Iglesia Ni Cristo

The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog: "Church of Christ") claims to be the true Church established by Christ, and Felix Manalo, its founder, heralded himself as God's prophet. Many tiny sects today claim the same thing, and there are just as many individuals claiming to be God's prophet. What makes Iglesia ni Cristo different from these is that it is not tiny.

Since it was founded in the Philippines in 1914, it has grown to the point that it boasts over 200 congregations in some 67 countries outside the Philippines, including a large and expanding contingent in the United States. The exact number of members is uncertain because the Iglesia keeps that a secret, but it is estimated to be between 3 and 10 million world-wide. It is, in fact, larger than the Jehovah's Witnesses, a much better known sect (which also claims to be Christ's true Church). The reason Iglesia is not better known, despite its numbers, is that the vast majority of Iglesia's members, including those in the U.S., are Filipino. Virtually the only exceptions are a few non-Filipinos who have married into the Iglesia.

The organization publishes two magazines, Pasugo and God's Message, which devote most of their energies toward condemning other Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church. It's not surprising that the majority of the Iglesia's members are ex-Catholics. The Philippines is the only dominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, with eighty-four percent of its population belonging to the Church. Since this is its largest potential source of converts, Iglesia relies on anti-Catholic scare tactics as support for its own doctrines, which cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny. The Iglesia sells its doctrines not by proving they are right but by attempting to prove the Catholic Church's teachings are wrong.

Is Christ God?

The Catholic teaching which most draws Iglesia's fire is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia claims that Jesus Christ is not God but a created being.

Yet the Bible is clear: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). We know Jesus is the Word because John 1:14 tells us, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God the Father was not made flesh; it was Jesus, as even Iglesia admits. Jesus is the Word, the Word is God, therefore Jesus is God. Simple, yet Iglesia won't accept it.

In Deuteronomy 10:17 and 1 Timothy 6:15 God the Father is called the "Lord of lords," yet in other New Testament passages this divine title is applied directly to Jesus. In Revelation 17:14 we read: "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings." And in Revelation 19:13-16 John sees Jesus "clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords."

The fact that Jesus is God is indicated in numerous places in the New Testament. John 5:18 states that Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus "because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul also states that Jesus was equal with God (Phil. 2:6). But if Jesus is equal with the Father and the Father is a God then Jesus is a God. Since there is only one God, Jesus and the Father must both be one God--one God in (at least) two persons.

The same is shown in John 8:56-59, where Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh ("I AM"). He stated, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.' The Jews then said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." Jesus' audience understood exactly what he was claiming; that is why they picked up rocks to stone him. They considered him to be blaspheming God by claiming to be Yahweh.

The same truth is emphasized elsewhere. Paul stated that we are to live "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). Peter addressed his second epistle to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1). And John tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:1, 14).

Perhaps the most dramatic place where Jesus is shown to be God is when Thomas is finally convinced that Jesus has risen and he falls down and exclaims "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)--an event many in Iglesia have difficulty dealing with. When confronted with this passage in a debate with Karl Keating, Iglesia apologist Jose Ventilacion simply replied with a straight face, "Thomas was wrong" (the video of this debate--Which is the true Church?--isavailable from Catholic Answers).

God's Messenger?

A litmus test for any religious group is the credibility of its founder in making his claims. Felix Manalo's credibility and, consequently, his claims are impossible to take seriously. He claimed to be "God's messenger," divinely chosen to reestablish the true Church which, according to Manalo, disappeared in the first century due to apostasy. It was his role to restore numerous doctrines that the Church had abandoned. A quick look at Manalo's background shows where these doctrines came from: Manalo stole them from other quasi-Christian religious sects.

Manalo was baptized a Catholic, but he left the Church as a teenager. He became a Protestant, going through five different denominations including the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Finally, unsatisfied with the denominations he had encountered, Manalo decided to start his own church, which he did in 1914, but he didn't begin with all current Iglesia doctrines in place. In 1919, Manalo left the Philippines because he wanted to learn more about religion. Where did he go? To America to study with Protestants, whom Iglesia would later declare to be apostates, just like Catholics. Why, five years after being called by God to be his "last messenger" did Manalo go to the U.S. to learn from apostates? What could God's messenger learn from a group that, according to Iglesia, had departed from the true faith?

The reason is that, contrary to his later claims, Manalo did not believe himself to be God's final messenger back in 1914. He didn't use the last messenger doctrine until 1922. He appears to have adopted the messenger doctrine in response to a schism in the Iglesia movement. The schism was led by Teogilo Ora, one of its early ministers. Manalo appears to have developed the messenger doctrine in an effort to accumulate as much power as possible and re-assert his leadership in the church.

This poses a problem for Iglesia because, if Manalo had been the new messenger called by God in 1914, why didn't he tell anybody prior 1922? Because he didn't think of it until 1922. His situation in this respect parallels that of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, who claimed that when he was a boy God appeared to him in a vision and told him all existing churches were corrupt and he was not to join them, that he would lead a movement to restore God's true Church. But historical records show that Smith did join an established Protestant church--after his supposed vision from God. It was only in later years that Smith came up with his version of the "true messenger" doctrine, proving as much of an embarrassment for the Mormon church as Manalo's development of the doctrine does for Iglesia.

Iglesia Prophesied?

A pillar of Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5-6, which states: "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, 'Give up,' and the south, 'Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.'"

Iglesia argues that in this verse Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, p.6) .

But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Filipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious interpretation Iglesia goes on to claim that the far east refers specifically to the Philippines.

Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact," that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by James Moffat which reads: "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states: "Is it not clear that you can read the words 'far east'? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English--the Catholics and Protestant" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia thus accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when in fact it is Iglesia who is taking liberties with the original language.

It tries to further its "far east" argument by saying that the Philippines are the geographic center of the Far East, so the restored Church would come from the Philippines. The problem is that Philippine islands are not the geographic center of the Far East. The Far East includes China, Korea, Japan, East Siberia, the Indo-Chinese countries, and the Philippines. On a map of the Far East the Philippines is on the lower right hand corner. The geographic center is in Southern China, not in the Philippines.

The Name Game

Iglesia takes great delight in pointing to its name as proof it is the true Church. The argument is as follows: "What is the name of Christ's Church, as given in the Bible? It is the 'Church of Christ.' Our church is called the 'Church of Christ.' Therefore, ours is the Church Christ founded."

The reasoning is juvenile. Whether or not the exact words "Church of Christ" appear in the Bible is irrelevant, but since Iglesia makes it an issue, it is important to note that the phrase "Church of Christ," never once appears in the Bible.

The verse Iglesia most often quotes on this issue is Romans 16:16: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you " (Pasugo, November 1973, p. 6).

The phrase as found in the Bible is "churches of Christ"--plural, not singular. Paul is referring to a collection of local churches--specially a collection of local churches in Rome. He simply is not giving an organizational name here.

To get further "proof" of its name, Iglesia also cites Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore . . . to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood" (Lamsa translation; cited in Pasugo, April 1978). The problem is that the Lamsa translation is not based on the original languages. In Greek, the language in which the book of Acts was written, the phrase is "the Church of God" (ten ekklesian tou Theou) not "Church of Christ" (ten ekklesian tou Christou). Iglesia knows this, yet it continues to mislead its members.

But even if the phrase "church of Christ" did appear in the Bible, it would not help Iglesia's case. Before Felix Manalo started his church there were already churches which called themselves "the Church of Christ." They came out of what is known as the Campbellite movement. In fact there are several Protestant denominations that call themselves Church of Christ and use exactly the same argument. Why aren't they the authentic church? They came before Iglesia.

They aren't the authentic Church for the same reason Iglesia is not the authentic Church--because they were not founded by Christ. What they choose to call themselves is irrelevant. Anyone can choose to call themselves anything they want, but proves nothing at all. The Bible never indicates that the Church will have one specific name.

Did Christ's Church Apostatize?

The doctrines upon which all Iglesia's other doctrines depend is its teaching that Christ's Church apostatized in the early centuries. Like Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and other fringe groups, Iglesia asserts that the early Christian Church suffered a total apostasy. It believes in "the complete disappearance of the first-century Church of Christ and the emergence of the Catholic Church" (Pasugo, July-Aug. 1979, p. 8). This doctrine is essential because one can't take seriously Manalo's claim to have reintroduced the true Church if, in fact, the original true Church never died. You can't have a "restoration" without an apostasy.

The problem is that Jesus promised that his Church would never apostatize. He told Peter: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). If his Church had apostatized then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, making Christ a liar.

In other passages, Christ teaches the same truth. In Matthew 28:20 he said, "I am with you always even until the end of the world." And in John 14:16, 18 he said, "And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever. . . . I will not leave you desolate." Christ promised that nothing would prevail against his Church, that he would be with it always, that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the third person of the Holy Trinity would be with it always. How could Christ be with his Church always if, as Iglesia claims, his Church ceased to exist for 1800 years?

If members of Iglesia accept the apostasy doctrine, they make Christ to be a liar. Since they believe Jesus Christ is not a liar, they are ignoring what Christ himself promised and their doctrine is in flat contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.

They are, however, fulfilling Scripture. While Jesus taught that his Church would never apostatize, the Bible does teach that there will be a great apostasy, or falling away from the Church. Paul prophesies: "[Do] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited . . . to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [Greek: apostasia] comes first" (2 Thess. 2:2-3), "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1), and, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4). By falling away from the Church, members of Iglesia are committing precisely the kind of apostasy of which they accuse the Catholic Church.

The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Was Felix Manalo a true prophet? Is his church the "true Church?" If we test the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo, the answer is apparent. His apostasy doctrine is in flat contradiction to the teaching of Jesus Christ himself. There is simply no way that Iglesia ni Cristo can be the true Church of Christ.


Return to Topical Tract Page


Return to Catholic Answers Home Page

© 1996 Catholic Answers, Inc. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the copyright holder.

Last modified May 25, 1996.