The Preceding Events

On May 2, 2021, the council of the then Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan called me to its meeting to explain the doctrinal controversy that was happening in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRC). I was persuaded by Reverend Flores to speak. Given that he was present at the meeting and could speak more effectively on the matter, I was not sure why I needed to be there. I was hesitant to attend the meeting, as the minister and elders were supposed to teach the members concerning the doctrinal dispute about the covenant. Furthermore, I had made it very clear in my letter of concern that I sent on March 16 precisely what the PRC’s issue was, and Reverend Flores’ meeting with myself and other concerned men on April 25 was sufficient for him to understand the crux of the dispute. Besides, it had been only a week since that meeting.

Nevertheless, I attended the meeting, hoping to instruct the officebearers on what was happening in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I hoped that Jesus Christ would cause in our hearts the desire for true reformation upon realizing that the PRC was in error and that she continued to develop her lies. The council members all agreed that the PRC was in error. They all agreed that David Overway’s conditional sermons warranted his deposition and that any other minister who sympathized and used the same conditional language was worthy of deposition as well. I can still remember the council members’ emotions and sentiments at the classis meeting the week before. They were furious that the chairman of that classis, Reverend Ibe, did not consider the request of Reverend Flores to assign a study committee to address the doctrinal controversy in the PRC. The withdrawal letter that the Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan sent to the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (PRCP) clearly expresses this resentment of the council.¹

However, such negative sentiments toward the PRCP were never due to the PRC’s doctrinal errors nor to the PRCP’s apparently intentional silence regarding the controversy in the PRC. I knew that for certain, since Reverend Flores had met with Professor Dykstra on March 4, 2021, together with the Contact Committee of the PRCP, after the formation of First Reformed Protestant Church (Michigan). At that meeting Reverend Flores was persuaded that the formation of First church had been planned with the support of the rich in the congregation. Reverend Flores personally believed that First’s secession in 2021 was a schism led by Reverend Lanning and supported by the wealthy members. Reverend Flores openly made this assertion to a few young men, including myself. The point is that Reverend Flores and the Bulacan council used the controversy between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC), not doctrine, as an opportunity to break with the PRCP. The situation in the American churches presented an opportunity while doctrine was set aside. If doctrine had not been set aside, attempts would have been made to address the doctrinal issues once Bulacan officially became a Reformed Protestant church.

I knew that the Bulacan council would agree with my presentation because the men were prejudiced against the PRCP. In fact there was an operating prejudice even before the organization of the PRCP. One could always sense that the then Protestant Reformed Church in Bulacan could rupture ties with the PRCP at any time.

Reverend Flores was very vocal about this also. Reverend Flores bragged about how he and his church had once benefited in some way from a Reformed Presbyterian church and that he had received an open invitation to join the denomination. He also said that accepting an invitation to join the Reformed Presbyterian denomination was always an option. Honestly, if it were not for the split between the PRC and RPC, his church would have been in the Reformed Presbyterian denomination, since he always had grudges against the PRCP, especially against the Protestant Reformed missionaries. His resentments were always expressed publicly among the council members and young people. We were exposed to many resentments, and we developed suspicions about the missionaries. He fueled rising, serious suspicions that were inevitably built upon his words and solely by his words.

A week after the meeting with the Bulacan council, Reverend Flores and the elders went to visit a fellowship in Manila. The fellowship was under the care of his mother-in-law, who had been the pastor there before she became interested in joining her son-in-law in his church. Reverend Flores and the elders went to Manila to persuade the fellowship to join in the withdrawal of Bulacan’s membership from the PRCP on May 16. As expected, the fellowship agreed to join the movement.

On May 10 Reverend Flores met with the steering committee of the official mission work of the PRCP in Albuera, Leyte, and he went to Santa Cruz, Laguna, the next day. He met the steering committee of Leyte via an online conference video call. The purpose was to secure the mission work for Bulacan and her withdrawal on May 16 from the PRCP. Without the presence of his consistory and consent from the mission committee of the PRCP, Reverend Flores gathered the Leyte steering committee and convinced its members of the doctrinal controversy in the PRC.

I can assure the reader that the steering committee of Leyte was ignorant of the controversy at the May 10 meeting because after First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan was formed, Reverend Flores, seminarian Joseph Escalaw, and myself visited the Leyte mission in 2022 and asked the members about many points of doctrine, both evangelical and Reformed. The members not only were ignorant of the ongoing doctrinal dispute, but they also were ignorant of the Reformed faith. Even though the fellowship was already fifteen years old when we visited, straightforward inquiries about the fundamentals of the Reformed faith were still barely addressed accurately by the regular attendees without traces of Arminianism, or worse, mysticism. So it was really a surprise that First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan organized the fellowship as an instituted church on September 11, 2022. To be fair, the members of the fellowship were very interested in the Reformed faith. But one must speak their language to communicate to them the Reformed faith, and they can hardly understand Tagalog, the common dialect in the Philippines. Most of them are very poor and uneducated, so they easily could be persuaded and dragged along. The point is that the members followed blindly the voice of Reverend Flores, who is very revered in Bulacan as the infallible pope. So it is no wonder that when he met with the Leyte steering committee, the members of the fellowship blindly agreed to join the upcoming withdrawal from the PRCP as an official mission of First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan, though the people evidently did not understand what was going on.

Three days later Reverend Flores and the Contact Committee of the PRCP met with Reverend Lanning, the pastor of First Reformed Protestant Church. I had asked Reverend Lanning for an informal meeting as requested by the committee.

Before all these meetings happened—that is, all the meetings that came after the April 25 meeting with Reverend Flores and before the May 16 withdrawal of the Bulacan church from the PRCP—I had sent an email to Reverend Lanning regarding financial support, which I admit was done after repeated requests of Reverend Flores. Reverend Flores was worried about the welfare of the poorest in the congregation and the mission work in Leyte. My email was sent not without hesitation and shame, since money should never be a consideration when pursuing a reformation. Regrettably, I emailed the following to Reverend Lanning on May 6, 2021:

I just want to ask if the FRPC [First Reformed Protestant Church] is very willing to help the PRCB [Protestant Reformed Church of Bulacan] if ever we decide to come out from the PRCP. Your response to this can help the PRCB consistory big time in their plan to separate from their mother church. The plan is, before the June Classis, the consistory will lead the faithful saints in the PRCB to come out from the PRCP. And immediately, the consistory will establish a relationship with the federation of the RPC.

When the reverend responded positively, then all the succeeding events led enthusiastically to the split from our mother, the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines.

The Breaking with Mother

The members of the Bulacan church signed an Act of Separation on Sunday, May 16, 2021, after the afternoon worship service and after additional officebearers had been installed. The Protestant Reformed missionaries viewed the installation of these officebearers immediately before Bulacan’s withdrawal as suspicious, as the men who were installed had recently joined Bulacan from the Provident and Berean churches. A letter signed by the seven officebearers, expressing Bulacan’s withdrawal from the PRCP, was sent that day as well to the stated clerk of the PRCP classis.

After a short explanation of the doctrinal controversy and the necessity to secede, questions were received from the members. Few questions were brought up, most of which were characterized by practical implications of the secession. Only a few members threw doctrinal queries at the council, which suggested that only a few understood the very reason for the secession. Only a few were interested in the real reason for the split from the PRCP. The quality of the secession is clearly seen in our withdrawal letter, wherein the first ground is a shallow and hasty presentation and defense of the truth. Ground one reads,

The doctrine of good works is a vital aspect in the life of a redeemed child of God as a manifestations and fruits of faith and gratitude for such great gift of salvation wrought through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 24). However, good works must have its proper place in doctrine. Otherwise, it militates against the pure teaching of the gospel of God (Justification by faith alone). Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 32) teaches the necessity of good works in the life of the redeemed people of God. A saved, justified sinner must perform good works. That is, in the newness of life, a believer lives, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit of Christ, sincerely willing and ready unto Jehovah (Heidelberg Catechism, LD 1, Q&A 1). But the controversy is this: “The doctrinal error is that the believer’s good works are given a place and function that is out of harmony with the Reformed confessions” (Acts of Synod 2018, 61, art. 62.B.1). We strongly reject, according to Scripture and the Reformed creeds, that good works are given a place and function in such a way that those works serve as necessary conditions in prayer-filled life, assurance of salvation, and experiencing the fellowship with God in the covenant.²

The first ground is a mere, general statement about good works. The ground does not explain how the PRC uses the requirement of good works to sever the people of God from the finished work of Jesus Christ. The ground does not explain how the PRC teaches good works in a way that they become a means to receive covenant blessings. The ground does not expose the inconsistency of the PRC in her decisions at Synod 2018. Although the PRC identified the doctrinal error, her writings after taking up that stance for the truth are opposed to the truth. Also, the ground should have reflected the spiritual union between the PRC and the PRCP. As sister churches, when one church corrupts the gospel, the other shares in it. The ground confined the controversy to the PRC, when the controversy should also have been the PRCP’s controversy by virtue of their sister-church relationship, especially because the matter concerned the gospel of the covenant of grace.

The ground lacks sharpness and precision. It betrays the true purpose of the secession—that is, just to separate from the PRCP and to find greener pastures somewhere else.

If I were to rewrite the first ground, I would put it this way:

Synod 2018 has already declared the lie of man’s acquiring something from God by good works, and in doing that the synod also declared such a notion an error. Nevertheless, man has not been killed. Man is free in the PRC, lurking to see who will cling to him for experience in the covenant and for advice in the preaching, writing, and meetings of the minor and broader assemblies. The theology of man is being promoted in the pulpits of your sister and even in her broader assemblies. But no one is being disciplined, except those who faithfully preach and develop the unconditional covenant of grace both in its objective aspect and in its subjective aspect. The PRC is hunting down Jesus Christ by putting despite in his gospel. She despises that the establishment, maintenance, and consummation of God’s covenant rest solely in the sovereign, determinative counsel of God and not in any way in man, though man is claimed to be assisted by God’s grace. Clearly your sister is not for truth but for lies. Man is very much alive, both in the PRC’s doctrine and in her special offices. This alone must be sufficient to separate from her; and you, our mother, share in her sin and errors by silently approving every activity of your sister. You must repent in sackcloth and ashes. You must believe solely in the finished work of Jesus Christ and not in man, no matter how persistent you are to put him in high places. I ask you, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh” (Gal. 3:3)? Moreover, “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith” (v. 11). To live by faith is to be united with Jesus Christ; to live by faith is to acquire nothing from God by works; to live by faith is to trust only the merits of Jesus Christ. The PRC, your sister, is clearly against this truth and is attempting to sever the church from her head by twisting the truth of the covenant with subtle speech. We commit ourselves to the truth; therefore, this ground shall suffice as our reason for seceding from you. Repent, therefore, for no man shall save you from your sin. “And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee” (Deut. 28:29).

This ground should be enough. No need for grounds two and three. The other grounds are unnecessary because they only underscore the doctrinal concerns raised and their unavoidable effect on the hearts of those who believe the gospel. If the newly formed First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan was truly convicted of the truth, her document of secession indeed should have consistently spoken the same. But because her secession was not due to doctrinal matters, her withdrawal letter will rot in the pages of Reformed Protestant history.

Spiritual Lethargy

First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan became a laughingstock because of her withdrawal from the PRCP. Everyone was puzzled why the church left. One might wonder why people were puzzled. But after one reads Bulacan’s withdrawal letter, then one realizes that it was her fault that people were confused. Also, the council decided to be silent. Afraid of criticism? Yes. Cowards? Absolutely. The council decided not to respond even to the accusations of Berean Protestant Reformed Church.

Many men rightly asserted that the reason for Bulacan’s secession was not doctrinal. For instance, Rev. William Langerak contended that the main reason for the secession was money.³ This contention was based on information relayed to him by the Protestant Reformed missionaries in the Philippines. Another assertion was Rev. Daniel Holstege’s report regarding the split in which he commented that the reason for the split was “not purely a doctrinal matter.”⁴ Reverend Holstege even assured the audience that there was a lot more to Bulacan’s secession than the claim of reformation. He had worked closely with the churches in the Philippines, and he knew that there was always a chasm among the churches. He was right—the reason for the split was not a purely doctrinal matter; it was a purely political and financial matter.

Compared to the Act of Separation and Reformation signed by like-minded believers in America to separate from the PRC, Bulacan’s document of secession was nothing but a shallow and hasty presentation of the Reformed faith. The truth of the unconditional covenant was not developed and defended, much less the truth of justification by faith alone. Moreover, the document had nothing against the Protestant Reformed Churches. Bulacan did not declare anathema against the PRC and the PRCP. What she did was to bless the PRCP instead, by saying,

The fellowship we experienced in this denomination will remain precious in our hearts as the redeemed in Jesus Christ. We will continue to cherish the pleasant memories we had together.⁵

There was no condemnation, no calling the churches to repent of their errors. This is exactly what Reverend Flores wanted: to remain in fellowship with the PRCP and to keep the bridge between the denomination and the Bulacan church. Such an absurd desire for communion with the false church or with those who despise the gospel contradicted his March 21, 2021, sermon on Galatians 3:1–3, when he said,

The apostle Paul does not say that you maintain your fellowship with them [false teachers] and be patient with them; they might change [their position]. The apostle says, “Let him be a curse!”⁶

That Reverend Flores wanted to remain in fellowship with the PRCP and that Bulacan did not call the PRCP to repentance partly explain why the officebearers and members of Bulacan were so stagnant and sluggish in defending and developing the truth of the unconditional covenant over against the errors of the PRC. There were no articles or doctrinal lectures; there was no sharp preaching against error or engaging in doctrinal discussions with the PRCP. There was total silence in the newly formed Reformed Protestant church in the Philippines. So, to break the silence, I wrote a letter to the school committee to ask the committee to host a theological conference, which would help “to educate the people of God here and abroad about the truth.”⁷ The request was to have the three ministers of the RPC to speak primarily about God’s covenant, kingdom, and church. But the request was deemed unnecessary. I received no response from the school committee.

After months of waiting, the members of the Bulacan church still did not receive any doctrinal instruction. A few of us depended on the lectures, articles, and sermons from the RPC. So on May 14, 2022, I initiated a discussion about the controversy⁸ with some other members of our church, hoping to pique their interest and to encourage them to continue to follow the doctrinal controversy.

Following the breakup with her mother, the PRCP, First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan became extremely lethargic in her doctrine but fervent in her requests for meeting after meeting with the RPC regarding financial support for the Philippines.

Indeed, this word of God is for us, the then First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan: “As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets” (Jer. 2:26). We were found lacking, and we are ashamed. We would be found out quickly when the controversy on baptism shook our church, which eventually led to another split in June 2022.

I will conclude this series next time, the Lord willing.