Introduction

With this article I begin an introduction of the history of First Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan, which eventually seceded from the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (PRCP) on May 16, 2021. I am aware that the reader might think that this article, which recounts our history, is a bit sloppy. I understand that. Our secession and reformation were an atypical process. They involved taking tortuous courses and unsystematic planning. And they also involved actions that were impetuous in nature.

But in the wisdom of God, all things were organically one as he directed all things unto his desired end. And God’s will is absolutely good. Despite the impulsiveness of his people during the course of history, he is always mindful of his will to save them and to reform them according to his word.

It is my hope that you come along with me as I recount the history just before Bulacan’s secession in 2021. It would not be wise to tire you, so I intricately weaved the history so that you might also be acquainted with our
origin. And I want to begin with the publication of Sword and Shield, which undoubtedly became a vehicle of truth for those of us who were sitting in the dark and quiet place. Sword and Shield’s witness, in distinction from the official proclamation of the word of God in the church, is faithful and edifies the believers here and beyond.

The Magazine

We heard in 2020 that a new publication had come off the press in June. One could already sense the excitement and thrill among the church members on this side of the world. Young men were thrilled with how things were progressing in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRC). However, the senior members held differing perspectives. Nonetheless, those who were opposed to the magazine could be heard instantly, although they did not provide any justification for their opposition other than that the magazine was unnecessary and schismatic and hence should be avoided. Some people were indifferent, while others were resolved to remain silent.

Being new, Sword and Shield could be used to widen the rifts within the PRC. The magazine was deemed schismatic in a trice.

The reactions were understandable, since many were aware of the ongoing doctrinal controversy in the PRC, and seeing such an exotic, strange magazine for the first time drew negative impressions. All believed that the Standard Bearer was enough. Though many read it sparingly, they were religious zealots who believed that their publication remained worthy of trust. There was absolutely no reason for another publication. It was extremely difficult for many people to decide whether to support the endeavor of the new magazine, its editors, and the group of believers who consciously published it out of their freedom in Christ. Many regarded the magazine, its editors, and Reformed Believers Publishing as an unruly mob committed to schism, while the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) was regarded as holy and righteous in its publication of the Standard Bearer, which they believed was committed to the truth and was a faithful presentation of the Protestant Reformed distinctives.

But these negative reactions were legitimately wrong and unreformed. Those who opposed Sword and Shield easily forgot how some members of Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church had organized the RFPA, which eventually published the Standard Bearer. Prior to being part of the organization of the RFPA, Rev. Herman Hoeksema and Rev. Henry Danhof were on the staff of the Witness, where they could freely write and critique and oppose Dr. Janssen’s heretical teachings. However, due to the common grace controversy, the staff of the Witness was divided internally. Hence Reverend Hoeksema and Reverend Danhof severed from the publication so that they could defend the truth freely in a new magazine. Article 3 of the minutes of the original meeting of a new organization of believers says,

Fifteen brethren were present, who unanimously decided to organize as a Publication Committee and to discuss that same evening matters pertaining to the support of the brethren ministers Rev. H. Danhof, of Kalamazoo, and Rev. H. Hoeksema, of Grand Rapids, in the publishing and sending out, as well as also the bearing of expenses in connection with the publishing of brochures, and, if possible, of a paper.

The reasons for this weighty step were the refusal and return by De Wachter of a series of articles written by the aforementioned ministers for our Reformed people. In order to be able to answer all the various writings coming from one side—and sometimes besmudged with personal hatred—this was the only way to offer the aforementioned ministers the opportunity to defend themselves against their attackers in the eyes of the Reformed reading public.¹

It is needful to remind the reader that this organization, which would later become the RFPA and which, after about five months, would publish the Standard Bearer, was formed while the Banner, the official publication of the Christian Reformed Church, was still being published. Also, the Standard Bearer was originally free from ecclesiastical control. The magazine was free, just as Sword and Shield is now.

I could not find any fault in publishing a new magazine amidst the doctrinal controversy in the PRC. Sword and Shield was necessary. It was totally Reformed to write in defense of the truth. It was practically timely. The bloody discussions about faith, good works, and the covenant impacted every home. Individuals were having theological conversations over the legitimacy of the controversy, while others said the controversy was simply a matter of terminology, not of doctrine. But the issue was, is, and will always be between the truth and the lie. Rev. A. Lanning asserted the same in setting forth the intention of Sword and Shield to engage in various battles of the Christian:

The war is between the truth and the lie. In this war that spans all earthly history, there are many battles. There are doctrinal battles. There are ethical and moral battles. There are battles in the heart of the individual child of God. There are battles in the church. By its name, Sword and Shield announces its intention, under the blessing of God, to engage in all of these battles for the cause of God’s truth and the comfort of God’s people.²

Defending the truth is even more necessary during doctrinal unrest in the churches. Pulpits and pens should be used to uphold the truth and mend the almost palpable chaos among the members. Silencing the truth cannot mend chaos in the churches. Rather, silencing the truth only further inflicts grievous bodily harm to the church of Jesus Christ.

Amidst many voices, most of which are known and trusted for what they say, the truth must be upheld at all costs. Only cowards remain silent when the truth needs to be upheld and promoted through all necessary means. Believers are never relieved of their calling always to confess and to defend the truth publicly. “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” (2 Cor. 13:8). Almost spontaneously, believers tell and confess the truth whenever necessary. Whenever the truth is upheld and promoted, believers support the holy endeavor wherever that truth is placed antithetically against the lie. The following statement of Reverend Lanning is relevant:

Members who perhaps have been under the mistaken impression that silence is the holiest approach to the controversy will be liberated to read, hear, learn, understand, and confess the truth as it is being sharpened through the controversy.³

This new publication in 2020 was instrumental in awakening a handful of believers in this part of the world. I have been one of its silent readers since its publication.

Hush

I consequently equipped myself by following the controversy through Sword and Shield and Dewey Engelsma’s audacious blog, which started in 2021. I admit that it was difficult to follow the controversy. For almost six years, we in the Philippines were totally blind regarding the doctrinal controversy. There were no lectures, refutations, or discussions during that time. We were oblivious to what was happening to our sister. The foreign missionaries remained silent and refused to divulge any details.

I spoke with one of the missionaries for a brief time, but he deemed the controversy to be mere semantics. Such an approach is never helpful during controversy. His approach was only a watering down of the very core of the matter. There is nothing semantic between an unconditional and a conditional covenant, between a grace principle and a work principle, between justification by faith alone and justification through repentance, and between sovereign grace and the determinative activity of man. To put it this way: there is nothing semantic between faith and unbelief. The controversy was not vague. It was clear and hung on this question: Is the covenant unconditional even when it comes to experiencing it? The controversy was a legitimate controversy, and it needed careful study of God’s word.

I remember trying to start a conversation by asking one of the missionaries about his knowledge of the new publication. I failed. I was not heard. There was not even a slight reaction. My words vanished into thin air in a trice. That was the time that I felt hopeless.

My church, the then First Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan, was also silent. The pulpit was silent because Rev. John Flores was ignorant of the controversy. Since 2015 he had been unaware of the PRC’s state of theology. His sermons would have made it clear if he had been aware. He was silent just like the others, but his silence was owing to his ignorance.

My church had exerted her strength on the wrong path. The year was 2017 when there was a controversy regarding the shape of the earth. Some of us in Bulacan were very concerned because Reverend Flores persuaded us to pursue the subject. If Sherlock Holmes was completely indifferent as to whether the sun moved around the earth or the earth around the sun, our outstanding pastor was not only concerned with the geocentric model but also with the shape of the earth. He exerted every effort to develop his theories; and because of his eloquence, he had dupes under his care.

And shameful it is; count me among the dupes. I was one of them. And I should confess this: “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). That is exactly what happened.

We began laboring toward the development of the notion that the earth was flat, and the matter even touched not only anthropology but also eschatology. That is, the flat-earth theory supports the idea that the coming of Jesus Christ will be seen by all inhabitants of the earth, and that could only be possible if the earth were flat. Some of our comrades even pushed and pressed the fight using the Reformed creeds, thus making the matter confessional. We were also aware that Herman Hoeksema was against the flat-earth theory as expressed in his Reformed Dogmatics,⁴ and we did not care. Our supposed biblical presuppositions, not the Reformed fathers, were the tour de force. We did not need Hoeksema at that time, and we gladly critiqued him. If Professor Engelsma humbly critiqued Herman Hoeksema’s eschatological lapse regarding his view of two separate resurrections for the elect and reprobate,⁵ we, on the other hand, had the audacity to critique Hoeksema’s view that the earth was not flat. Shamefully absurd.

The controversy occasioned a controlled discussion with all the Protestant Reformed missionaries. Because of the commotion in the PRCP, the missionaries agreed to meet with us on February 16, 2018. The discussion was a disaster. We manifested ourselves exactly as we were—dupes. Reverend Flores was silent during the discussion because he could not sustain his theories with the missionaries from the PRC. He was simply there, condoning our tyrannical treatment of cherry-picked biblical passages in defense of our theory. But we were so deceived that we thought we were doing a holy service. That insanity persisted until 2021 when First Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan reorganized as a Reformed Protestant congregation. Reverend Flores was so thrilled to tell us that Reverend Lanning was a flat-earther. Aha! A comrade! It was always the trivial, absurd things that gave Reverend Flores joy, never the truth found in the Reformed Protestant Churches. Never. It all was about the earth’s shape! Of all the important doctrines, we were so fond of the shape of the earth. Shameful! I assure you that my cheeks flush at the very thought of what we did during the doctrinal controversy in the PRC. We wasted every opportunity of laboring upon the things that were truly Reformed.

Every minister in the PRCP and the Protestant Reformed missionaries were occupied with something other than the PRC’s theological dispute on good works and the covenant. We were very distracted back then. However, not one of the Protestant Reformed missionaries took the initiative to teach the PRCP members. It seemed that our sister wanted seclusion in order to avoid being disturbed by her Filipino counterpart. This was against the constitution of the PRC’s contact committee, which says that a sister-church relationship implies

taking heed to one another’s life as churches; constantly acquainting one another with decisions of their broadest assemblies; mutual decisions as to revisions of and additions to the creeds, the Church Order, and liturgical forms.⁶

I cannot imagine a sister-church relationship characterized by individualism and hierarchy. If the truth determines the ties between the churches, then the burden of upholding and defending the truth must also be shared and not parsimoniously communicated. Moreover, sisters must never connive to silence the truth and hinder its development, especially during doctrinal controversies. The PRCP had the duty to check on her sister for the maintenance of the truth. If the PRC was not disciplining those who proliferated false doctrine and, on the contrary, was hunting those who were preaching and writing for the truth’s sake, then the PRCP was equally responsible to God by sharing in her sister’s sin. The PRCP should have called out her sister for the sake of the truth. That never happened and will never happen as long as the PRCP regards her sister as a century-old idol on whom all things turn and depend.

The PRCP’s sister placed a finger before pursed lips to hush the PRCP while her members were in the dark of doctrinal despair, knowing nothing and playing around like children tossed to and fro.

Despairing Yet Hopeful

To privately react to what was happening in the churches, I initiated an email correspondence with Reverend Lanning as early as September 2020. He was very accommodating. He corresponded with me in light of the present controversy. The correspondence was purely doctrinal. The reverend was still a pastor of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church. The man was able to present the gospel fluently, and I should say that my understanding of the gospel was sharpened by his labor alongside the labors of Rev. Nathan Langerak and Rev. Martin VanderWal. They were beneficial for the handful of believers in the Philippines.

The correspondence continued until Reverend Lanning suggested that someone must at least break the silence and write a letter to the PRCP. He wrote,

If the consistories of the PRCP and the missionaries of the PRCA are remaining silent on the controversy, then it would be good for someone to write a letter to them asking where the consistory stands. If there is a consistory that is concerned with the direction of the PRCA, then that consistory should write a letter to the PRCA Foreign Mission Committee asking where they stand. Once you know where the consistory stands, or where the FMC stands, then you can make your own decisions about church membership.

I wrote a letter of concern to the council of the then First Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan on March 16, 2021. In that letter I challenged the council to test and examine the sermons of David Overway and to ask many questions that could eventually give light to the present state of the churches. I quote here in part:

Prof. Dykstra wrote in the Standard Bearer describing how the delegates took the issue at the Synod 2018. He writes, “Not everyone agreed that this or that statement was in error.”⁷ This is confusing. A Reformed man can immediately detect what is wrong in the sermon. Mr. Overway was preaching conditional fellowship with God. But the delegates could not unanimously reject the error. Yes, the synod rejects conditional fellowship with God, but Prof. Dykstra further informs us, “However, synod did not declare this error to be heresy. Synod did not state that this teaching denies the unconditional covenant or justification by faith alone. The minister will be examined, but he is not suspended.”⁸ One may ask, “How can we distinguish error from heresy?” May I ask the consistory if what Mr. Overway stated in the sermon falls under the category of an error? Do you agree that alongside Christ there is our obedience playing a vital role in order for us to go to the Father? Whether we speak the objective aspect or the subjective aspect of the covenant, it is emphatically negating the work principle. Our works, even the works which have been wrought in and through us by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, are utterly excluded in the matter of establishing and maintaining our fellowship with God. Christ is the only Mediator of the covenant. Only by His blood we can have access to the Father. Our good works are immediate fruit of that fellowship not the basis or a way unto the Father.
But what happened to the office bearers who disagreed that there is error? And what about those who sympathize with Mr. Overway? Does the PRCP receive any report of disciplinary actions imposed to those who sympathize with Mr. Overway and his sermon? The PRCP must require of the PRCA a sufficient explanation why Mr. Overway was permitted to resign from the office despite the evident departure of his sermon from orthodoxy. The sermon was preached in 2015, but the gentleman who preached stayed in the ministry of the Word up until 2019 (as far as I know). Granted that the synod examined him again, but let us not forget that according to Prof. Dykstra, he was not suspended. Why? The PRCP should ask why.

I ended my letter with a plea that the council correspond with the PRC concerning the controversy, so that the PRCP might have a good grip on what her sister really believed, and I insinuated that the PRC was not a worthy sister in the Lord, especially when ministers of the conditional covenant were being exonerated.

Moreover, I was aghast to know that there is still a minister who preaches a conditional covenant but is not suspended, and some ministers who sympathize with Mr. Overway’s error.

I ask the consistory to consider this not as a protest but a plea to contact the PRCA concerning the matter. This is vital to our sister-church relationship. The only thing that ties us with the PRCA is the truth of Jesus Christ. If that truth is being neglected and adulterated, a church or a denomination must purge the church from all impurities of errors and heresies. I am not into the notion that this is just the problem and burden of the PRCA, and the PRCP should not be involved in the process. This notion is against the teaching of Paul in Galatians 6:1–2. If the consistory believes that there is a problem with how the PRCA handles the controversy, you must stand and advise the PRCA through their Contact Committee. We are her equal and not her little sister observing how she behaves herself without receiving any words from us. If the PRCA sins and justifies her sin, let us radically sever our ties with her. We cannot share with her sin. God forbid that we share with her error. I pray that that is not the case. PRCA is susceptible to sin, but by God’s grace let it not be done deliberately.

Also, I ask the consistory to please enlighten the members of PRCB [Protestant Reformed Church of Bulacan] of what is happening in our own camp. We must know our position regarding the matter and how we should be handling this kind of controversy in a way that is worthy of God and His glory. Again, what is your take concerning Mr. Overway’s sermon? Your answer can inevitably determine your future action as faithful watchmen on the walls of Zion, the church.

At the time of my writing, the council was aware of the present controversy (I did not know the level of their knowledge, but I should say that the men were still ignorant of what really was in dispute), but our church was still undisturbed. There were no surging crowds clamoring for spiritual attention, no elders on the wall watching, no prophet warding off false doctrine, and no council evoking the PRCP’s duty to take heed of her sister.

My letter fell on deaf ears. The council did not respond to me. Rev. John Flores commented that my letter was purposely sent to show off my ability as a seminary student. It was said to my face, and again I realized that the situation was hopeless.

I waited more than a month for a response, but nothing happened. Reverend Flores’ tyrannical behavior explains why the council did not respond to my letter with urgency. Apparently, my letter was nothing more than a show-off, nothing urgent. The church could live with the PRC and her developing heresy.

I emailed Reverend Lanning about the council’s disregard of my letter. Convinced of the truth and convinced that we were one in the faith, he and Dewey Engelsma invited me to have a video call with my friends Ben Catalan and Matt Raguirag. The meeting went well. We became more convinced of the truth and of the hopelessness of remaining with the PRCP. More than ever, we were resolved to withdraw our membership from our respective churches to establish the church anew.

But we needed a pastor. Ignorant of the fact that we could withdraw even without a pastor and eventually establish a fellowship with the help of the brethren in America, we decided to talk to Reverend Flores again. We were very hesitant. We know the man. We had always noticed that there was something singular and questionable in the man’s character; but for the sake of the church, we wanted him to come with us—a blunder for which we would surely suffer in the future.

We talked to Reverend Flores on April 25, 2021. He was sitting deeply absorbed in the conversation. I was already feeling that the idea was wrong. I was not discerning any love for the truth. Rather, he agreed in a trice when he was unofficially assured of financial support by some from First Reformed Protestant Church. That day was also the continuation of the classis meeting of the PRCP. From start to finish, the meeting was a strange and an atypical session, chaotic and full of clamoring. At that meeting Reverend Flores thanked the classis for a decade-long relationship, insinuating that he would break with the denomination together with the Bulacan church and the mission work in Leyte.

We were emotional to hear such an insinuation. We never imagined ourselves breaking with the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines. But little did we know that more spiritual pain awaited us ahead.

But we were hopeful, though still lying under despair. Our hope was that the Word, Jesus Christ, would never leave us in the course toward our desired reformation. He was our hope. “Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me” (Job 19:27).