Introduction

Shortly after the May 16, 2021, secession from the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (PRCP), my church, the then First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan, was tried by another doctrinal controversy. I insist, reader, that it was a doctrinal controversy, no matter how much the Bulacan church insists that it was merely procedural and had nothing to do with her confession. That is a direct denial of the importance of the sacraments and their relationship to church membership. Later I intend to argue further against Bulacan’s denial.

As a church, the members were so complacent back then that we never imagined another split would happen just a year after our secession. We were thrilled that we finally had come out of the PRCP and were finally free to have fellowship with the Reformed Protestant Churches in America (RPC). We changed our name; adjusted our yearly budget; scheduled subsequent meetings with the RPC; established our own seminary; installed our very first missionary, Reverend Flores; gave the two seminary students a license to speak a word of edification and then examined them to be eligible for calls; called and ordained our new pastor, Reverend Jasojaso; accepted an emeritus minister from the PRCP, Rev. Leovy Trinidad; worked in several outreaches (in Laguna and Manila); and many other things that made us think that we were better than the entire PRCP. We were busy.

Being distracted by various engagements, the truth of the gospel of the covenant was left out. Busyness rapidly depleted all our energies, leaving us with little room for incoming distress among ourselves.

Baptism First?

We were not concerned at all with the development of doctrine. We devoted our energies to other things. So when a couple from the PRCP requested their daughter’s baptism, it was granted with sleight of hand, and the congregation was unconcerned. Were the man and wife confessing members of Bulacan church? Had they publicly confessed their faith? Did the council announce that the parents had requested to join our church and were accepted? Never mind. Who cares about the sacrament? Who cares about church membership?

The parents, the council, and the whole church did not care. Let it pass.

But God says, “I will not hold him guiltless that taketh my name in vain. This will not pass.”

The father wrote the following letter to the council on February 16, 2022:

I am writing this letter to you to request your Consistory that my daughter (born on October 16, 2022) be allowed to be baptized in the First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan. As you know, we have been a confessing member in the Berean PRC since 2016 and was even given by our Lord the privilege to serve Him as one [of] its deacons. However, the controversy between the PRCA and the Reformed Protestant Churches in Northern America prompted us to reflect upon and reconsider the serious issues surrounding the pure teachings of the gospel.

We realize the importance of the sacrament of baptism and we, as covenant parents, desire that she be baptized in a church that faithfully maintains the truths of the gospel. We are still in the process of preparing and deciding to eventually consider attending the First RPC in Bulacan, Lord willing in the near future.

We are thankful to God for the blessing of another covenant child, and we desire to rear her in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

We thank you in advance for considering this request.¹

The father was proper to ask permission to have his child baptized so that the elders could have jurisdiction over the partakers of the sacraments. Just as the preaching must be done under the oversight of the elders, the same holds true with the sacraments. No sacraments shall be administered without the preaching and, moreover, without the consistorial jurisdiction of the elders.

The request was treated in a council meeting chaired by Reverend Flores. I was there when the letter was received, since candidates to the ministry had the privilege to observe council meetings. The grandfather of the infant was also there because he was a council member. While the grandfather was explaining the urgency of the request, he also apprised his colleagues that the child’s aunt wanted to attend her niece’s baptism prior to her return to her international job. As I perceived it, the urgency was due to the request of the aunt. The council was wise not to grant the request of baptism unless the parents joined the church. The information that the parents had been members of Berean Protestant Reformed Church since 2016 was irrelevant because the parents had withdrawn their membership from Berean church and were waiting for their transfer to be accepted by Provident Protestant Reformed Church. At the time the letter was written, the parents had no membership at all. This information was not written, but we knew about their withdrawal from Berean church, as the grandfather had mentioned it prior to the request for baptism.

The second time that the request was treated was April 15, 2022, days after Rev. Emmanuel Jasojaso was ordained as the new pastor of First Reformed Protestant Church of Bulacan. Suddenly the request was granted.

I am aware that at the RPC family conference in August 2022, Reverend Flores was given an opportunity to explain our controversy.² In part of his explanation, he said that the parents expressed their desire to become members of the church. That was a lie. The reverend blushed not to babble his lie at the conference; and not only that, but he dared to defend with pertinacity what the father did not express in his letter, namely, becoming members of the church. The reader may judge the letter. The parents’ request was only for baptism, and they stated that they might consider membership later. Evidently membership was only a possibility, but they wanted baptism to be considered before that.

The baptism was not announced publicly during a worship service prior to the administration. Rather, only the online church bulletin included the announcement one week before the baptism. Not all members had the means to check the bulletin online. For instance, I personally missed the announcement because I was in Leyte the week before; and on the day of the administration of baptism, I was in Valenzuela with my family, where I preached in Reverend Trinidad’s church. I learned about the baptism when my wife saw pictures of the baptism online. But prior to the baptism, the congregation was not well informed.

On April 24, 2022, the child was baptized. The parents answered the questions of the baptism form rashly. They took the name of God in vain by vowing something they could not fulfill, for in principle they were not members of the church of Jesus Christ.

The first question of the baptism form refers to the child as a member of the body of Jesus Christ but only in presupposition that the parents are resolute to say with the church, “Our children are members of Christ’s church and ought to be baptized.” The presupposition is that the parents are communicant members of the church. Otherwise, the parents who take the vow call on the name of God rashly and with deceit by pretending to answer faithfully before God and his church.

The second question of the baptism form is simply a reiteration of the first question for public confession of faith. It is absurd then for one to answer the second question without appearing first to the church to express one’s agreement with all the articles of the faith that are “taught here in this Christian church” (Confessions and Church Order, 260, 266). This question reaps beautiful fruits of confession out of the hearts of believing parents. Believing is not a term used loosely. It is a definite term that one is indeed a member of Christ’s body. It is not used individualistically but corporately as the believer stands under the headship of Jesus Christ—that is, he is united to Christ through faith so that he might believe and become a member of Christ’s body in which all the elect are mystically knit together as one organism. The children, in the outward administration of the covenant, are also members of the body but only if they are presented for baptism by their believing parents. The children will remain in the world and outside the kingdom if their parents are not members of the church where the children ought to be baptized.

The third question is a matter of principle. It is a twofold principle, the second of which flows from the first—that is, the principle of life in the believer is manifested in the sanctified life. Out of that principle of life comes a practical holiness. The first question acknowledges the principle of death upon the whole human race due to the sin and guilt of Adam, whereby our children are conceived and born in sin. But in the third question, the parents are admonished to instruct and bring up their children “in the aforesaid doctrine…to the utmost of [their] power” (Confessions and Church Order, 260). The parents are exhorted to exert all their energies to walk antithetically in the newness of life together with their children. Being members of Jesus Christ, the children have passed from death into life. As members of Christ, they are also members of his church. But if the parents are not members of Christ’s church, the child who is presented for baptism, in principle, has no parents to instruct and bring him up in the faith. In principle the parents are outside the church and have no salvation. In principle the parents are not sanctified by the gospel as it is preached in the church institute. In principle they do not have the power of the gospel by which they can perform their duty to rear their child. The child might receive the sacrament of baptism rashly and become a member of the church, but the parents are not members. In principle the child is a bastard. Therefore, I asked the council to rescind the decision to baptize the child. Not to take back the water and the administration—which is impossible—but rather to nullify her membership by baptism so that the church would remain a communion of legitimate children of God by virtue of the promise that accompanies the administration of baptism.

This is also the assertion of our spiritual father, Herman Hoeksema. He emphatically argued that when the baptism form says “this Christian church” in the second question, it literally means a particular, local congregation (in this case, Bulacan church where a child was presented for baptism in 2022). Hoeksema said, “‘This Christian church’—it does not mean CRC, liberated church, Free Reformed. It means only the Protestant Reformed Church.”³ Hoeksema emphasized that the church membership of the parents is a priori when presenting a child for baptism and taking baptismal vows.

Similarly, Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 25 rightly introduces the idea of the sacraments after it explains that we are partakers of Christ only by faith and that this faith comes from the Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Lord’s Day establishes that our union with Christ is by faith alone and that the gospel effectively assures us in our hearts of the promises of Jehovah. The sacraments are added to the gospel to confirm the sure word of God. Faith works in our hearts to believe the gospel. The sacraments presuppose faith. Faith comes first. Our union with Christ comes first. Becoming members of Jesus Christ comes first. By implication we must be believers before receiving the sacraments—that is, we first must be members of a church where the sacraments are administered. Commenting on article 56 of the Church Order, Herman Hanko wrote,

It must be remembered that the name “Christians” is used in a very limited sense in Lord’s Day 12. This article, therefore, must be interpreted in the light of our creeds and our liturgical forms. If this rule is followed and if the phrase in Article 56: “The covenant of God shall be sealed…” is followed, then it becomes evident that only children of communicant members of the church are eligible for baptism.⁴

That is the temporal order. You simply cannot put the cart before the horse. Membership comes first.

The questions asked at baptism are spiritual questions. They appeal not only to the parents but also to the congregation, to those who are always in the presence of God and who believe that in Jesus Christ all the promises of God are amen. God’s people do not need a special oath but are always regarded as God’s children of truth, speaking praises of Jehovah’s name as they are truly united to their Lord by faith and to his beloved body by the gospel. What can we say, reader? Are the questions a matter of mere procedure? Is church membership a matter of procedure before we receive the privilege of having our children baptized? Is the violation of the third commandment a matter of procedure? If the answer to these questions is yes, then let the baptism on April 24 pass. If the answer is yes, then let alone church membership.

But God says, “I will not hold him guiltless that taketh my name in vain. This will not pass.”

Reformed Tradition?

Rashly sprinkling water onto the head of an infant as a sign and seal of the covenant is a neglect of the Reformed faith and Reformed church polity. So I wrote a letter of concern dated April 30, 2022. In the letter I urged the council to consider the matter, as the sacraments always involve the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Esteemed brethren in the Lord, the sacraments are part of the power of the church to preach. It is an integral part of the pure preaching of the gospel. You cannot sever the sacraments from the gospel. They are joined by Christ in such a way that preaching is supreme over the sacraments. Therefore, a true church and a false church can be known by these two ordinary means of grace. We must then be careful in administering the sacraments. If you corrupt the sacraments, the corruption of the gospel in the preaching is inevitable.⁵

I also expressed in my letter my hesitation to request the baptism of my second child unless the council admitted its error and repented of it because what I had witnessed was un-Reformed and unbiblical. I could not, in good conscience, let my children partake in the sin of my church. But the letter was received with malice. Therefore, the council canceled some of my scheduled pulpit supply. I did not understand why they did that; nevertheless, they had the right to keep me from giving a word of edification. My candidacy was under their jurisdiction. According to Reverend Flores the wisdom behind that decision was to keep me from using the pulpit for my own cause. The council suspected me of pursuing the matter publicly. My character was marked as a threat to peace and order in the church.

Consequently, the council had a meeting with me on May 29, 2022. It was about my letter of concern. I was nervous but resolute. I had my notes to help me explain all the relevant articles of the three forms of unity, the Church Order, and even other continental Reformed creeds.

I know that Reverend Flores, in order to push the drama further, went to the RPC family conference in 2022 and, thinking that his audience was fast bound by prejudice, rendered many lies, including the account that I was silent and just wrote notes during the May 29 meeting with the council. The first thing the reverend did in the meeting was to request relaxation of the parliamentary order of the meeting. Indeed, the loquacious reverend did not hear me speak during the meeting. Reverend Flores was in a constant stream of bombast, while the other members of the council were mere observers. This is notable, considering that it was Reverend Jasojaso who was the chair at that time and Reverend Flores was only an advisor, being the domestic missionary.

I was not silent. I was the only one in that meeting who stood for the defense of the Reformed creeds and tradition. Reverend Flores and Reverend Jasojaso, by no means badly matched—the former is a tyrant, and the latter is just a blind adherent—agreed in their attempts to overthrow the Reformed religion for the defense of a procedural error. The same day of the meeting, in a sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Reverend Flores preached,

You must not forget this: When the Apostles’ Creed was written, there was no Reformed yet. There was no Calvinism yet. There were no confessions of faith like the three forms of unity! Don’t place forcefully something which is of this age but outside the intention of the Apostles’ Creed!⁶

He further stated in the sermon, “That is the reason why we have here the confessions of faith. That is why we have the three forms of unity—for us to be assured that we have one and the same faith.” This statement is superficial in nature and contradicts his former statements. After disjoining the truths of the Apostles’ Creed from the Reformed creeds, he exalted the creeds for their unifying authority. It was very noble of him to do that, but there was no need. As if he could just cover up what he had said to the detriment of the creeds. He cannot escape his own folly. His sin will find him out. Sic semper tyrannis.

In the meeting, while arguing against my insistence on the Reformed creeds and tradition, Reverend Flores asked, “So what? Are we Catholics here, that we now regard human tradition? So what if it is the Reformed tradition? Will it affect the biblical tradition? or the apostolic tradition?” Yes, he sounds like a staunch Biblicist. “Moreover, Rev. Flores insisted that the imposition of the Reformed Creeds is ‘cultic and Romish.’ And he further described the Creeds as ‘man-made tradition’ as if they have no bearing in the insistence on Public Confession of Faith to guard the pure administration of the sacraments.”⁷

The whole council agreed with the tyrant reverend, and one of the elders had the audacity to say, “Article 28 of the Belgic Confession of Faith will not stand the test of historic faith.” Bulacan’s council talked with the elder who made the statement, and this was the evaluation: 

What he plainly stated was that when there are interpretations or applications of the confession that seems to be unclear with the doctrines in the Sacred Scripture, then the final arbiter of truth is the Sacred Scripture as a matter of the reformed principle of Sola Scriptura.⁸

This statement was defended by Bulacan’s council in a letter to the January 19, 2023, classis meeting of the RPC. Clearly the council’s defense was against the words of the Formula of Subscription, which states that the three forms of unity “do fully agree with the Word of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 326).

The defense of the council further disputed the integrity and credibility of First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan as a faithful, Reformed church. Therefore, the RPC classis of January 2023 decided to no longer pursue a sister-church relationship because the then First Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan was judged as not being one with the doctrine of the RPC concerning church membership and undermining the authority of the Reformed creeds to settle doctrinal matters.⁹

To this day the Bulacan church continues to believe that what happened on April 24, 2022, was merely a procedural error. It was only on August 10, 2022, that the council realized that such a procedural error might lead to doctrinal problems.¹⁰ First Reformed Church of Bulacan (the name the church presently uses) still stands with that decision. There is no doctrine involved, just procedure. Membership is just a procedural matter. That is all.

I conclude this series with a short evaluation of Bastiaan Wielenga’s comments on the Reformed baptism form. He experienced in his congregation in Amsterdam that parents were apt to disregard church membership. He wrote,

More than once I have met parents who were not members of the congregation, because they did not venture or wish to make a confession, yet who happily presented their children for baptism.¹¹

Parents who are not members of the church but happily present their children for baptism possess another kind of audacity. It is like asking for the hand of Jesus Christ that blesses the children but not Jesus Christ himself. It is like buying the Holy Spirit for one’s own benefit without being partakers of his religion (Acts 8:9–24).

Moreover, Wielenga emphatically reiterates, 

The parents of the baptized are to be regarded as belonging to the community of the saints, as lively members of the body of the Lord.¹² 

It has been the practice in Reformed churches to emphasize church membership and to insist on it as every person’s duty, for no one has the right to be an unbeliever or to separate himself from the church institute. Therefore, Wielenga admonishes the ministers who administer the sacrament of holy baptism: 

The minister of the word, who administers this holy ordinance, must take the position of the things that are revealed. He cannot judge the inner man.¹³ 

First Reformed Church of Bulacan wants all who hold to the three forms of unity and confess to be Christians to be admitted to holy baptism.¹⁴ It is true that one who leaves a Reformed church and requests to join our church must not be required to make a public confession of faith or a consistorial confession. Their request to join is enough and consequently will be judged by the council. But even now, First Reformed Church of Bulacan vainly imagines that the child’s parents requested to become church members. They did not. They requested baptism; that was all. But the church argues that they were believers. They might have been, but they were not church members. The church judges the things revealed. She cannot judge the inner man. The congregation could not judge whether the parents were believers unless the congregation was informed of the parents’ confession.

This controversy was used providentially by God to establish the church anew. First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church, Bulacan, a relatively new church, has never wavered that our secession from First Reformed Church of Bulacan was legitimate and a matter of the gospel and sacraments. First Reformed Church of Bulacan wanted a compromise,¹⁵ but we responded,

We are still firm that FRPCB erred grievously by her decision to set aside membership into the church before proceeding with the baptism of an infant.

In this, we warn you as our mother church that having desecrated the Holy Baptism you have brought judgment upon your church and upon your membership as that sin was against the covenant of God (Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 82). It is the profanity of the covenant of God with His people and their continued generations. Repent, therefore and be reconciled to God. This is the only way forward for our churches without compromising the truth and gospel of baptism and the solemn duty of every believer to become a member of the body of Jesus Christ.

With grief,

Your daughter,

First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church, Bulacan¹⁶