, and this inevitably produced in the lives of his children the urgency to fulfill their calling “to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church” (Belgic Confession 28, in Confessions and Church Order, 61). In prioritizing the truth sometimes leaving a false church as soon as possible is the best way to serve the truth. The supposed man-made rules should never hold the people of God when the voice of Christ is clearly heard, calling the people to come out of the false church. The call should come first and therefore be the priority of those who have been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ, for inside a false church the truth will always be choked in the service of man.

If the withdrawal of membership of FRCB from the PRCP was done in the service of the truth, then I might say that all lapses in taking the course of due process should never be an issue. If the withdrawal of FRCB happened immediately, even on the day after she learned that the PRCP was in error, there would be no problem as long as the priority was the truth. The process should never be an issue. The truth comes first because any controversy is about the justification of the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked. Controversy regarding the truth is about life and death. The same principle should be applied to the former members of FRCB, who now constitute FORPCB and who withdrew their membership on the basis of the erroneous infant baptism and the public announcement defending and covering up that error. Jehovah had controversy with the baptism, with the parents of the child, with the council, with the carnal minister, with the preaching, and with the whole church. And since Jehovah witnesses for truth, the Spirit of Christ who dwells in the hearts of those former members of FRCB always seeks the truth or where that truth is preached. The implication, of course, is to separate from where this truth is not preached and practiced and to join like-minded Christians who are willing to despise themselves in the building of the church of Jesus Christ as it is manifested in the institute.

I will continue my further response to FRCB in the next article, the Lord willing.

The judgment of the world…through the cross of Christ must begin at the Church, in order that God’s Church in Christ may be justified and saved, while man’s Church is condemned and destroyed. For even as we distinguished in the previous chapter between God’s world and man’s world, so we must now distinguish between God’s Church and man’s church, the true and the false church, the faithful bride and the adulterous woman. The one is called Jerusalem, the city of the living God, the daughter of Sion; the name of the other is Sodom and Gomorrah, even though in the world she appears as Jerusalem. To the one the Lord says, Ammi, My people; to the other He says: Lo Ammi, not My people. They are Jacob whom God loves, and Esau whom He hates. In the world they are always one to a certain extent, like the wheat and the chaff. Especially was this the case in the old dispensation, when the church was under the law and confined within the limits of Israel’s theocracy. Also in the new dispensation the false church constantly arises in the bosom of the truth; and always that false church seeks to gain the ascendency, the controlling influence in the church in the world. It seeks the pulpit that it may corrupt the truth of the gospel; it wants a ruling position that it may deliver the Church to the world and the devil. But in the new dispensation the true church can always maintain purity of doctrine by separating from the false, apostate church in the world. In the days of the Old Testament this was impossible. There was one throne of David, one temple, one king, one service of God according to the law, one institute, and if the wicked were in power, occupied the throne and served officially in the temple, the true Church had no means of expressing itself…Nor is there a more wicked, abominable, hypocritical, self-righteous, self complacent, outwardly pious and inwardly corrupt part of the world whose prince is the devil than the false, apostate church, that wicked adulteress that denies that Jesus is the Christ! It is that church that stones the prophets and then builds their tombs, that kills the righteous and then garnishes their sepulchres; it is that church that is compared to a whitewashed sepulchre, beautiful without but within full of dead men’s cones and uncleanness; it is that ungodly, abominable, antichristian harlot that sheds all the blood of the saints, that crucified Christ, and always crucifies Him again! (Herman Hoeksema, When I Survey… (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1977, 12–13)