Protestant Calvinism has a strong doctrine on Predestination. It means that God has predetermined from the beginning who among those who live and pass through this life on earth will go to Heaven and those who are going to Hell. Salvation is all of the work of God. It follows that Damnation is all decided by God also. For more understanding of this doctrine of predestination, one should study the doctrine called T.U.L.I.P.

This article presents the doctrine of Fate and Destiny taught in Islam. It is the understanding of this writer that there is no FREE WILL in Islam. Many Muslims, however, believe there is Free Will in Islam, but the Qur’an and Hadiths clearly teaches predestination.

Here are some Quranic passages that teach predestination:

Quran, Al-An’am 6:125, “And whomsoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islam; and whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky. Thus Allah puts the wrath on those wo believe not.”

Quran, Fatir, 35:8, “. . . Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So destroy not yourself (O Muhammad) in sorrow for them. Truly, Allah is All-Knower of what they do!”

Hadiths are pronouncement of their prophet and are believed to be revelation from Allah. Analyze the understanding of the followers of their prophet:

Hadith #1 – Islamic Fate & Destiny

It was narrated that ‘Aishah the Mother of the Believers said:

“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was called to the funeral of a child from among the Ansar. I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, glad tidings for him! He is one of the little birds of Paradise, who never did evil or reached the age of doing evil (i.e, the age of accountability).’ He said: ‘It may not be so, O ‘Aishah! For Allah created people for Paradise, He created them for it when they were still in their father’s loins, And He has created people for Hell, He created them for it when they were still in their fathers’ loins.’”

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Hadith #2 – Islamic Fate & Destiny

Narrated `Abdullah:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), the truthful and truly-inspired, said, “Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6594

Hadith #3 – Islamic Fate & Destiny

It was narrated from Muslim bin Yasar al-Juhani that `Umar bin al-Khattab was asked about this verse:

`And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins` [al-A`raf 7:172], `Umar (---) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) being asked about it and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: `Allah created Adam, then He passed His right hand over his loins and brought forth from him his offspring and said: I have created these for Paradise and they will do the deeds of the people of Paradise. Then He passed (His hand) over his loins and brought forth from him his offspring and said: I have created these for Hell and they will do the deeds of the people of Hell.” A man said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), why then should we strive? The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: `When Allah creates a person for Paradise, He causes him to do the deeds of the people of Paradise until he dies doing one of the deeds of the people of Paradise and is admitted to Paradise thereby. And when He creates a person for Hell, He causes him to do the deeds of the people of Hell until he dies doing one of the deeds of the people of Hell and is admitted to Hell thereby.”

Grade: Sahih because of corroborating evidence and Da’if (Darussalam)

NO FREE WILL

“’Umar b. al-Khattab reported the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) as saying :

‘Do not sit with those who believe in free will and do not address them before they address you.’”

Grade: Da’if (Al-Albani)

ReferencE: Sunan Abi Dawud 4720

Hadith #4 – Islamic Fate & Destiny

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) as saying:

Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look, and the adultery of the tongue is the licentious speech, the heart desires and yearns, which the parts may or may not put into effect.”

Reference: Sahih Muslim 2657b

(4a) Chapter: Belief in the Divine Decree - Section 1(4a)باب الإيمان بالقدر - الفصل الأول

‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr reported God’s messenger as saying, “God recorded the fates of all creatures 50,000 years before creating the heavens and the earth, and His throne was upon the water.”

Muslim transmitted it.

Grade: Sahīh (Zubair `Aliza’i)

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 79

Hadith #5 – Islamic Fate a Destiny

“(2)Chapter: The Debate Between Adam And Musa (Peace And Blessings Of Allah Be Upon Them) (2) ‏

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

There was an argument between Adam and Moses (peace be upon both of them) in the presence of their Lord. Adam came the better of Moses. Moses said: Are you that Adam whom Allah created with His Hand and breathed into himHis sprit, and commanded angels to fall in prostration before him and He made you live in Paradise with comfort and ease. Then you caused the people to get down to the earth because of your lapse. Adam said: Are you that Moses whom Allah selected for His Messengership and for His conversation with him and conferred upon you the tablets, in which everything was clearly explained and granted you the audience in order to have confidential talk with you. What is your opinion, how long Torah would haye been written before I was created? Moses said: Forty years before. Adam said: Did you not see these words: Adam committed an error and he was enticed to (do so). He (Moses) said: Yes. Whereupon, he (Adam) said: Do you then blame me for an act which Allah had ordained for me forty years before He created me? Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: This is how Adam came the better of Moses.”

Reference: Sahih Muslim 2652c

Hadith #6 -- Islamic Fate & Destiny

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) having said:

By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them.”

Reference: Sahih Muslim 2749

As shown in our previous article, the presence of Three Divine Persons in the One Godhead is amply recorded across the Hebrew Scriptures:

• Genesis 1:1–2 presents God and the Spirit active in creation.

• Proverbs 30:4 explicitly mentions God and His Son.

• Isaiah 48:16 reveals the LORD, His Spirit, and the divine speaker (the Son).

• Genesis 19:24 (NKJV) records two manifestations of YHWH simultaneously (one raining brimstone from heaven, and YHWH on earth at Sodom).

• Psalm 45:6–7 records one Elohim addressing a second Elohim, a passage directly confirmed in Hebrews 1:5–10 as the Father speaking to the Son. In verse 10, the Father addresses the Son as “Lord” and Creator, perfectly aligning with John 1:1–3 and Colossians 1:15–16.

• John 8:56–58 and John 17:5 affirm that Christ, the Logos, had distinct personal existence and activity before the material universe was created.

Now we turn to the New Testament. Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit clearly identified and active together? Absolutely.

Consider the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16–17: all three Divine Persons are revealed simultaneously. The Father speaks from heaven (“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”); the Son, Jesus Christ, stands in the Jordan River having been immersed by John the Baptist; and the Holy Spirit visibly descends like a dove to rest upon Him.

Later, in Matthew 28:19, Christ commands His apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptizing believers “into the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—one divine name encompassing three distinct Persons.

This trinitarian framework appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament writings:

• John 14:25–27: Jesus, while present on earth in human form, speaks directly of both the Father and the Holy Spirit (the Helper).

• 2 Corinthians 13:14: The Apostle Paul explicitly invokes the Triune God: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”

• Romans 1:1–8: Paul systematically lists God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Spirit.

• Hebrews 9:14: The author highlights all three Persons working in the scheme of redemption: “...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God...”

• 1 Peter 1:1–2: Peter explicitly addresses believers chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification by the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ.

NOTE: IThe next article will be a study on the physical appearances (theophanies/christophanies) of God in Scripture. Who is this God who manifested Himself in visible, material forms—such as fire, cloud, rock, and human form?

A Personal Encounter with History

In September 1999, a visit to the family of Domingo and Veny Camaganacan in Talaibon, Ibaan, Batangas, brought me face to face with a living link to our church’s dim past. There, I met Mrs. Cleotilde Villanueva, the mother of Sister Veny.

Mrs. Villanueva shared two astonishing facts. First, she was baptized in 1928 by the American missionary Henry G. Cassell. Second, she personally knew Pedro Asada, a key figure in our early history.

She recounted that Pedro Asada moved his family from Calapan, Mindoro, to Mindanao before the Second World War. However, one daughter, Aurora, was left behind in Mindoro as she was already married. This Aurora Asada, she explained, was the mother of Eliseo A. Sikat.

The connection struck me immediately. Eliseo Sikat was my classmate at the Philippine Bible College in 1964. All those years ago, I had no idea my classmate was the grandson of Pedro Asada. Sister Veny and Eliseo, being children of church leaders in the same area, knew each other well as neighbors. That fateful day in 1999 revealed the very “missing links” I had sought in our Philippine church history, connecting my own generation directly to the pioneers.

The Foundations: Pepperdine, Benson, and Cassell

The story of the Church of Christ in the Philippines begins with a series of providentially timed events.

During a leisure trip to the Orient, George Pepperdine (founder of Pepperdine University) made a stop in Manila. He congregated with the “Christian Church/Churches of Christ” group that met at Cruzada, Quiapo, Manila.

In 1927, another American, George Benson, a missionary in China, was forced to evacuate the mainland. The ship carrying him and other foreigners docked at Pulasahi in Mindoro. It was George Pepperdine who had previously encouraged Benson to consider the Philippines as a mission field if circumstances ever forced him out of China. Benson preached for several months in Mindoro, planting seeds of the gospel.

When Benson eventually left, the Southwest Church of Christ in Los Angeles—where Pepperdine attended—sent Henry G. Cassell to continue the work in Mindoro. However, the climate in Mindoro was not favorable to the Cassell family’s health, prompting them to move to Manila. From their base in Manila, Henry G. Cassell would make occasional preaching trips back to Mindoro.

The Crucial Link: Cassell and Pedro Asada

According to the recollections of Timoteo Lomanang of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro (based on his own memories and the stories of his father, Carlos), Henry Cassell chose Pedro Asada as his interpreter and travel companion for his trips to Mindoro. Asada was one of several young Tagalog preachers associated with the Samahan (Christian Church) group meeting on Cruzada Street in Quiapo.

This partnership proved to be the pivotal moment of doctrinal clarification. Cassell worked closely with Asada, clarifying the theological issues that separated the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) from the Christian Church/Churches of Christ (instrumental). Key practices such as the eating of blood, Christmas celebrations, and Holy Week observations were discussed and subsequently dropped by Asada.

This “restored” message, as clarified by Cassell, is what Asada carried with him.

The Gospel Spreads Through Filipino Pioneers

Pedro Asada’s influence became the bridge linking the American missionary effort to the indigenous spread of the church across the islands.

• To Mindanao: Before the Pacific War, Asada moved his family to a farm settlement in the wilderness of Cotabato, Mindanao. There, he met Antonio Villanueva, who had already begun preaching to men like Cornelio Alegre and Laureano Belo. Asada discussed the doctrinal issues Cassell had clarified with him, influencing Villanueva and this entire group, which would become a bedrock of the church in Mindanao.

• In Mindoro: Cassell’s work, reinforced by Asada, continued from 1928 to 1941. While Benson’s initial work was in the Pulasahi-Roxas area, Cassell’s efforts were centered further north in Calapan. There, they converted and influenced several key families who would become pillars of the church, including the Lomanang family, the Menor family, and the Sikat family (Eliseo Sikat’s relatives).

The Interruption of War and Lasting Connections

In December 1941, the outbreak of the Pacific War brought this work to a sudden halt. Henry Cassell and his wife were declared enemy aliens by the Japanese Imperial Army and were interned at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila.

They suffered greatly during their long incarceration. When Manila was liberated in 1945, the Cassells, along with thousands of other civilians, were repatriated to the United States. Though they were very sickly when they sailed home, their connection to the Philippines remained. The Cassells continued to correspond with the Isidro Villanueva family in Calapan City, Mindoro, throughout the 1950s and early 1960s.

A Chain of Faith

We can therefore trace the series of events and relationships that established the Church of Christ in the Philippines. It began with George Pepperdine’s influence, leading to George Benson’s work in Mindoro, which in turn resulted in Henry G. Cassell being sent by the Southwest Church.

Cassell’s vital contribution was clarifying the church’s distinct message to Pedro Asada. Asada then became the key link, carrying this teaching to two primary fields: Mindanao (influencing Antonio Villanueva, Cornelio Alegre, and Laureano Belo) and Mindoro (with Cassell, influencing the Lomanang, Menor, and Sikat families).

Although these men were foundational, other early leaders like Melchor Fontanilla, Remigio dela Torre, the de Castro brothers, and Fabian Bruno were also instrumental. This history was built from the joint efforts of American missionaries and the dedicated Filipino preachers who embraced the message and carried it forward.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The Sunday Morning Mirage

Imagine a young man standing in the doorway of an empty church auditorium on a quiet Saturday afternoon. He is twenty-two years old, holding a fresh diploma from a Christian university or a certificate from a church-affiliated school of preaching. Like over 90% of preachers serving Churches of Christ today, he has spent years acquiring formal theological education to prepare for this exact moment. In his mind, ministry looks like a clean, well-lit sanctuary where faithfully preaching the truth automatically translates into lives changed and a congregation that loves him in return.

Now fast-forward seven years.

That same young man is sitting in his church office late on a Tuesday evening, staring blankly at a computer screen. His sermons feel dry, his energy is gone, and he feels entirely alone. Despite his passion when he started, he is on the verge of becoming another statistic—one of the countless preachers who walk away from their pulpits long before reaching their most effective years of ministry. According to a study, in Churches of Christ, the average tenure of a pulpit minister with a single congregation is only about six and a half years.

Why does the story end this way so often? It happens because the helping professions demand intense emotional labor, and ministry is no exception. Too many ministers enter the field prepared for an academic exercise, only to be crushed by the interpersonal conflicts, isolation, and relentless expectations of real-world congregational life.

We can write a different story, but it requires an honest plea to the two groups who hold the pen: the operators who run our Bible schools and the students preparing to enter the trenches.

To the Operators: Teach Them How to Survive the Trenches

To the administrators, professors, and directors of our preaching schools and Christian universities: you are the architects of the future church. You love God’s Word, and you have dedicated your lives to ensuring that students can interpret scripture accurately. But we must have a candid conversation about what is happening to your graduates after they leave your classrooms.

When ministers walk away from their calling, they frequently point to a heartbreaking reason: they feel their formal training did not prepare them for the actual challenges of ministry.

• Look Beyond the Page: Our programs excel at teaching biblical doctrine, original languages, and exegetical analysis, but they often offer relatively few courses on the daily struggles of practical ministry or the people skills required to survive.

• Teach Emotional Resilience: A preacher can deliver a theological masterpiece from the pulpit, but if he lacks emotional intelligence, his ministry will struggle. Training students in emotional intelligence has been shown to increase their self-efficacy and job satisfaction, equipping them to navigate criticism and conflict without falling apart.

• Address Spiritual Dryness: In our rush to grade exams and research papers, we risk teaching students to treat the Bible as a textbook rather than a lifeline. Yet, research shows that spiritual dryness—a lack of spiritual vitality—is the primary predictor of emotional exhaustion in clergy.

Please do not just teach your students how to construct a sermon; teach them how to construct a life that can endure the weight of ministry. Give them classes on conflict management, boundaries, and secondary trauma. Show them that protecting their personal devotional life is just as important as mastering Greek verbs.

To the Students: Prepare for a Marathon, Not a Sprint

To the students burning the midnight oil in dorm rooms and seminary libraries: your passion for the Word is a gift from God. But if you want to be preaching thirty years from now—if you want to “burn on” instead of burning out—you have to change how you view your preparation right now.

• Anchor Your Soul in Your Calling: Do not enter ministry because it seems like a respectable career or merely because you enjoy public speaking. Long-tenured ministers survive because they hold a deep conviction that God has called them to serve His people. That sense of divine calling acts as an anchor during the darkest seasons of church conflict, reminding you that you work for God, not merely for men.

• Reject the Lie That Self-Care is Selfish: Far too many preachers buy into the myth that caring for their own physical, mental, and emotional health is a lack of faith. The seasoned ministers who actually last in the pulpit know the opposite is true: self-care is an absolute necessity for ministry longevity. You must learn to set healthy boundaries, take your days off, get enough sleep, and practice Sabbath rest so you have something left in the bucket to give to others.

• Build Your “Band of Brothers” Today: Ministry can be profoundly lonely, and isolation is one of the strongest predictors of professional burnout. Do not wait until you are drowning in church problems to look for a friend. Start building a trusted network of peers—people who understand the job and will hold you accountable—before you ever step into a full-time pulpit.

• Protect Your Home: Almost universally, long-tenured preachers point to a supportive wife and family as the single most critical factor keeping them in ministry. Your family is your primary support system, not free labor for the church. Guard your time with them fiercely.

Writing a Different Ending

Let us return to that empty auditorium, thirty-five years later.

An older man stands at the front of the room. His Bible is worn, his hair is gray, and he has weathered his share of church disagreements, sleepless nights, and grieving families. But his eyes are bright, and his heart is soft. He didn’t quit when the work became difficult because his school taught him how to care for his soul alongside his mind, and because he learned early on to lean on God, his family, and a band of trusted brothers.

This is the story the church desperately needs today. To our Bible school operators: build the kind of training ground that prepares the whole person for the journey. To our students: receive the Word with humility, protect your walk with God, and prepare your heart for a lifetime of faithful service.

Subscribe now

Reference

To understand the spiritual and historical roots of the current disputes in Israel, we must look to the scriptures held sacred by both Muslims and Jews. The following declarations from the Qur’an and the Holy Bible affirm the divine assignment of this land to the descendants of Abraham:

• Warsh Quran, Surah 5:21, “O my people! Enter the sacred land that Allah has prescribed for you, do not turn back [out of fear of her rulers], or you will suffer damage.”

• Hafs Qur’an, Surah 5:21, “O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine) which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back (in flight); for then you will be returned as losers.”

• Genesis 13:12, 14, 15,

  “Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan. And the LORD said to Abram, ‘Lift your eyes now and look from the place you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.’”

• Genesis 15:18, “On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates. . . .”

Biblical and Qur’anic Foundations

These passages illustrate a shared scriptural recognition that the land of Canaan was promised to the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the Bible, Yahweh’s covenant with Abram (later Abraham) established an “everlasting” inheritance. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, this “forever” signifies a permanent bond between the land and the Israelites, ordained by the Creator until the end of time.

Historically, rivals have claimed that the Philistines are the original owners of the area once known as Palestine. However, a closer examination of the timeline reveals a different story.

In Genesis 12, God called Abram to leave his place of origin, promising that through him, a Messiah and Redeemer would come as a blessing to all families of the earth. When Abram settled in Canaan, the land was inhabited by various tribes, primarily the Canaanites. Yahweh explicitly told him, “To your descendants I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7). By Genesis 13:14-18, this promise was extended “forever.”

Now read Genesis 15:18-21. Please note there were no Philistines at the time of this covenant made by Yahweh with Abram circa 2000 B.C..

Genesis 15:20-21, “On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: to your descendants I have given this land, from the river Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates – the Kenites, the Kenezzites, and the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

When the Covenant with Abram was made, there were no Philistines in the land of Canaan. It appears that the Philistines will come from another part of the Mediterranean and settle on the eastern basin of the Mediterranean Sea. Abraham and Sarah were gifted a child of their own in their old age- Abraham at 100 years and Sarah at 90. Genesis chapter 21 reveals that Isaac’s family and not Ishmael’s will blessings to humanity flow. Genesis 21:11-15 tells the story of Hagar and Ishmael being sent away settling in the Wilderness of Paran which is now part of the Sinai Peninsula governed by Egypt. See Genesis 21:21. God’s promise of blessings went to Isaac in Genesis 26:24-25. Isaac had two sons: Esau and Jacob. Jacob was the favored one and his clan went to Egypt and the Israelites stayed there about 400 years. Joseph entered Egypt circa 1950 B.C., and the Exodus started circa 1445 B.C.

At King David’s height of power, circa 1000 B.C., his kingdom covered from the Tigris-Euphrates River in the north to Ezion Geber-Elath at the shore of the Red in the south; east of the Jordan River to the shores of the Mediterranean. Literally, that was the area pointed to by Yahweh to Abram in Genesis 15:20-21. You may check this up in your Bible Geography.

The Question of the Philistines

Scripture indicates that the Philistines were not indigenous to Canaan at the time of the covenant (circa 2000 B.C.). Genesis 15:18-21 lists the inhabitants of the land—including the Kenites, Hittites, and Amorites—but notably excludes the Philistines. Historical and biblical records suggest they were immigrants from Caphtor (the Island of Crete) who later settled in the western maritime sections of Canaan.

By the time of Prophet Jeremiah (circa 627 B.C.), the Philistines were established in cities like Gaza and Ashkelon, yet they were still recognized as the “remnant of the country of Caphtor” (Jeremiah 47:4).

The Southern Kingdom of Judah was taken into captivity by the Babylonians in B.C. 586 and the first returning Jews from captivity to Jerusalem was led by Zerubbabel in 516 B.C. upon the permission of King Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire. Judah being the lead tribe with the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Levi, the returning captives were now called “Jews” (Ju) derived from the first syllable of the tribe “Judah”. Then came the Macedonian-Graeco Empire expanded by Alexander the Great. This conqueror died at the City of Babylon in 323 B.C. and his empire was divided into four sections governed by his four army generals. The Jews came under the control of the Greek colonizers based in Syria and Egypt.

In 63 B.C., Pompey of Rome conquered the Near East and the Middle East which started the expansion of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar campaigned in Western Europe. Now the Jews came under the Roman colonizers. Wanting to be free from Roman control, the Jews mounted a rebellion which started in 66 A.D.. Roman general Vespasian and his son Titus marched their army from Egypt to Jerusalem in 68 A.D. and besieged the city until it fell into Roman control in A.D. 70. Jerusalem buildings including the revered Temple of Solomon were burned and leveled to the ground fulfilling what Christ said, “no stone will remain on top of another stone” See Luke 21:5-7. About 90,000 Jews were taken slaves into foreign countries. However, many Jews remained behind in land of Judah or Judea. During the second decade of the second century (circa 112 A.D.) another rebellion was mounted by the Jews in Jerusalem against the Roman colonizers which resulted to another batch of Jews taken into captivity by the Romans while others escaped and settled in Middle East countries and North Africa.

Conquest, Dispersion, and the Rise of Islam

The history of the land is one of successive empires: the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and eventually the Romans. Following Jewish rebellions in 70 A.D. and 112 A.D., many Jews were forced into captivity or fled to North Africa and the Middle East, though a remnant always remained in Judea. In 312 A.D., Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, and the faith spread rapidly throughout the region.

By the 7th century, the landscape shifted again with the emergence of Islam. Following the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D., Arab forces under Caliph Umar occupied Jerusalem circa 640 A.D. This marked the beginning of a significant Arab migration into the territory. By 650 A.D., Jerusalem had become the spiritual home to three competing faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

As more Arabs migrated into the region—labeled “Palestina” on Roman maps—they eventually outnumbered the local Jewish and Christian populations.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Word Ministry

Refer a friend

Introduction

Islam presents a significant theological challenge to Christianity. Over the past decades, Islam has pursued an aggressive expansion program globally—across Europe, South America, Australia, the United States, and Canada. The Philippines has witnessed substantial Muslim community growth in towns and cities throughout Luzon and beyond. Muslim scholars and bloggers actively engage in digital media and social advocacy.

As Christians, we must understand Islam’s core doctrines to respond faithfully to this theological challenge. Islam’s foundational claims directly contradict Christian truth. This article examines the Islamic claim that the Bible has been corrupted—a doctrine critical to Islam’s legitimacy and authority.

Major Islamic Doctrines

Islamic teaching embraces several doctrines that fundamentally oppose Christian faith:

• The Bible has been corrupted and is therefore not a valid authority in religion.

• Allah is one person alone; there is no Trinity.

• Muhammad is the greatest and final prophet.

• Jesus Christ was merely a man, not God. Islam denies His crucifixion, claiming that Allah substituted another person who was crucified instead, and that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven without experiencing death or resurrection.

• Islam teaches that Jesus will return, live forty years on earth, kill the antichrist, destroy all crosses, slaughter all pigs, then die, followed by the end of the world.

• All people enter Hell initially. Only those approved or interceded for by Muhammad from his community can transfer to Paradise.

Focus of This Article

This article focuses on the first major claim: that the Bible has been corrupted and therefore is not a valid authority in religion. We will examine this claim directly from Islamic sources—the Qur’an itself—and demonstrate the internal contradictions within Islam’s position on the validity of Scripture.

Islamic Declaration on Scripture Corruption

The Qur’an makes the following declaration:

Surah 4:82

Do they not consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein many a contradiction.

Section I: The Qur’an’s Confirmation of Previous Scriptures

The Qur’an repeatedly uses the word confirming regarding previous scriptures. This is the critical theological point: to confirm means to verify as authentic and valid. The following Qur’anic passages demonstrate this claim:

Surah 2:91

When it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they reply, We only believe in what was sent down to us, and they deny what came afterwards, though it is the truth confirming their own Scriptures! Ask them, O Prophet, Why then did you kill Allah’s prophets before, if you are truly believers?

Surah 3:3

He has revealed to you, O Prophet, the Book in truth, confirming what came before it, as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

Surah 5:46

Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing.

Editorial Note: The word confirming in these passages is decisive. Confirmation affirms the truth and completeness of what was confirmed. When Muhammad received the Qur’an (A.D. 610–632), he was confirming the Torah and Gospel as they existed in his time. This directly contradicts later Islamic claims that these texts were corrupted.

Surah 5:44–47

Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah, made judgments for the Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to Allah’s Book, with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear Me! Nor trade My revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are truly the disbelievers. Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing. So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are truly the rebellious.

Surah 5:48

We have revealed to you, O Prophet, this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given each of you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you of the truth regarding your differences.

Editorial Note: The phrase confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them is critical. This verse explicitly states that the Qur’an confirms (validates) the previous scriptures—the Torah and Gospel—as they existed at that time.

Section II: Islamic Claims of Scripture Corruption

Despite confirming the Torah and Gospel, Islamic teaching also claims these scriptures were corrupted by Jews and Christians. The Qur’an presents these conflicting claims:

Surah 5:13–15

But for breaking their covenant We condemned them and hardened their hearts. They distorted the words of the Scripture and neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. You, O Prophet, will always find deceit on their part, except for a few. But pardon them and bear with them. Indeed, Allah loves the good-doers. And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know it.

Editorial Note: This passage claims that some Jews and Christians distorted the words of the Scripture and neglected a portion. However, it specifically refers to oral neglect, not the written text. This is a crucial distinction.

The Internal Contradiction: Qur’anic Textual History

If the Bible was corrupted by human hands, was the Qur’an similarly protected? Consider these historical facts:

• Caliph Uthman (ruled A.D. 644–656) ordered all existing Qur’an copies burned and had the Qur’an recompiled and standardized according to his specifications.

• Today there exist at least two major Qur’anic text traditions: the Hafs version and the Warsh version, with approximately 5,000 documented variants between them.

• These versions differ even in the number of verses (ayat) in individual chapters. For example, Chapter 16 contains 99 verses in the Warsh version but 128 verses in the Hafs version.

• A hadith records that a verse on the suckling of adults ten times was lost when a sheep ate the manuscript on the day of Muhammad’s death. This verse appears in neither the Hafs nor the Warsh version.

If Islam claims the Bible was corrupted by human hands, yet the Qur’an itself experienced textual standardization under Caliph Uthman and now exists in multiple versions with thousands of variants, the logical question arises: Is Allah’s power to preserve Scripture limited? Why would Allah protect the Qur’an through human compilation yet allegedly allow the Torah and Gospel to be corrupted?

Section III: Historical Evidence—Muhammad’s Own Testimony

The most compelling evidence against the Islamic corruption claim comes from Muhammad himself. Historical accounts record that Muhammad consulted and validated the Torah during his lifetime.

Hadith: Sunan Abi Dawud 4449 (Graded Hasan/Reliable)

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah, who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it, saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought.

Critical Analysis:

This historical account demonstrates that Muhammad:

• Explicitly declared: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee—affirming the Torah’s divine origin.

• Treated the Torah as authoritative, placing it on a cushion of honor and using it as the basis for judgment.

• Consulted the Torah’s teachings rather than dismissing it as corrupted.

• This occurred during Muhammad’s lifetime (A.D. 610–632), during the period the Qur’an was being revealed.

The Central Contradiction:

How can Islam claim the Bible was corrupted when Muhammad himself used and validated the Torah? If the Torah was corrupted in Muhammad’s time, then:

• Muhammad would have known it was corrupted.

• He would not have used it as an authoritative basis for legal judgment.

• He would not have declared belief in it as coming from God.

Conclusion: Islam’s claim that the Bible was corrupted contradicts Islam’s own historical record of Muhammad’s actions and statements. Contradiction is the mark of falsehood.

For Church Members: Response Strategy

• Be equipped to explain that the Bible verses Muslims cite as Muhammad prophecies—including Deuteronomy 18:18, Psalm 118:22–23, Isaiah 42:1–13, Habakkuk 3:3–4, Matthew 21:42–43, and John 14:12–17, 26, 28, and John 16:7–14—are not prophecies pointing to Muhammad but rather to Jesus Christ.

• Remember that the Qur’an itself confirms the validity of the Torah and Gospel as they existed at the time of Muhammad (A.D. 610–632).

• Point to the internal contradictions within Islam: if the Bible was corrupted, how can the Qur’an confirm it? And if Allah could not or would not preserve the Torah and Gospel, why should we trust that Allah preserved the Qur’an when it too has experienced textual variation and standardization?

• Stand confidently on the promise that God has preserved His Word. The Bible’s testimony to Jesus Christ as God incarnate, crucified, and risen remains unchanged and unchangeable.

— Eusebio A. Tanicala

Critics love to say the Bible has been copied and translated so many times that we can’t possibly know what the original Apostles wrote. They treat it like a 2,000-year-old game of “Telephone.”

But history proves them wrong. Here is why we can be 100% confident that we have the exact same seed today:

• It wasn’t a whisper; it was a broadcast. The New Testament wasn’t passed down in a single, fragile line. It was copied and spread across the globe immediately. Today, we have over 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts to compare. When scholars line them up, they match with over 99% accuracy. You can’t fake that.

• We don’t read a “translation of a translation.” A lot of people think our Bibles were translated from Greek, to Latin, to German, and finally to English. Not true! Reliable modern Bibles are translated directly from the ancient Greek and Hebrew straight into your hands.

• The Ultimate Guarantee. Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

The DNA of the gospel hasn’t been modified. When you open your Bible to study, you aren’t holding a 2,000-year-old rumor. You are holding the exact same imperishable seed that Peter and Paul planted in the 1st century.

Don’t let the haters tell you otherwise. Be like the Bereans—keep opening the Book, keep studying the Word, and keep seeking the truth!

Subscribe now

Share

Share Word Ministry

In our previous article (Series #1a), we noted that the plural form of Elohim can serve three distinct functions depending on textual context:

1. Plurality of Persons/Items: Denoting two or more individuals or objects.

2. Plurality of Attributes or Results: Denoting abundance, fullness, or the magnitude of a person or object’s qualities.

3. Plural of Respect or Majesty: An honorific grammatical form used to denote dignity, supreme power, or authority.

How Elohim Accommodates Both Plurality and Singularity

1. Accommodating Plurality in the Godhead

When applied to the God of Israel, Elohim accommodates a plurality of Persons because the broader testimony of Scripture explicitly reveals distinct Persons interacting within the Godhead:

• Old Testament: Genesis 1:1–2, Proverbs 30:4, and Isaiah 48:16.

• New Testament: Matthew 3:16, Matthew 28:19, John 14:25–27, and 2 Corinthians 13:14 (where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are explicitly named together).

• Plural Pronouns: The divine use of “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26, and “Us” in Isaiah 6:8.

• Person-to-Person Dialogue: In Psalm 45:6–7, one Elohim addresses another Elohim. In Genesis 19:23–24 (NKJV), Yahweh—who manifested on earth in Genesis 18:1–2—rains fire down from Yahweh out of heaven.

2. Accommodating Singularity & Excellence of Attributes

Conversely, Elohim can refer to a single individual while expressing the fullness, majesty, or multiplicity of His divine attributes.

Grammatical analysis of Hebrew place names and personal names ending in -im illustrates how this suffix often refers to attributes or results rather than multiple people:

• Adoraim: Means “double honor” or “twofold majesty”.

• Ephraim: Means “doubly fruitful”. The -im ending refers to a multiplicity of fruitfulness or blessing, not multiple people within Ephraim.

A notable example appears in Genesis 25:3 regarding the lineage of Abraham and Keturah (through Dedan):

• Asshurim: Derived from a root meaning “mighty ones” or “mighty ones of stature”.

• Letushim: Means “sharpened ones” or “hammered/craftsmen”.

• Leummim: Means “peoples” or “nations”.

These names reflect desired characteristics, roles, or future tribal outcomes, not a plurality of persons within each single individual.

Conclusion

Key Takeaway: It is unsound hermeneutics to rely solely on the -im suffix of Elohim to prove the Trinity.

The sounder approach is to evaluate the broader biblical context and specific scriptural evidence to determine which of the three grammatical applications applies. We prove the Triune nature of God not from a single suffix, but from the clear testimony of Scripture where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact, act, and reign as God.

In our upcoming article, we will examine New Testament passages that clearly establish the Trinity and the Godhead.

What is ReMission?

ReMission is an ongoing movement and annual conference organized by leaders within the Churches of Christ. Born out of a desire to refocus Christians on the work of evangelism, it aims to reignite a passion for leading souls to Jesus. The most recent two-day conference was hosted at the Pleasant Valley Church of Christ in Little Rock, Arkansas, drawing 586 attendees from 168 congregations across 23 states.

The Core Message

The central premise of ReMission was captured by Rick Atchley, a minister from Texas, who diagnosed a generational shift within the Churches of Christ. He noted that as the denomination moved away from the sectarian legalism of the past—specifically the belief that they were the “only ones going to heaven”—they inadvertently overcorrected, leading to a loss of urgency for evangelism. The movement asserts that this shift caused the church to lose its primary mission.

To correct this, ReMission seeks to forge a path forward that is neither strictly sectarian nor progressive. Instead, it challenges churches to:

• Boldly proclaim both grace and truth.

• Recover the authority of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Refocus energy away from divisive political or social squabbles and back toward preaching the good news to the lost.

Where to Read More

You can read the primary investigative article by The Christian Chronicle detailing the conference, the speakers, and the vision here: ‘We lost our mission’ - The Christian Chronicle

To understand this truth clearly, it helps to distinguish it from other worldviews:

• Islamic Monotheism: Asserts strict “one-person monotheism”—that God is a single, solitary person.

• Modalism: Claims that God is a single person who merely manifests Himself in three different forms or “modes” depending on the situation (sometimes appearing as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit).

In contrast, biblical orthodoxy teaches that there are three distinct, co-eternal Persons within the one Being of the Godhead. Each Person possesses His own personal agency, will, and distinction, while sharing the exact same divine attributes: Omnipresence (present everywhere), Omnipotence (all-powerful), and Omniscience (all-knowing). They act in perfect unity, operating as the one true God.

Scriptural Proofs of Plurality in the Godhead

Here are key Old Testament passages demonstrating distinct Persons interacting within the Godhead:

1. Psalm 45:6–7

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Analysis: Here, two distinct individuals are both called God (Elohim). One Person called Elohim addresses another Person called Elohim. Hebrews 1:8–9 explicitly quotes this passage, confirming that it is God the Father addressing God the Son, Jesus Christ.

2. Genesis 18:1–2

“Then the LORD [Yahweh] appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him...”

Analysis: Yahweh appears to Abraham in a tangible manifestation, staying behind to converse at length with him before departing toward Sodom and Gomorrah.

3. Genesis 19:24

“Then the LORD [Yahweh] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD [Yahweh] out of the heavens.”

Analysis: Notice that in the NKJV text, two instances of the divine name Yahweh are written: Yahweh on earth executes judgment from Yahweh in the heavens. Just as Psalm 45 shows two distinct Persons called Elohim, Genesis 19 shows two distinct Persons acting under the divine name Yahweh.

A Theological Warning: The Linguistic Argument for Elohim

Warning: Be cautious when using the Hebrew suffix -im as a standalone proof for the Trinity.

Some Bible commentators argue that the “-im” ending in Elohim automatically proves a plurality of persons within God. While -im is indeed a masculine plural suffix in Hebrew, it does not automatically indicate two or more persons or items in every single context.

Think of English name grammar: a surname like Torres or Fuentes ends in an “s”, but it obviously refers to a single individual, not a group.

In the Old Testament, single pagan deities—represented by single carved statues of wood, stone, or gold—are frequently referred to using the word Elohim:

• Judges 16:23–24: Dagon is called god (Elohim)

• 1 Samuel 5:7: Dagon is called god (Elohim)

• 2 Kings 1:2–3: Baal-Zebub, god of Ekron, is called god (Elohim)

• 2 Kings 19:37 / Isaiah 37:38: Nisroch is called god (Elohim)

In ancient Hebrew literature, a plural suffix like -im can carry one of three distinct usages:

1. Plurality of Persons or Items: Multiple distinct entities.

2. Plurality of Attributes/Results: Indicating richness, fullness, or extensive attributes.

3. Plural of Respect / Plural of Majesty: A honorific grammatical form used to designate greatness or supreme authority.

Therefore, relying solely on the grammatical ending of Elohim is not a safe argument for proving the Trinity. Instead, our foundation rests on passages where multiple divine Persons explicitly speak to, interact with, and act alongside one another.

Note: In our upcoming article, we will examine proper names in the Old Testament ending in -im that clearly refer to single individuals, further clarifying this key Hebrew idiom.

By Eusebio A. Tanicala

I am an avid student of church history. For many years, there were missing links as we tried to trace the spiritual genealogy of many Philippine brethren. Cotabato brethren told us of Pedro Asada who visited Antonio Villanueva before the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941. That Pedro influenced Antonio to see the scriptural basis of not eating blood and other issues that eventually led the latter to severe ties with the Samahang Tagapagpalaganap ng Ebanghelio, the registered association of Christian Church/Churches of Christ preachers.

In 1978, I personally interviewed Antonio Villanueva in San Felipe, Tangtangan, South Cotabato. Antonio originally came from Nueva Ecija. He was among the thousands of settlers from Luzon in search of free land that was being awarded by the government. Brother Antonio told me that he and Pedro Asada were good friends in Luzon. That during church conventions, they would always stay together in one room. Antonio did not know from what province Pedro Asada came from although he surmised that he was from Cavite.

In September of 1999 during my visit with the family of Domingo Camaganacan and Veny Villanueva-Camaganacan in Talaibon, Ibaan, Batangas, I suddenly came face to face with history. There was in front of me in flesh and blood a link to a dim past – Mrs. Isidro Villanueva, mother of sister Veny Villanueva-Camaganacan.

Mrs. Isidro Villanueva claimed that she was baptized by Henry G. Cassell in 1928. She told me that she personally knew Pedro Asada. Pedro Asada moved his family from Calapan, Mindoro, to Mindanao before the Second World War. That a daughter of Pedro Asada, Aurora by name, was left behind in Mindoro because she was already married when the family sailed for Mindanao. Aurora Asada was the mother of Eliseo Sikat.

Eliseo A. Sikat, therefore, is the grandson of Pedro Asada. Eliseo and sister Veny Villanueva-Camaganacan were neighbors when they were young. Being children of church leaders, they knew each other well. And I personally knew Eliseo Sikat because he was my classmate in a Bible College in 1964. When we were classmates, I didn’t know that Eliseo was the grandson of Pedro Asada. That fateful day of September 1999 revealed to me the whereabouts of the missing links of our Philippine church history.

During a leisure trip to the Orient, George Pepperdine (founder of Pepperdine University in California) made Manila one of his stopovers. Pepperdine congregated with the Christian Church/Churches of Christ group at Cruzada, Quiapo, Manila.

In 1927, George Benson, missionary to China was forced out of the mainland. The ship that brought foreigners out of China docked at Pulasahi in Mindoro. There George Benson preached several months, It was George Pepperdine who encouraged George Benson to consider the Philippines as a mission field should circumstances bring him out of China. When Benson left the Philippines, the Southwest Church in Los Angeles, California where Pepperdine attended sent Henry G. Cassell to continue the work in Mindoro. But because the weather in Mindoro was not favorable to the health of the Cassell family, they moved to Manila. From Manila, Henry G. Cassell would make occasional preaching trips to Mindoro.

According to brother Timoteo Lomanang of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, based on his personal recollections and from stories of his father, Carlos Lomanang, Cassell personally chose Pedro Asada as his interpreter and companion during trips to Mindoro. Asada was one among the several young Tagalog preachers that would go in and out of the church that met along Cruzada Street, Quiapo, Manila.

Cassell succeeded in clarifying the issues with Asada. Issues that separated the Christian Church/Churches of Christ from the Churches of Christ. Eating of blood, Christmas and holy week celebrations were among the major practices dropped by Asada which he discussed with Antonio Villanueva in their farm settlement in the wilderness of Cotabato before the outbreak of the Pacific War. Antonio Villanueva had at that time started preaching to Cornelio Alegre, Laureano Belo and others in Cotabato. And Asada discussed these issues with them, too.

Cassell had also converted other families in Calapan, Mindoro during his visits from 1928 to 1941. Benson’s work of few months was around Pulasahi-Roxas and Mansalay many kilometers south of Calapan City.

In December 1941, the Pacific War broke out. Henry Cassell and his wife became prisoners of the Japanese Imperial Army and were interred at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. When the liberation of Manila was completed in 1945, the Cassells, like thousands of American civilians caught by the war in Manila, were shipped back to the States. Brother and sister Cassell suffered much during the many months of incarceration and were very sickly when they sailed back to America. The Cassells continued corresponding with the Isidro Villanueva family in Calapan City, Mindoro in the fifties and early sixties.

Thus, we see the links, circumstances, and influences. We saw George Pepperdine and George Benson. There was George Pepperdine and the Southwest Church of Christ and Henry G. Cassell and his wife. Cassell who picked up Pedro Asada as his interpreter from among several Samahan preachers. We see Pedro Asada visiting Cotabato and influencing Antonio Villanueva, Cornelio Alegre and Laureano Belo, among others. And many brethren were influenced by other early church leaders like Melchor Fontanilla, Remigio dela Torre, the de Castro brothers, Fabian Bruno and several others.

We see Cassell and Asada in Calapan, Mindoro influencing the Lomanang family, the Menor family, the Sikat family, among others.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 2006

Subscribe now

Share

Share Word Ministry

Leave a comment

In prayers for the elements of the Lord Supper, the phrase “Bless, O Lord, this bread (fruit of the vine), so that it will become a symbol of your body (blood)” is becoming common among many prayer leaders in Ilocano, Tagalog and even in English services. I would imagine that this is the same in Cebuano and other dialects in the Philippines.

There are times that these prayer leaders fail to interrelate the one who is addressed at the beginning of the petition (God, Father, Lord, Powerful Creator) to the one who is asked to grant supplications or favors at the middle of the prayer and to the one who is asked to mediate at the end of the prayer.

When the Father is understood to be the one addressed at the beginning of the prayer, many would wonder why the prayer leader uses the phrase “Bless, O Lord, this bread so that it will become a symbol of your body.” Obviously, the Father did not offer a body for the sins of humanity. Certainly, there is a grammatical error that is committed. Here is where our more experienced evangelists, preachers, older members teach the young prayer leaders.

There are several ways of looking at the situation where the grammatical error is committed.

Situations in Mind

1. If the prayer is addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, the phrase “… your body (blood)” would be consistent and correct. However, the closing part should not be asked “in the name of Jesus.” One could simply close the prayer in this manner: “We trust that You will grant our prayer. Amen.” Considering the overall picture of the prayer, we have the Lord Jesus as the noun (antecedent), the pronoun “your” at the middle part of the prayer refers to the noun (antecedent), and at the end we don’t make Jesus mediate to Himself. Stephen in Acts 7:57-59 directed his prayer to Jesus Christ, our Lord. I don’t object to a Lord’s Supper prayer that is addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. If the prayer is addressed to the Father (Lord God, God, Father, Almighty Creator) at the beginning of the petition, the phrase, “… your body (blood)” would be inconsistent and grammatically incorrect at the middle part of the prayer. The Father of the Lord Jesus did not offer a body or blood for the propitiation of humanity’s sins.

Rule of the Pronoun

We should teach our young prayer leaders the rules of the pronoun. In Tagalog Balarila, a pronoun is panghalip. Ibig sabihin, sa halip na ulit-ulitin mo ang pangngalan (noun) in the paragraph, gamitin ang panghalip upang hindi repetitious ang noun. At bago mo gamitin ang panghalip, kailangang ihayag mo muna ang pangalan sa unahan. Ang pangalan na yan ang antecedent o ituturo ng panghalip na sumusunod.

Because the noun “Father” is the noun established in case #2, the pronoun “your” is inappropriate referent at the middle part of the prayer. So, we must teach our young prayer leaders not to use this pronoun; instead, they should mention Jesus Christ as the one whose body (blood) we are celebrating. And at the end part of the prayer, the prayer leader could name Jesus Christ as the intercessor.

Lord Refers to the Father

One may ask, “Is it scriptural to use the term ‘Lord’ (Apo in Iloco, Panginoon in Tagalog, Ginoo in some dialects, Kurios in Greek) as the person addressed in the beginning of a prayer referring to God the Father?

Certainly, the term “Lord” may refer to the Father. It does refer to the Son also. See Matt.11:25 and 22:44. Get an unabridged concordance and see how many times “Lord” refers to the Father in the Book of Psalms and in the Book of Revelation. Because the term “Lord” may refer to the Father or to the Son, teach our young prayer leaders to be more specific by identifying the one addressed as “Lord our Father” or “Lord Jesus Christ” and teach them to use pronouns to consistently refer to the antecedent.

No Liturgical Expression

Also, we should remember that the pronoun “your” and the phrase “… your body (blood)” are not inspired, irrevocable liturgical expressions that should dictate who is the antecedent in the beginning of our prayers. Grammatically and logically, it is wrong to establish first a pronoun at the middle of the paragraph and then be governed by that pronoun in determining your antecedent. Rather, we should teach our young prayer leaders to establish the right person we address in the prayer, use the right pronoun at the middle of the prayer, and name the right mediator at the end of the prayer.

By Dr. Eusebio Tanicala (4/7/2006)

Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his followers, held a rich vocabulary for the concept of strength. This concept takes on particular significance within the context of Mark 12:30, where Jesus proclaims: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.“

Let’s examine three key Aramaic terms that might capture the depth of ‘all your strength’ in this essential teaching:

• חֵילָא (Chaila): The most common Aramaic word for strength, chaila embodies power, force, and might. It encompasses not only physical strength but also military power and spiritual fortitude. Loving God with all our chaila might imply drawing upon every resource available to us – body, mind, and spirit.

• תּוּקְפָּא (Tukpa): This term carries a sense of unshakeable strength, unyielding power, and even authority. Using tukpa in the commandment suggests a strength derived from unwavering conviction and steadfastness in devotion to God.

• גְבוּרְתָּא (Gevurta): Gevurta highlights power displayed through bravery and courageous action. When applied to the commandment, it might call us to not merely possess strength but to actively demonstrate it through bold acts of love and service towards God and others.

It’s worth noting that scholars, due to the nuances of translation, sometimes differ in their understanding of which specific Aramaic word for strength Jesus might have used when expressing the Greatest Commandment. Regardless of the specific word, the underlying meaning remains clear: To love God means to do so with every fiber of our being, using our inherent strength not merely for ourselves but as an act of worship.

The Strength of Love

Interestingly, by looking at Aramaic terms for strength we uncover more than just definitions. They bring to light the qualities associated with such a profound concept. We see strength as physical, mental, and spiritual. We also understand it as unwavering, resolute, and demonstrated through action.

This nuanced understanding of strength can then inform how we interpret the Greatest Commandment. To love God with all our strength requires a multi-faceted commitment. It’s a love that actively strives to honor God through the way we live and use the mental, physical, and spiritual resources we’ve been given.

Let us use this reflection on the language of strength to inspire our own spiritual journeys. May we all aspire to love God with every ounce of chaila, tukpa, and gevurta we possess.

We often imagine spiritual warfare in only one way: dramatic, overt, and undeniable. Yet one of the most sobering observations in our theological archives is that spiritual forces of evil operate differently depending on a culture’s prevailing worldview.

Satan is an adaptive adversary. His primary objective is deception (John 8:44), and efficient deception requires tailoring the bait to what a society is already conditioned to believe.

1. The Covert Strategy: Secular & Westernized Societies

In cultures that pride themselves on naturalism, materialism, and skepticism, overt supernatural displays would actually backfire by waking people up to the reality of the spiritual realm.

Therefore, in secularized environments, the enemy operates covertly. He disguises his work within cultural noise—intellectual pride, moral relativism, chemical explanations, addiction to digital distraction, and subtle doctrinal compromise in the church. If he can convince you that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist, he wins the battle without ever firing a visible shot.

2. The Overt Strategy: Spiritually Open Societies

Conversely, in cultures and regions where people readily accept the reality of the unseen realm, demonic activity manifests overtly.

Where naturalistic skepticism isn’t the norm, the strategy shifts from denial to intimidation. Here, evil forces leverage fear, superstition, open bondage, and direct oppression to convince souls that they are helpless under the weight of dark powers.

Lessons from Early Church Heresies: The “Already Past” Error

This pattern of cultural adaptation isn’t new. In fact, it was the exact strategy Paul confronted in the early church.

As biblical scholar Kenneth Wilkey documented in his landmark 1965 archival study, A Study of the Resurrection Errors in I Corinthians 15 and II Timothy 2, early Gnostic false teachers (like Hymenaeus and Philetus) didn’t simply attack Christianity from the outside. Instead, they adapted to Hellenistic philosophy by claiming the resurrection was “already past” (2 Timothy 2:18).

By redefining the bodily resurrection as a purely internal, mystical enlightenment that initiates had already achieved, these errorists convinced believers to abandon earthly institutions—even arguing that marriage was no longer necessary, misapplying Jesus’ words that in the resurrection people “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). The enemy camouflaged a destructive heresy inside sophisticated cultural intellectualism.

A Moment of Expectation & Alignment

Before you read any further, pause.

Acknowledge this reality: Right now, in the exact room where you are reading this screen, the Holy Spirit is actively present with you. You are not simply reading historical facts; the Spirit of the living Christ is here to sharpen your discernment.

Whether the enemy is roaring like a lion to intimidate you or masquerading as an angel of light to intellectually deceive you (2 Corinthians 11:14), our defense never relies on human cleverness or superstition. Our victory stands firmly on the Word of God—alive and active (Hebrews 4:12)—and the daily vigilance of prayer.

Word Ministry Takeaway: The Sending

We do not fight a spiritual battle with carnal weapons, nor do we fall into either extreme—neither ignoring the adversary’s reality nor becoming paralyzed by dread. Christ has already disarmed the powers of darkness (Colossians 2:15).

As you lock your screen and step back into your workplace, your home, or your commute today, carry this anchor with you: stay sober, stay vigilant, and test every cultural idea against the unchanging pattern of Scripture.

Further Reading & Archival Sources:

Read the Full Study: Wilkey, K. J. (1965). A Study of the Resurrection Errors in I Corinthians 15 and II Timothy 2 (Master’s thesis, Abilene Christian College). Digital Commons @ ACU

Ministry Strategy Critique asks whether the methods are truly serving the mission—or inadvertently working against it.

Why a booming postwar church planting movement suddenly flatlined—and the radical 1975 plan four missionaries published to dismantle their own funding structures.

For two decades following the end of World War II, American Churches of Christ experienced an extraordinary era of expansion across the Philippine Islands. Fuelled by postwar optimism, evangelistic zeal, and an abundance of American financial resources, new congregations multiplied rapidly.

Yet by the late 1960s and early 1970s, this once-dynamic movement had hit a wall. Growth flatlined, and many local churches seemed incapable of standing on their own feet.

The crisis forced an uncomfortable question: Why had a movement blessed with so much external funding suddenly stalled?

On January 27, 1975, four mainline American missionaries—Ray Bryan, Don Huddleston, Robert Buchanan, and Doug LeCroy—offered a startling answer in an open letter titled “Proposed Plan for Philippine Self-Support”. Their diagnosis cut against the grain of traditional missionary fundraising: American money was choking the Philippine church.

Far from accelerating the Gospel, foreign financial subsidies had created a paternalistic trap that stunted local congregational maturity, stifled stewardship, and delayed true indigenous autonomy.

The Economics of Dependency and the “Learn to Earn” Alternative

The core of the missionaries’ diagnosis was that long-term subsidies had fundamentally altered the relationship between local Filipino congregations and their ministers. Because a preacher’s salary arrived via check from across the Pacific, church members felt little financial responsibility toward their own leadership. This dynamic bred a passive church culture where local Christians expected American donors to “foot the bill” for evangelism and pulpit ministry.

This realization did not emerge in a vacuum. It echoed warnings raised years earlier by William Douglass Gunselman, director of the Philippine Bible College of Quezon City. Gunselman had argued that importing the American model of the fully salaried, professional pulpit minister was economically unrealistic in a developing nation. Instead, Gunselman advocated for a “learn to earn” model—equipping local preachers with vocational and professional education so they could support themselves in the marketplace rather than relying on foreign subsidies.

       [ Foreign Subsidy Model ]                 [ Gunselman's "Learn to Earn" Model ]
  U.S. Donors ───> Preacher's Salary              Preacher's Trade/Profession ───> Self-Support
                        │                                      │
                        ▼                                      ▼
             Passive Congregation                      Autonomous Congregation
         (Low giving, high dependency)            (Local ownership, sustainable growth)

The 1975 Proposal: Anatomy of a Course Correction

Recognizing that the status quo was unsustainable, Bryan, Huddleston, Buchanan, and LeCroy publicly admitted fault in the American funding model and recommended two decisive actions:

1. Complete Termination of U.S. Financial Support for Local Preachers

   The authors declared that ongoing American subsidies were actively harming the indigenous church. In their open letter, they wrote:

“It is our conviction, after much personal meditation and discussion, after listening to preachers here, and much observation, that termination of support from America for local preachers, is a necessity.”

2. A Structured Three-Year Phase-Out Plan

Understanding that an abrupt cutoff would strand working evangelists and create economic panic, the missionaries designed a measured, three-year transition. They called on all American churches, sponsoring congregations, and individual donors to systematically scale down and eliminate financial subsidies for Filipino preachers, forcing local congregations to transition toward self-support.

To ensure widespread accountability, the missionaries published their open letter in major Restoration Movement periodicals of the era, appearing in Philippine Mission News (March 1975, Vol. 18, No. 2) and Firm Foundation (April 1, 1975, Vol. 92, No. 13).

The Theological Battlefield and Historical Irony

The publication of the 1975 proposal immediately ignited controversy across the mission field, particularly from the noninstitutional (”anti”) Churches of Christ.

Filipino noninstitutional leaders, most notably Romulo B. Agduma, pushed back forcefully against the missionaries’ conclusions. Agduma argued that the mainline churches were stagnating not simply because of American dollars, but because of unscriptural “sponsoring church” organizations and human institutions. To Agduma, the mainline missionaries were scapegoating money to avoid confronting what he viewed as structural and ecclesiological errors.

Yet history soon revealed a striking irony:

Within five years of Agduma’s critique, American noninstitutional leaders—including Ed Harrell and Tommy Poarch—conducted their own evaluation of noninstitutional mission work in the Philippines. By 1980, Harrell and Poarch observed the exact same dependency trap within their own ranks. Despite their theological differences with mainline missionaries, their proposed solution was identical: a three-year phase-out plan to curb U.S. financial dependency and rescue local church autonomy.

Conclusion: The Measure of True Autonomy

The 1975 “Proposed Plan for Philippine Self-Support” stands as a landmark moment of institutional self-critique in mission history. It demonstrated that money, no matter how generously given, cannot substitute for local ownership.

A truly indigenous church must be able to self-govern, self-propagate, and self-support within its own economic reality. By having the candor to dismantle the very financial structures they had built, the missionaries of 1975 left behind a timeless reminder: the Gospel thrives best when local communities bear the weight—and the joy—of their own ministry.

Key Missiological & Strategic Insights

1. The Paradox of Subsidy (Capital vs. Capacity)

• The Insight: Financial subsidy is often inversely proportional to local congregational capacity.

• The Application: When external donors fund core operational expenses—such as a pastor’s salary—it removes the necessity for local sacrificial giving. Over time, this atrophy of local stewardship transforms churches into perpetual beneficiaries rather than active contributors.

2. The Necessity of Bi-Vocational Ministry (”Learn to Earn”)

• The Insight: Exporting professionalized, full-time ministerial models to developing economies creates structural fragility.

• The Application: William Douglass Gunselman’s “learn to earn” framework highlights the value of bi-vocational and marketplace ministry. Equipping leaders with secular trades or professions ensures that church planting can expand as fast as the Gospel spreads, rather than only as fast as foreign budgets allow.

3. The Irony of Theological Compartmentalization

• The Insight: Structural and economic realities transcend theological divides.

• The Application: Both mainline and noninstitutional Churches of Christ—despite fierce debates over ecclesiology and institutionalism—fell into the exact same financial dependency trap and arrived at the exact same operational solution. Cross-cultural workers must recognize that poor economic methodology will undermine a mission regardless of how sound its theological doctrine may be.

4. The Architecture of Healthy Phase-Outs

• The Insight: Course corrections require a balance of radical clarity and pastoral patience.

• The Application: The missionaries did not advocate for an immediate, punitive cutoff of funds, which would have devastated families and damaged relationships. Instead, they paired a clear, non-negotiable end goal (complete termination of subsidy) with a realistic, structured timeline (three years), allowing local ecosystems time to adapt and assume responsibility.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The majority of Hebrew rabbis maintain that there is no basis in the Hebrew Scriptures for believing in three distinct Persons who comprise the One True God.

Advocates of “one-person monotheism” often claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was not present in original Scripture, but rather developed slowly over the first four centuries of the Christian era.

Critics from groups such as Islam, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC-1914), and modalists argue that a Triune Godhead is illogical, relying on the argument that 1 + 1 + 1 must always equal 3. However, careful study of the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis through Malachi) reveals clear indications of divine plurality and multi-person interactions within the Godhead.

This lesson examines key passages in the Old Testament using the New King James Version (NKJV) to highlight texts that point toward the Trinity.

Scriptural Proof Points

1. Genesis 1:1–2

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

Analysis: This passage reveals two distinct entities present at Creation: God (Elohim) who speaks, and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters.

1. Isaiah 63:16

“Doubtless You are our Father... You, O LORD, are our Father...”

Analysis: The Old Testament explicitly acknowledges God in the personal role of a Father to His people.

1. Jeremiah 31:9

“...For I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.”

Analysis: Reaffirms the Fatherhood of God within the Old Testament narrative.

1. Isaiah 48:16

“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Analysis: All three Persons appear in a single verse: the speaker (”Me”), the sender (”the Lord GOD”), and “His Spirit.” The speaker refers to His pre-existence from the beginning, pointing toward the pre-incarnate Son being sent by the Father and the Spirit.

1. Proverbs 30:4

“...Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, if you know?”

Analysis: This passage attributes creation and sustaining the earth to God Almighty, while explicitly asking for the identity of His Son, pointing to a divine Father-Son relationship.

1. Psalm 45:6–7

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Analysis: Two distinct entities are referred to as Elohim (God). One divine Person addresses another as “O God” whose throne is eternal, and then refers to “God, Your God” who anoints Him. Hebrews 1:8–9 explicitly quotes this passage, identifying the Father addressing the Son as God.

1. Daniel 3:25 (Corrected from Daniel 3:35)

“’Look!’ he answered, ‘I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.’”

Analysis: King Nebuchadnezzar observes a fourth divine figure protecting the faithful in the furnace, prefiguring the presence of the Son.

1. Daniel 7:9, 13

“...The Ancient of Days was seated... I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.”

Analysis: Two distinct heavenly figures are presented: the Ancient of Days (God the Father) and the Son of Man (the Son, who approaches Him on the clouds—a divine attribute in Hebrew Scripture).

1. Isaiah 9:6

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given... And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Analysis: A direct prophecy of the Incarnation (referenced in John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4). The promised Child is explicitly called “Mighty God.”

1. Deuteronomy 6:4

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”

Analysis: The Hebrew word for “one” (‘echad) often denotes a compound unity (e.g., Genesis 2:24, where two become “one flesh”) rather than an absolute, solitary mathematical unit (yachid).

1. Genesis 18:1–2

“Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him...”

Analysis: Yahweh appears to Abraham in a physical manifestation alongside three figures, showing an early narrative representation of divine manifestation.

1. Genesis 19:24

“Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”

Analysis: The text distinguishes between Yahweh executing judgment on earth and Yahweh in heaven—indicating plurality within the divine name Yahweh.

1. Genesis 6:3

“And the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever...’”

Analysis: The Spirit is described as possessing personal agency—capable of striving and interacting directly with human conduct.

1. Psalm 104:30

“You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth.”

Analysis: The Spirit actively participates in creation alongside God, demonstrating divine creative power rather than acting as a mere impersonal force.

Note: Series #1a will follow to clarify the grammatical and theological usage of the term Elohim.

Introduction

Some contend that the promise of the coming Holy Spirit was made exclusively to the eleven apostles, appealing to John 13:1 through John 17:26. However, a careful examination of the narrative in Luke 24:1–49 reveals a broader audience.

To gain a clear understanding of who was present when Jesus issued this promise, let us analyze Luke’s account section by section.

Section A: Luke 24:1–12 (Early Sunday Morning)

This section takes place in the early hours of the first day of the week—Sunday morning—the very day of Christ’s resurrection.

A group of women goes to the tomb early in the morning and finds the sepulcher empty. Two angels appear and assure the women that Jesus has risen. Upon hearing their report, the apostles are informed, and Peter quickly runs to the tomb, verifying that the women’s account is true.

Section B: Luke 24:13–32 (The Walk to Emmaus)

Two disciples—neither of whom is numbered among the eleven apostles—are walking toward the town of Emmaus, approximately 12 kilometers west of Jerusalem. One of these disciples is named Cleopas (v. 18).

As they discuss the crucifixion and reports of the resurrection, Jesus joins them on their journey. At first, the two are supernaturally kept from recognizing Him. As they walk, Jesus opens the Old Testament Scriptures to them, explaining from the Prophets why the Messiah had to suffer and die.

Upon reaching Emmaus shortly before 6:00 p.m., the three sit down to dine together. As Jesus breaks bread, their eyes are opened, and He suddenly vanishes from their sight. Recognizing who He was, they realize that their companion was indeed Jesus Christ, their Master.

Section C: Luke 24:33–35 (Return to Jerusalem)

Overjoyed and eager to share the news, the two disciples immediately rush back to Jerusalem (arriving around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m.).

Upon their arrival, they find the eleven apostles gathered together (Note: John 20 indicates Thomas was absent at this specific moment). Crucially, the text notes that the apostles were not alone—there were “OTHERS” assembled with them (v. 33–34).

Section D: Luke 24:36–49 (Christ Appears to the Assembled Group)

Suddenly, Jesus appears standing in the midst of the entire group. He shows them His hands and feet to calm their fear and even eats food in their presence (v. 42) to demonstrate that He is physically resurrected—a real body, not a spirit or a ghost.

This entire gathering serves as personal eyewitnesses to the events of the resurrection. It is to this expanded group—consisting of the apostles, the two Emmaus disciples, and the others present—that Christ declares the promise recorded in Luke 24:49:

“Behold, I am sending my Father’s promise upon you. Stay in the city until you are clothed with power from above.” > — (McCord’s New Testament Translation)

Key Questions for Reflection

1. Audience Check: Does this group receiving the promise consist of more than just the eleven apostles?

   • [ ] Yes [ ] No

2. Conclusion Check: Is it now clear from Luke’s narrative that individuals other than the eleven apostles heard our Lord Jesus Christ declare the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father?

   • [ ] Yes [ ] No

Timeline of Key Redemptive Events

• Resurrection Sunday (Nisan 16): Luke 24:1–49 records the resurrection of Christ and His appearance to the disciples, where He delivers the promise of the Spirit (Luke 24:49).

• The 40-Day Period: Forty days elapse between Luke 24:49 and Luke 24:50 (cf. Acts 1:3).

• The Ascension (Nisan 16 + 40 Days): Luke 24:50–53 aligns with Acts 1:9–11. On the Mount of Olives near Bethany (east of Jerusalem), Jesus ascends into the clouds and returns to the Father.

• The Day of Pentecost (50 Days After the Sabbath): Ten days after the Ascension comes Pentecost Sunday (Leviticus 23:15–22 instructs counting seven weeks after the Sabbath of Nisan 15).

As recorded in Acts 2, Pentecost Sunday (also known as the Feast of Harvest) marks the official outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the exalted Christ. Through the Spirit, believers receive spiritual birth, are sealed, and are gathered into Christ’s barn—the Church (ekklesia), God’s Kingdom (cf. Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:16–17).

Legend of Views:

Put a check mark in the box under the column. If the Bible verse points to View A, put a check mark under Column A; if the verse points to View B, put a check mark under Column B, and if the verse points to View C, put a check mark under Column C.

• View A: Through the Word Only as Printed in the Bible and as Processed in the Mind of the Agent or Disciple.

• View B: Sometimes by the Person and/or Personal Power of the Holy Spirit.

• View C: Sometimes by the Person or Personal Power of the Holy Spirit in Conjunction with the Word.

1. Genesis 41:38 — Pharaoh recognizes the presence of the Spirit, not words of the Bible, in Joseph in the interpretation of dreams.

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

2. Exodus 31:3; 35:31 — Spirit gave men skills as artisans and builders by the Spirit, not the Bible.

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

3. Numbers 11:27–29 — Spirit rested on Moses and was shared with the 70 Elders of Israel.

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

4. Numbers 24:2 (34:3) — Balaam’s message came to him. Did the Holy Spirit person or the word give the message?

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

5. Judges 3:10; 11:29; 13:25; 15:14 — The Spirit empowered the Judges to fight physically against enemies.

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

6. 1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 11:6 — The Spirit came upon Saul: Person of the Spirit or the words of the Bible?

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

7. 1 Samuel 16:14 — The departure of the Spirit. Person of the Holy Spirit or words of the Bible?

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

8. 2 Samuel 23:2 — The Spirit empowered King David to speak. Person of the Spirit or words of the Bible?

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

9. 1 Kings 18:12 — The Spirit could carry Prophet Elijah. Person of the Spirit or the words of the Bible?

   Which view best applies?

   [ ] View A: Word Only

   [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

   [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

10. 1 Chronicles 12:18 — The giver of power to Amasai as a soldier: Person of the Spirit or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

11. 1 Chronicles 28:12 — Provided the power to make plans for the Temple. Was the plan in words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

12. Job 26:13 — Power in creating beauty in the heavens. Who was sent, words or a Person?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

13. Psalm 51:11 (51:13) — King David prayed for the Spirit NOT to depart from him: Person of the Spirit or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

14. Psalm 104:30 — Describes the act of creation and its renewal: Person or words or both?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

15. Psalm 139:7 — Expresses the omnipresence of the Spirit: Person of the Spirit or Bible words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

16. Isaiah 40:13 — Expresses who needs no instructor and cannot be instructed: Word of the Bible or Spirit?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

17. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:16–21 — The Spirit of Jehovah upon the person of Jesus Christ. Who was with Jesus?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

18. Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24 — Agrees with the act described in this verse. Who entered Ezekiel’s body?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

19. Daniel 4:8, 9, 18 — Nebuchadnezzar believed the Spirit dwelt in Prophet Daniel. Person or Bible words revealed the dream?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

20. Daniel 5:11 — King Belshazzar’s wife believed the Spirit dwelt in Prophet Daniel: Person of the Spirit or the words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

21. Joel 2:28–32 & Acts 1:5–8; Acts 2:1–4 — What was promised to be poured out unto all flesh? Person of the Spirit or Bible words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

22. Haggai 2:5 — Who/what accompanied the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt: word or Person?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

23. Zechariah 4:6 — Temple’s completion was attributed to the power of which view?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

24. Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35 — Power in the conception of Jesus by the Virgin Mary: Person of the Spirit or the words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

25. Matthew 3:1–11; Mark 1:1–8; Luke 3:1–17 — John the Baptist promised that the Messiah will baptize people in or with the Spirit.

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

26. Matthew 3:16; John 1:32 — Describes the action of the Spirit. Who/what came down: Person or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

27. Matthew 12:28 — Describes the source of Jesus’ power to do miracles: Person of the Spirit or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

28. Matthew 12:31–32 — Which/who could be blasphemed resulting in unforgivable sin: Person of the Spirit or words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

29. Matthew 10:19–20 (10:26); Mark 13:11 — Which view could provide the power to the apostles in their ministry?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

30. Luke 1:15 — Best describes what would be with John the Baptist inside his mother’s womb: Spirit or Bible words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

31. Luke 1:41, 67 — Best describes what filled Zechariah & Elizabeth: Spirit or Biblical words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

32. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 — Provides the element in the future action of Jesus.

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

33. John 3:3–8 — Best describes the element involved in the New Birth: Person of the Spirit or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

34. John 7:39; 14:17, 26; 16:13 — “Dwells & will be in you.” Which view describes the fulfillment of this promise?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

35. John 14:16, 17, 26 — Who is the Helper referred to with pronoun “He”? Who is the Teacher: the Holy Spirit or the instructional word?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

36. Acts 1:5, 8 & 2:4, 17, 18 — Which view fulfilled this promise to be received: Person of the Spirit or oral words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

37. Acts 5:3, 9 — Best agrees with this phenomenon: Person of the Spirit or oral instructions?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

38. Acts 2:38 — The people first heard the word of the gospel. Which view points to a gift?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

39. Acts 5:32 — Tells of what is given to all who obey: Person of the Spirit or oral/printed instructions?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

40. Romans 8:11, 16, 26, 27 — Who/what performs the acts of interceding, witnessing, and resurrecting the mortal body?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

41. 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19 — Resides in the church as a temple; a disciple is not part of the church if he is not indwelt by the Spirit.

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

42. Romans 12:6–8 & 1 Corinthians 12:1–11 — Gift giver to disciples, to some miraculous and to others non-miraculous.

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

43. 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13, 14 — Seal & Earnest of Salvation: Is it the Holy Spirit person or the words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

44. Matthew 28:19 & 2 Corinthians 13:14 — Baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Fellowship with the Person or words?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

45. Galatians 4:6 (1:6) — Being children of God, we are given the Spirit. What/who was given to the disciples?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

46. Ephesians 3:16 — Strengthens the inner man through the Spirit. Who is the strength provider?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

47. Ephesians 3:3–4 — There is a giver of revelation and the revelation was written. Which of the three are involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

48. Ephesians 4:30 — Can be grieved and may depart from the disciple. Which of the three is involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

49. 1 Thessalonians 4:8 — God gives His Spirit unto the obedient disciple. Which of the three is involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

50. 1 Thessalonians 5:19 — Do not quench the Spirit. Which of the three is involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

51. 2 Timothy 1:14 — Guard the deposit through the Spirit who indwells the disciple. Which of the three is involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

52. Titus 3:5 — Washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Which of the three ideas is involved?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

53. 1 John 3:24 & 4:13 — Disciple is in God and He in us by the Holy Spirit (human spirit is in fellowship with God).

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

54. Jude 20 & 1 Corinthians 12:13 — Praying in the Spirit; be in the Spirit so that one could be baptized into the one body.

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

55. Theological Dogma — “God is everywhere.” Who/what is everywhere: the Person of the Spirit or words of the Bible?

    Which view best applies?

    [ ] View A: Word Only

    [ ] View B: Spirit Directly

    [ ] View C: Spirit & Word Conjoined

To gain a proper understanding of this topic, one must thoroughly digest and connect the following passages. Readers are urged to avoid the fallacy of taking a partial view.

We begin by understanding that God implants a clean spirit into every conceived child. This spirit animates the physical body. This soul-spirit aspect of humanity is called the “inner man,” which dies or becomes corrupted through sin. Scripture sometimes refers to this inner man as the “spirit of man.” It is this human spirit that is the subject of our study—the part that must be renewed and born again.

Foundational Biblical Principles

1. God Imparts a Clean Spirit at Conception: God places a clean spirit into the human body of a fetus at conception (Genesis 2:7; Job 33:4; Zechariah 12:1; Isaiah 42:5).

2. Man Has Two Components: Human nature consists of the outer man (the physical flesh made from dust) and the inner man (the soul/spirit component) (Matthew 10:28; Colossians 3:9–10; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

3. The Inner Man Dies Through Sin: The human spirit experiences spiritual death because of sin (Isaiah 59:1–2 [cf. Isa. 57–58]; Ezekiel 18:18–32; Ephesians 2:1–3; Colossians 2:13; Titus 3:1–4).

4. The Revived Spirit Is a “Born-Again” Spirit: A spiritually renewed inner man is described as being born again (Psalm 51:10; Ezekiel 18:31; Romans 6:6; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:4–7).

5. The Penalty of Sin Has Been Paid: The death penalty in hell was fully paid by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Romans 5:8; Colossians 2:21–22; Ephesians 5:25–27).

6. The Holy Spirit Administers Spiritual Life: Acting on behalf of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit injects, as it were, a life-giving spiritual medicine into the spiritually dead inner man (John 1:4; 6:63; 11:25; 14:16; 16:13–14; Acts 2:38; Romans 8:2, 9; 1 John 5:11).

Key Text: John 3:3, 5–8

New King James Version (NKJV)

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ ... Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.’”

McCord’s New Testament Translation

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I assure you, unless one is born again, he cannot see God’s kingdom.’ ... Jesus replied, ‘Truly, truly, I assure you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter God’s kingdom. Flesh is born of flesh, and spirit is born of Spirit. Do not be surprised that I said to you, “It is necessary for you to be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you know neither where it comes from, nor where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.’”

Two Interpretations in Our Fellowship

1. The Personal Indwelling & Cooperative View (Writer’s Position)

This view holds that the Holy Spirit knows those individuals who have used their free will to seek truth and obey God. The Holy Spirit encourages these truth-seekers through cooperation with citizens of the Kingdom (church members), as depicted in Revelation 22:17:

“And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.”

Under this view, the Holy Spirit subtly creates situations that prompt the sincere seeker to dive deeper into their spiritual thirst and gain a fuller understanding of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14). The Spirit may arrange for church members to cross paths with the seeker, or protect the seeker from dangerous detours through subtle life circumstances. Ultimately, upon obedience, the truth-seeker receives the person of the Holy Spirit as a gift, who indwells and assists the disciple in living the Christian life.

• Main Proposition: “The Holy Spirit’s indwelling and influence on the disciple is personal, working in conjunction with the Word.”

2. The “Word Only” View

This view contends that the Holy Spirit operates exclusively through the written or spoken Word. A person is influenced solely by reading Scripture or hearing oral instruction, processing that information through their own mental efforts to make a personal decision (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16–17; 1 Peter 1:22–23). In short, the Word (the seed) is sown into the mind, germinating and resulting in obedience—which this view claims is the “new birth.”

• Main Proposition: “The Holy Spirit’s indwelling and influence occurs through the Word only.”

Testing Consistency: I favor the first view because it is far more consistent when all related scriptures are systematically arranged. Consider these testing questions: How and when were the 12 apostles (including Matthias) born of the Spirit? How and when was Saul (Paul) born of the Spirit?

For over a century, our beloved Churches of Christ in the Philippines—have preserved an invaluable heritage. We have steadfastly defended a deep commitment to sound doctrinal teaching, scriptural purity, and the cherished autonomy of every local congregation.

However, in our pursuit of “right doctrine,” we historically faced an unintended side effect: a quiet withdrawal from the tangible physical, economic, and civic struggles of the communities that we call home. We did not mean to withdraw, but our focus on the spiritual sometimes made it hard to see the physical needs right outside our doors.

How do we preach a transcendent, saving Gospel when our neighbor lacks clean water, basic medical attention, or a livelihood? Can we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, truly be “scripturally sound” if we remain socially silent?

These are not new questions, but they were lovingly and formally asked of our fellowship by one of our own, our dear brother Dr. Teofilo G. Alcayde (+). In his seminal 1992 doctoral dissertation at Baguio Central University, The Church of Christ in the Philippines: Its Involvement in Community Development, Brother Alcayde documented this paradox within our midst.

Based on data from church leaders and members across Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, Brother Alcayde’s exhaustive study reached a sobering conclusion: while our efforts in spiritual development were truly highly impressive, our involvement in civic, economic, health, educational, and social development was critically lacking. He looked at us and found that when it came to practical, physical pillars of the community—economics, health, sanitation—our involvement was evaluated as “less impressive” or “not extraordinary”.

It is not that we did not care. It is that our organizational set-up, while scripturally sound and allowing for the independence of each congregation, sometimes made it proving difficult to pool our resources for massive, complex socio-economic projects.

But Brother Alcayde did not write his critique as an obituary. He wrote it as a challenge to his brothers. He closed his study with a prophetic call to action, urging our congregations to transition from passive observers to active developers by establishing medical clinics, trade schools, and cooperative businesses. He urged us to train more students for fruitful services and not to remain extraordinary in only one area. He essentially provided us a map, leveraging a structure where we could show that physical benevolence and spiritual devotion are not mutually exclusive, but are two halves of a complete, biblical ministry.

Today, we are witnessing a beautiful, dynamic, spirit-filled response to that challenge. Driven by a passion for the lost and a heart for the hurting, modern Filipino disciples are proving that faith without works is dead. They have built on the map Brother Alcayde provided.

This transformation is realized through core operational modalities, integrated to solve the spiritual-secular divide and create a unified network of action.

1. MARCH for Christ: Our Ministry of Mercy

Born in the aftermath of the devastating 1990 Baguio City earthquake, MARCH for Christ (Medical Action for Relief, Counseling and Healing) has become the hands and feet of Jesus, truly utilizing professional medical and volunteer personnel. Led by a dedicated team including the late brother Luis “Chito” Cusi, and supported by workers like physiotherapist Shemer “Shem” Sameon, MARCH has evolved from a crisis response group into our premier humanitarian arm. Its key focus on disaster response, medical and dental clinics, and holistic humanitarian relief perfectly fulfills the brotherly call for church-operated medical services and physical community care.

From delivering clean water and hot meals following volcanic eruptions to establishing a “MARCH Village” for long-term community development, this ministry proves that physical healing and relief is a powerful, living manifestation of our Father’s love.

2. MOSES & Gospel Chariot Missions: The Power of Mobilized Training

We have learned that we can break isolation through mobilized training. The deployment of the Philippine Gospel Chariot has revolutionized how our local congregations collaborate. This cooperative endeavor utilizes customized, state-of-the-art “gospel trucks” equipped with built-in baptismal pools and heavy-duty stages. This operational style allows us to break through isolation barriers and conduct coordinated regional campaigns.

When partnered with the MOSES (Mobile Outreach for Soul-saving, Evangelism, and Service) teams, they take the message of Christ directly to the streets. By utilizing a simple, structured training framework—like the globally proven “4 Fields of Discipleship”—they are not just conducting meetings; they are training and activating ordinary brothers and sisters to become multiplying agents of outreach. This approach breaks the historical isolation of our small, autonomous congregations and provides robust local social integration. It perfectly addresses the need to expand accessible, decentralized training for fruitful service in the church.

3. ARAPAL: Our Gospel of Sustainable Livelihood

Situating our efforts within the community, ARAPAL Christian Camp in Cebu is perhaps the most complete, long-term structural embodiment of a brotherly answer to economic and community development critiques. Directed by evangelist and dear brother Salvador “Sal” Cariaga, ARAPAL focuses on poverty alleviation through sustainable agriculture, specifically pioneering what Sal affectionately calls a “Gospel of Goats,” micro-enterprise, and vocational training.

Its permanent demonstration-farm model uses a “give-a-goat” loan program and resource stewardship. Impoverished local families are loaned a male and female goat, taught to breed them, and are integrated into composting, organic farming, and micro-business soap-making. This approach, transforming dependency into a sustainable cycle of work, dignity, and income, directly targets the recommendation to “initiate more cooperatives and business opportunities” to provide employment for our fellow men.

A Dynamic Future for Our Brotherhood

The Churches of Christ in the Philippines are moving. We are moving from purely doctrinal teaching to institutionalized social action. Our historical matrix of separation is being replaced by a unified network of action. Modern leadership has learned to steer our fellowship toward a healthy balance: maintaining our doctrinal focus while fully embracing our responsibility to heal, serve, and develop the communities that God has placed us in.

Brother Teofilo Alcayde’s critique was not an obituary; it was a loving map drawn by a brother who believed we could be more. Today, through structured endeavors that show that physical benevolence and spiritual devotion are not competing ideologies but two halves of a complete biblical ministry, we are finally following that map.

The Historical Assessment: Spiritual Dominance vs. Secular Absence

For decades, the standard pattern of Churches of Christ in the Philippines leaned heavily toward spiritual instruction and local congregational maintenance. Because each church operates under strict local autonomy with no centralized governing board, mobilizing broad socio-economic initiatives has historically proved difficult.

As evaluated in Dr. Alcayde’s study:

• Spiritual development was found to be highly impressive.

• Secular, civic, economic, and educational involvement was deemed “less impressive” or “not extraordinary”.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now