A PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETIC CRITIQUE OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO (CHURCH OF CHRIST) PHILIPPINES

Mark Pakingan

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1  Historical Background of the Iglesia Ni Cristo .......................................................................... 1  

Iglesia Ni Cristo’s Founder: Felix Manalo ......................................................................... 1  Iglesia Ni Cristo’s Dangerous Doctrines ..................................................................................... 4  

The Bibliology of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ............................................................................... 4  The Christology of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ............................................................................. 8  

The Presuppositional Apologetic’s Critique of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ..................................... 10  Defending the Faith by the Lordship of Jesus Christ ........................................................ 10  Defending the Faith by Showing the “Impossibility of the Contrary” ............................. 12  

The Call for the Iglesia Ni Cristo to Repent ............................................................................. 13  Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14  Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 1  

1

Introduction

The Igelsia Ni Cristo (INC) is a large group founded in the Philippines that has an

estimated membership of 4-9 million (the discrepancy is large because the INC refuses to release

any official numbers).1 This group is widely influential and is beginning to spread worldwide as

Filipino’s seek citizenship outside the Philippine Islands. The INC must be properly studied and

evaluated from a biblical perspective. This paper will briefly summarize the history of its

founder. It will also attempt to understand its positions on Bibliology and Christology. Lastly,

this paper will attempt to critique the INC using a presuppositional approach of apologetics.

Historical Background of the Iglesia Ni Cristo

In order to understand how the Iglesia Ni Cristo is where it is today a study of its history

is inevitable and necessary. The roots of the Igelsia Ni Cristo’s founder is directly linked with

the heresy that they teach today. Therefore, the following section will give a general historical

background of the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and his religious experiences. These will

prove to be fundamental in explaining and understanding the false doctrines held by the cult

group today.

Iglesia Ni Cristo’s Founder: Felix Manalo

The founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is Felix Manalo. Manalo lived in the

Philippines and was born on May 10, 1886 and died in 1963. His mother was a committed

Roman Catholic and from a young age he attended Roman Catholic Catechism classes. It is

from his mother that Manalo was instilled with a love for God. Although his religious education

1 Brace Robin A., “Who Are the 'Iglesia Ni Cristo'?” http://www.ukapologetics.net/,

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/iglesia.htm (accessed November 16, 2011).

2

was strongly encouraged by his mother, his formal education was weak. He was educated by a

teacher who would travel into his province from Manila to teach basic reading, writing, and

mathematic skills. This process was interrupted in 1886 by the start of the Philippine revolution

leaving Manalo with a second or third grade education at best.2

The development of his spiritual life is colored and deserves attention because it may

provide reasons for his doctrinal confusion. Manalo was sent to complete his education to his

uncle who was a Roman Catholic priest. After stumbling upon a Bible, his uncle told him that it

was a book from the devil.3 Because he was forbidden to read the Scriptures Manalo turned to

other means in order to learn about religion.

Manalo found comfort in the tribal religions of Mount Banahaw. He viewed these

mystical approaches to God more genuine than the daily mass, recited prayers, burning of

incense, and robed priests in the Roman Catholic context. These religions were “colorum,”

meaning, “Mysterious, secret, underground (the meaning of the word ‘colorum’), they offered

immediate and reciprocal communication with the Supreme Being. You could ask God a

question, and hear his audible answer in the dark recesses of mountain caves.”4 This religious in

essence denied the existence of the church and was focused on the individual pursuit of God.

Eventually, Manalo would find his way to the city of Manila in his later teenage years.

As a teenager in Manila, it is here where Manalo is said to have first encountered

Protestantism. Manalo watched as a Roman Catholic priest debated with an American Protestant

2 Arthur Leonard Tuggy, Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics

(Quezon City, P.I.: Conservative Baptist Publishing, 1976), 19. 3 Ibid., 21. 4 Ibid., 22.

3

missionary. The missionary impressed Manalo with his masterful use of the Scripture and

therefore sparked Manalo’s interest to learn the Scriptures he was once told was of the devil.5

Manalo began to spend his time pursuing the study of Scriptures through several

Protestant schools and churches. Before the establishment of the Iglesia Ni Cristo Manalo would

have been affiliated with The Methodist Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the

Christian Mission of Manila / Mision Cirstiana (which is distinct from The Christian and

Missionary Alliance), and the Seventh Day Adventist.

His reasons for changes were not well grounded. Manalo left the Methodists for the

Presbyterians strictly on the basis of quality of facilities.6 His move to the Christian Mission of

the Philippines was because of their restorationist theology. This would later prove to be

influential as his belief that the true church was lost after the time of the revival and not

rediscovered until his reception of divine revelation has resotrationist tones.7 It was during his

time with the Christian Mission of the Philippines that he was baptized by immersion. During

his time with this groups Felix Manalo also married his first wife Tomasa Sereneo.

Seemingly to be happy with his position Manalo set out as a preacher and would

eventually cross paths with Elder L.V. Finster of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. Finster

was teaching Seventh Day Adventist bible studies that grew in popularity and Manalo was

determined to attend and disprove Finster’s teaching regarding the application of the Law to New

Testament saints. Finster eventually won over Manalo to the Seventh Day Adventist.

5 Albert J. Sanders, “An Appraisal of the Iglesia Ni Cristo” in Studies in Philippine

Church History. Anderson, Gerald H. Ed. (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970), 350-351. 6 Arthur Leonard Tuggy, Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics, 26. 7 Ibid., 27.

4

In his spiritual journey, Manalo hit a state of spiritual depression upon which he,

“completely lost his faith in God.”8 This caused him to question his Adventist doctrines and led

him into isolation for a period of study. He emerged from this period of study with the

conclusion that the true church was his to reclaim. Since Manalo could not find fulfillment in the

plethora of churches he had studied in, the only logical conclusion for Manalo was to start his

own which would be the true church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, on July 27, 1914 he started the

Iglesia Ni Cristo.

Iglesia Ni Cristo’s Dangerous Doctrines

Felix Manalo was the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and as its charismatic and strong

leader the group began to grow. Manalo, having grown dissatisfied with Roman Catholicism and

various sects and groups related to Protestantism developed his own church with his own set of

doctrines and beliefs. This section will seek to address two areas of doctrine that dangerously

oppose the teachings of Scripture. These two areas of doctrine are Bibliology and Christology.

The Bibliology of the Iglesia Ni Cristo The Iglesia Ni Cristo on its surface may not differ much from the orthodox view of the

Scriptures. They would teach, “The Iglesia Ni Cristo believes that the words of God are written

in the Bible.”9 If this is the case, then how has the INC become heretical in their teaching?

What has caused the INC to stray from true Biblical doctrine if they believe in the infallible

8 Albert J. Sanders, “An Appraisal of the Iglesia Ni Cristo” in Studies in Philippine

Church History, 351. 9 Arthur Leonard Tuggy, Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics,

107. Here, he quotes a publication of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.

5

Scriptures? The problems arises when the INC denies the perspicuity of Scripture, “The common

Christian, according to the Iglesia cannot correctly understand Scripture unless it is interpreted

for him by authorized ministers.”10 This is in contrast to what biblical theologians would call the

perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. Wayne Grudem says, “The clarity [or the perspicuity] of

Scripture means that the able is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood

by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”11 Therefore, the

dividing point between Scripture and the INC is regarding who is able to understand the truths of

Scripture. More on correcting these errors later, but first we must understand their

argumentation for their false bibliology. The INC hosts a regularly aired television program that

teaches its basic doctrinal beliefs called, “The Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Bible.” One episode

entitled, “The Mystery and Wonder of God’s Words” provides the their rational for denying the

clarity of Scripture.12

Here, passages such as Romans 11:33, 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2:11-12, and Ephesians 3:9 are

presented to falsely teach that the word of God is a mystery that cannot be known by man. These

passages are victims of poor hermeneutics and improper exegesis. For example, Ephesians 3:9 is

in reference to the God’s plan for the establishment and life of the church, it does not specifically

address the doctrine of bibliology/special revelation. Therefore, their lack of understanding

context has led them to a false understanding of Scripture. Ephesians 3:9 is about, “Paul’s

10 Ibid., 108. 11 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 108. 12 “The Mystery and Wonder of God's Words,” Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Bible.

www.iglesianicristo.ws, (accessed November 16, 2011).

6

mission was to bring to light, or reveal, the full expression of the operation of this great truth of

Gentile and Jews being one, a truth hidden for so long in the mind of God the Creator.”13

The reason that the INC seem so biblical is because they offer rapid proof texts that also

are misunderstood and misapplied. But because of the volume of passages presented, many may

perceive their interpretations as acceptable. Proof texting is a valid method of hermeneutics, but

not at the expense of other important hermeneutical and exegetical practices, “The danger in

proof-texting is well known: proof-texts are sometimes misused and their contextual meaning

distorted in an attempt to use them to support teaching they do not really support . . . Obviously,

we should not cit proof-texts unless we have a pretty good idea of what they mean in their

context.”14

The INC continues to justify their denial of Scripture’s perspicuity by quoting 1

Corinthians 2:11-12 and stating that only those who have received the Holy Spirit can understand

Scripture. This inherently involves an erroneous view of biblical pneumatology. They terrible

misinterpret the ministry of the Holy Spirit in illumination and His relationship to the New

Testament saint, but more on this later. Because they believe only those with the Spirit can

properly interpret Scripture they ask, “Who has received the Holy Spirit?” As a response Luke

4:18 is given. This passage says that Jesus received the Spirit of God to preach. Therefore, they

improperly conclude that only those sent by God have received the Spirit therefore they are the

only ones allowed to properly interpret and preach the gospel. By quoting this passage they

attempt to show forth that the Holy Spirit inhabits those sent by God who in return are the only

individuals permitted to properly interpret Scripture. This string of passages are improperly

13 John MacArthur and Jr, Ephesians (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986), 95. 14 John M. Frame, A Theology of Lordship: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

(Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 197.

7

interpreted and then improperly strung together to deny the doctrine of Scripture’s perspicuity.

In summary, the INC concludes believes:

Even as far back as the Old Testament times we are told that the messengers of the Lord God should be the ones consulted by people [in order to receive the proper interpretation of Scripture] . . . Malachi 2:7 . . . Man should seek the true knowledge about the Lord God from his messengers. But why is that? Because they are the ones who have been given by the Lord God the Father the true knowledge concerning him. They are the ones who have received the gift of understanding the Lord God’s word as well as the right, the privilege, to preach the pure message of the gospel.15 They would conclude by stating: Those who are not authorized to preach the words of the Lord God would never be able to learn the true knowledge of the Lord God given to the true messengers. Because as the Lord Jesus declared, “to those who are outside” or to those who don’t belong to God’s people “all things come in parables,” so what else did the Lord Jesus Christ say, “so that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand,” [quoting Mark 4:2] so this merely means the gift to understand, the right to preach the words of the Lord God recorded in the Holy Scriptures are only for those who are sent by the Father, only for the true messengers of the Lord God through the Lord Jesus Christ.16

In addition to denying the ability of the average parishioner to interpret the Scriptures,

there is also an emphasis by the INC to downplay an academic approach to studying the

Scriptures. They do not hold solid seminary or bible training in high regard and do so by proof

texting several passages. Some examples are the citing of Luke 2:42-47, 21:15, and Acts 4:13 as

texts that supposedly prove that bible interpreters cannot be diligent workman in the word.

Perhaps the reason for such a strong offense against formal training is due to the lack of training

their founder received. This is only by inference, but because their founder was not accepted in

Protestant circles of education may be a reason for such a hostile offense against formal training.

15 “The Mystery and Wonder of God's Words,” Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Bible.

www.iglesianicristo.ws, (accessed November 16, 2011). 16 Ibid.

8

Therefore, as a group the INC may hold to the infallibility of Scripture but hold to the

fact that only those authorized by the church as ministers can properly interpret the Scriptures.

They may operate under the principle of Sola Scriptura, but terribly fail in its application to the

church and to the believer. Their epistemology or source of knowledge ultimately falls on the

leaders of this false group of Christianity.

The Christology of the Iglesia Ni Cristo

As a result of the INC’s poor approach to Scripture they have erred in the important area

of Christology. In their Christology they deny the deity of Jesus Christ and therefore rob Him of

His ability to atone and purchase the sins of the world. The following is a brief exploration of

their Christology.

The INC’s understanding of Christ is explained by one of their ministers as, “Yes, we

believe in Jesus Christ, but we do not believe that he is the true God. We do believe in only one

true God, the God of creation. Jesus Christ is a great Saviour and was commissioned by God to

be the Saviour.”17 Therefore they clearly deny the diety of Jesus,

It is explained that he is not a mere man but the Man. He is designated as Son of Man, Son of God, as Lord, even as Lord of lords. He is not God nor can divinity in any form be attributed to him. Both the Incarnation, which is branded as ‘an atrocious belief,’ and the doctrine o the Trinity are flatly denied. He was appointed to be a Svior and does not fill that office by virtue of what he is. His Lordship is not inherent but is an honor conferred on him by God.18 This is a clear denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and an outright denial of the Triune God

of Christianity. As part of their denial of Jesus’ deity they also deny His pre-existence, “When

17 An interview done by the Far East Broadcasting Company recorded in Arthur Leonard

Tuggy, Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics, 109. 18 Albert J. Sanders, “An Appraisal of the Iglesia Ni Cristo” in Studies in Philippine

Church History. Anderson, Gerald H. Ed. (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970), 355.

9

was the purpose of God in the beginning to create Christ fulfilled? When the fullness of time

came and Christ was born of a woman. Who was the woman who gave birth to Christ? Mary

his mother (Matt. 1:6). Only then did Christ come into existence.”19

Taking several passages out of context supports their denial of Christ’s deity. All of their

cited passages are taken out of context and these passages include, Matthew 3:17, 16:15-16, John

3:16, Acts 2:36, 5:31, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 5:12, John 10:36, Hebrews 4:14-16, and John

8:40. These passage mainly contains references to Jesus as Son or Jesus being sent by God. By

these statements of Jesus’ “sonship” and “being sent” the INC attempt to show that Jesus was

merely a man. Perhaps one of the most alarming charges is that Jesus Himself would claim a

distinction of God the Father’s deity and His own humanity by citing John 17:1-3.

Ironically, the INC still believes that Jesus is the savior of the world despite His lack of

deity. No explanation is given of how this is possible apart from God making Jesus obedient to

the work of atonement performed on the cross.

The final implication behind all of this teaching is the denial of Jesus’ deity, the Trinity,

and by inference, Christ’s ability to atone for the sins of men (because He is God and man). In

summary, we have seen the INC deny the clarity/perspicuity of Scripture and the deity of Jesus

Christ. Therefore, we have seen the INC’s doctrines regarding bibliology and Christology.

19 Ibid., 110. Here Tuggy quotes from an INC magazine clarifying their doctrinal

position. The original magazine was translated into English by Tuggy from the Philippine national language of Tagalog.

10

The Presuppositional Apologetic’s Critique of the Iglesia Ni Cristo

Having seen the doctrines of the INC we can now focus our attention on why these

positions are erroneous. Although some arguments have already been presented, the following

will attempt to a more formalized critique of the INC positions stated above.

Defending the Faith by the Lordship of Jesus Christ

One of the approaches of the presuppositional apologist is to argue without abandoning

the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas of life. This is evident by the Apostle Peter, “but

sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who

asks you to give an account for the hope that s in you” (1 Peter 3:15a, emphasis added).

Therefore, in this section we will consider the words of Christ in addressing these doctrinal

errors of the INC.

The Lordship of Jesus Christ must be assumed when addressing the topic of Christology.

The accusation that Jesus never claimed to be deity does not hold up when the word of God is

clearly examined and interpreted. Jesus made several references to Himself being God both by

statement and by inference. One area where Jesus teaches His deity is in His parables. In many

of Jesus parables He uses Old Testament images in reference to Yahweh and applies them to

Himself.20 Jesus also has a direct reference to His deity in John 8:58 where He equates Himself

to the “I AM” of Israel (cf. Exod. 3:14). Jesus also received honors only God could receive

(Deut. 6:13; cf. Matt. 4:9-10; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 45:23; cf. Matt. 2:2, 11; 8:2; 9:18; Phil. 2:10-11).

Jesus as evidence of His deity also was ascribed attributes that only God alone can posses such

as preexistence (Matt. 9:13; 20:28; 23:34; Luke 4:43, 5:32; Phil. 2:6-7; Jude 5), and

20 An excellent article on this topic is Philip B. Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in

His Parables,” TrinJ 2/1 (Spring 1981), 3-23.

11

omnipresence (Matt. 8:5-13; 18:20; 28:20; John 1:47-49; Eph. 4:10-11), and the like. Jesus also

was ascribed names that are only ascribed to God like Lord or YHWH (Matt. 3:3; 8:25; 14:30;

Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Pet. 2:3; 3:13-15). As another evidence of Jesus’ deity He also

performed works that only God could do such as creating (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-

3). These are all examples of how under the sovereign teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and His

word show that He is truly God and truly man. Passages within the epistles such as John 1:1, 14,

Colossians 2:9, and Philippians 2:4-11 clearly teach that Jesus Christ is God.

The sonship of Jesus Christ is one of eternality. This does not speak of Jesus being

created, rather speaks of His position within the economy of the Trinity. Scripture clearly

teaches that the monotheistic God of Scripture is comprised of Three Persons: Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit. Passages such as Matthew 28:19-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 clearly show forth the

existence of an eternal Triune Godhead.

The INC cannot give an answer to Scripture’s clarity regarding the deity of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament clearly teaches that the Lord Jesus is truly God. To deny this would be to

deny the truth of the Gospel.

Although this may settle the problem, the heart of the issue for the INC is their erroneous

hermeneutical approach. Their faulty approach is explained by their love of self and denial and

suppression of the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff). Until God can open their eyes to the

truth (Ps. 119:18; Titus 3:5), they will not be able to comprehensively understand the entire

sweep of Scripture. Although they may rebuttal with the same answer, they fail to realize the

impossibility of the existence of their theology. None of the doctrines proposed by the INC can

be exposed as erroneous simply by internally looking at the weaknesses.

12

Defending the Faith by Showing the “Impossibility of the Contrary”

In providing the sure truth of Christianity without abandoning the Lordship of Jesus

Christ, the apologist must also show forth the inconsistencies of the opposing view. This tactic is

known as exposing the, “Impossibility of the Contrary.” What this means is that anything

outside of Christianity cannot accurate account for the reality that humans live in.

First, we can expose the INC’s denial of the Trinity by rejecting the deity of Jesus Christ.

By denying the deity of Jesus Christ the INC cannot consider themselves saved from sin, because

no man can save another from sin, “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God

a ransom for him—For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever”

(Ps. 49:7-8). Also, “He saved us, not on the basis of deed which we have done in righteousness,

but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit”

(Titus 3:5). Man cannot be saved on the basis of good deeds. Many can only be saved through

the atoning work of the God-man Jesus Christ. Therefore, by asking the INC individual how to

explain the passages that teach Jesus as being, “merely a man” how could sins be atoned through

a man. Their doctrine of salvation cannot be accomplished before the holy One if they do not

recant their belief that Jesus Christ is merely a man.

They also don’t deny the impossibility of their worldview by denying the Trinity. The

Trinity serves as the basis for relationship (Jn. 10, 17). Jesus alludes to His relationships with the

Father before the world was as the basis by which God the Father can relate to His redeemed

children (Jn. 17:5, 13-25). There could also be no pattern of understanding for obedience to God

apart from the Triune God. Our human relationship to God is based on God the Son’s

relationship with God the Father (Jn. 10:14-17). Therefore, if Jesus was not pre-existent and if

Jesus were not God, then humanity would not be able to have any form of relationship with the

God of the Bible.

13

By unraveling the logic behind the INC’s theology we find that they cannot properly

account for reality and for Jesus’ Christ’s work on the cross. A Jesus who is not God cannot

save man. A Jesus who is not God is not the God of the Scriptures. This causes major problems

because now the INC’s have created a dilemma upon which there is no solution to man’s

problem that is biblically faithful. With their own theology they show themselves to be illogical

and inconsistent. Sin’s cannot be atoned for, salvation cannot be granted through the Jesus of the

INC’s and they cannot account for the existence of intimate human existence between God and

man.

The Call for the Iglesia Ni Cristo to Repent

Every believer still has the responsibility to the INC’s and evangelize them unto the Lord.

The call to repent is given by God in Acts 17:30, “Therefore having overlooked the times of

ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent.” This does not

exempt the INC. The INC must properly respond to the call of the gospel for salvation, “If you

confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the

dead, you shall be saved.” The judgment of Jesus Christ is coming (2 Thess. 1; Jn. 5:21-24; Rev.

20). And the need to repent and believe is urgent, especially for the INC.

Apart from repentance and faith in the God-man the Lord Jesus Christ those who adhere

to the doctrines of the Iglesia Ni Cristo can be considered false teachers who have crept into the

church and who will await eternal judgment (Jude 3, cf. vv. 5-7, 14-15).

14

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Iglesia Ni Cristo is an errant worldview. Simply evaluating their

doctrinal position regarding bibliology and Christology exposed the error of this worldview.

Although many other areas of doctrine could have been critiqued such as ecclesiology,

angelology, and eschatology these doctrines of bibliology and Christology are foundational for

the Christian faith. Those who faithfully hold to the Scriptures will be doers of the Word (Jas.

1:22) saved by the God-man Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). To God be the glory.

Bibliography

Anderson, Edited by Gerald H. Studies in Philippine Church History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970.

Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready: Directions For Defending the Faith. New York: Covenant

Media Press, 1996. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. New ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1996. Brace, Robin A. “Who Are the 'iglesia Ni Cristo'?” http://www.ukapologetics.net/ .

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/iglesia.htm (accessed November 16, 2011). Bowman, Robert M., Jr., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: the Case For the

Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007. Elwood, Douglas. Churches and Sects in the Philippines. Dumaguete City, P.I.: Silliman

University, 1967. Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: an Introduction. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R

Publishing, 1994. ———. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1987. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. “History of the Iglesia Ni Cristo: Home of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.” Iglesia Ni Cristo and the bible.

www.iglesinicristo.ws . http://churchofchrist.net78.net/iglesianicristohistory.php (accessed November 16, 2011).

“The Lord Jesus Christ Introduced by the Bible.” Iglesia Ni Cristo and the

Bible.http://iglesianicristo.ws/Page%201/The%20Lord%20Jesus%20Christ%20Introduced%20By%20The%20Bible/The%20Lord%20Jesus%20Christ%20Introduced%20By%20The%20Bible.html (accessed November 16, 2011).

MacArthur, John, and Jr. Ephesians. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986 “The Mystery and Wonder of God's Words.” Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Bible.

www.iglesinicristo.ws http://iglesianicristo.ws/Page%203/The%20Mystery%20And%20Wonder%20Of%20God_s%20Words/The%20Mystery%20And%20Wonder%20Of%20God's%20Words.html (accessed November 16, 2011).

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd ed. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 1980.

2

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas

Nelson, 1998. Tuggy, Arthur Leonard. Iglesia Ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics. Quezon

City, P.I.: Conservative Baptist Publishing, 1976. Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation: a Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. 2nd

ed. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2006.