Bro. Eli Soriano Answers Questions From Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition in March - n3ws.info
Posts about Ang Dating Daan written by faithandetcetera. Coliseum for the Ang Dating Daan 34th Anniversary Worldwide Bible Exposition held on Oct. 30, at The bodies of those who did not make it after the super typhoon still lay on the roads, on main . Her parents only made Php , for Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan in the middle (#5). After each Whatever the church provides for his convoy to go to Bible Expositions, he is content with that. That's a super majority. Q14_Guest (9/17/): What does saint mean?. Posted by flewen in Church of God Int'l [Ang Dating Daan] on May 13, . explain the Bible, even if he follow the principles of hermeneutics or the formal study . There is more of the same in articles entitled “Super-Preacher in Our Times”.
The airport was filled with friendly faces, as delegates from USA and Canada, as well as several brethren residing in South America, welcomed us at the terminal. Awaiting our respective rides to transport us to our accommodation houses and hotels, we sat around and tried to control the palpable excitement. Needless to say, this was a very welcome surprise.
At around 8 p. And after a day of airplane food, I devoured a plate of a home cooked meal prepared with love by our dear Bro.
Church of God Int’l [Ang Dating Daan] | Apocalypsis Jesu Christi
Cooked and eaten with love. April ] After a few hours of meeting and greeting brethren of various nationalities, we were transported to our hotel rooms to rest. With smiles on our tired faces, we slept for the night. Chorale members from different countries met and practiced their songs, while the ever energetic Teatro Kristiano members, the Christian dance troupe of the Church, practiced their choreography nearby. April ] Meanwhile, an adorable Brazilian Teatro Kristiano member practiced his steps alone.
Unfazed by the passers-by, the young Teatro Kristiano prodigy kept on with his choreography. She is universal; she is the whole Church, and she counts among her members men from every race and nation under heaven, to which, God willing, might one particularly ornery Filipino soon be added.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will state it again: He ought to be embarrassed at the utterly foolish things that he has said. For if he can be so wrong about something so simple as recognizing a metaphor, he can be wrong about something difficult like the nature of God or of salvation as well.
Indeed, one would expect his errors to be all the more grievous as the subject of his expositions grows more grave. This is, in fact, the case, as I will demonstrate below.
Instead, it teaches indestructible and undefiled doctrines. If it can be proven that he teaches wrong doctrines, he must then admit that the Lord has not sent him cf. His teachings must be weighed in the scales, and if they are found wanting cf.
Ang Dating Daan
He must then repent and take his flock back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. I am informed that one of his favorite tactics in debate is to ask his opponent if, supposing he can prove such and such a doctrine from the Bible, his opponent will admit he is wrong and convert then and there to his church. With this essay, I propose the selfsame bargain to him. He has not published a thorough exposition, so the reader must glean his doctrine from statements here and there, on his website and in his television programs.
As far as I have understood it, this doctrine is basically semi-Arian. Soriano clearly believes in some form of subordinationism, as he emphatically denies that the three persons of the Godhead are co-equal. God is absolutely perfect, a purely simple Spirit John 4: His doctrine is less false, if perhaps less logically consistent, than theirs.
Soriano properly asserts, if I am not mistaken, that the Son and Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father from eternity, and were not created out of nothing at a particular point in time.LIVE! Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition in Brazil! Monday, June 11, 2018 2 00 AM PHT YouTube
The Father never existed without the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is correct, though unfortunately as noted above he concludes that because the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father they must be less than Him. Soriano also tends toward the error of tritheism that there are three godsas he denies that the three persons of the Godhead are one in all their works in creation in the language of theology, their operations ad extra.
He thus revives the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism. Next, his belief that the persons of the Godhead are not one in all their works leads him to a rather bizarre doctrine of salvation. And finally, as a result of his incompetence to interpret Scripture, demonstrated above, Soriano misunderstands the attributes of God, and denies such a fundamental doctrine as His omnipresence.
Let us then test the spirits to see whether they are from God 1 John 4: In any case, Soriano understands the word Godhead in the same sense it is commonly used in theology, that is, to denote the union of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three divine persons taken together. This is clear from his affirmations that there are three persons in the Godhead. Now, as noted above, Godhead is used three times in KJV.
The context says nothing about multiple persons or entities; in fact, St. Next, in Romans 1: Again, the context contains nothing about multiple persons; it is about the divine attributes knowable by reason alone. Finally, in Colossians 2: However, the meaning of the Greek is that the fullness of the essence of the divinity dwells in Christ, that is, that the Son is fully God, participates fully in the divine nature of the Father, and is therefore co-equal with Him.
In this context, theotetos denotes the divine essence, not the persons of the Godhead. So, Soriano is once again hoisted by his own petard. If the word Trinity is never used in the Bible, neither is the word Godhead, at least in the sense Soriano takes it to mean. But this is not a battle of semantics anyway.
What matters is not whether we can find the word Trinity in the Bible, but whether the concept is there. First, that the Father and Son are co-equal is taught in John 5: Behold, the Jews understand what the Arians do not understand. The Arians, in fact, say that the Son is not equal with the Father, and hence it is that the heresy was driven from the Church. Lo, the very blind, the very slayers of Christ, still understood the words of Christ.
All the fullness Gk. Moving on, we see the same doctrine once again in Philippians 2: Now, we have two possibilities for the correct interpretation of this verse: The Catholic Church holds the former, whereas the Arians, and most likely Soriano following them, hold the latter.
So, many of the arguments that the Holy Fathers adduced against the Arian position might be applied to Soriano as well. In this vein, St. John Chrysostom observes that for an inferior God to attempt to seize the power of a superior God is absurd and intrinsically impossible: For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature.
Paul praises Christ for not desiring to snatch for Himself the possessions of his Father, St. Paul is essentially praising Christ for abstaining from the behavior of Satan. Obviously, there is nothing especially praiseworthy about this! Indeed, it is the bare minimum demanded by justice.
Additionally, in this case, St. He for whom it was not robbery to be equal to God because He was equal to God by right so abased Himself as to take on the form of a servant, a mortal man. Likewise, the title Almighty Gk. The Scripture only makes sense if Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, if they are two co-equal persons in one God, if everything the Father is, the Son is as well. Testimonies to the true nature of the Holy Spirit, the third co-equal divine person of the Blessed Trinity, are less numerous and explicit.
However, the doctrine is taught in Scripture nonetheless. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott summarizes the biblical evidence: Acts 5, 3 et seq.: Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Again, divine attributes are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost possesses the fullness of knowledge: He teaches all truth, presages future things John 16, 13searches the innermost secrets of God 1 Cor. The first is John But to answer this interpretation one need only look at the immediate context.
So, in context, Jesus is saying that His Father is greater than all creatures, not that He is greater than the other uncreated persons of the Trinity. This is especially clear given that in this passage Jesus is simultaneously teaching that He is one God with the Father.
He states in v. I and the Father are one. However, this meaning cannot be imposed in the context of John For I and the Father are One. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him. To adapt the saying of St. Augustine, behold the Jews understand what Soriano does not. And Jesus made no effort to correct their opinion. Soriano also attempts to use John According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature… The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father.
But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him.
The Father is the higher authority, to which the Son submits, because the Father is the principle from whom the Son receives His being. However, the Father communicates His entire being to the Son, holding back none of the divine perfections, so the Father and Son are equal in essence and in goodness, regardless of this distinction. Recall, he is an Apollinarian; he does not confess that Jesus Christ is truly a man, merely that he has taken on the appearance or form of a man.
He uses Philippians 2: John Chrysostom pointed out the inconsistency of Arians who did not apply this phrase equally in both instances: It means, He became man. And the parallelism in the first two of those verses between Adam, the one man through whom death entered the world, and Jesus Christ, the one man through whom came life, would make little sense if Jesus were not truly, actually a man.
Also, the whole point of St. Paul in calling attention to the fact that Jesus is a man in 1 Tim 2: He is truly God and at the same time He is truly one of us. And finally, Matthew 9: If Jesus had only the appearance of manhood he would not be a true and proper man in the same sense as the rest of them. The last false christological belief of Bro.
Eli which I will tackle is the idea that Christ is not immutable. Soriano teaches that the Father could not have become incarnate since the Bible says He cannot ever change Jas 1: The Son is immutable according to His divinity. He did not change in His absolutely simple, spritual essence when He joined Himself to a human nature. According to the orthodox faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints cf. All three Persons participate equally in every divine act in the world.
For the biblical evidence, again Ludwig Ott: Christ testifies to the unity of His working with the Father, and bases it on the unity of Nature. Luke 1, 35; Mt. According to Luke 1: Therefore all three Persons produced the Incarnation, as in all their other operations. Soriano does not believe this, because he reads in certain places of Scripture that one person of the Blessed Trinity is described as doing something, and the other two Persons are not explicitly named.
This is because he does not understand the principle of appropriation, that is, we commonly associate certain kinds of works, which are in actuality common to all three Persons, with one particular Person, because it expresses some truth about the inner life and divine relations of the Trinity. Thus, because the Father is the ultimate origin from which the other two Persons receive their being, we commonly attribute to Him the creation of the world.
Thus, because the Holy Spirit is the love or sanctity of God, who proceeds from the Father and the Son as the terminus of their will to love one another, we commonly attribute to Him the outpouring of the grace, the mercy, and the love of our God. Although he is correct to denounce their doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, he is wrong when he claims we can prove they are distinct persons because they perform different works.
If the Bible commonly attributes creation to the Father, it does not neglect to mention that the Son participated equally cf. If the Son saves us, so also do the Father and the Holy Spirit cf. And if the Holy Spirit helps and comforts us, so also do the Son and the Father cf. Inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis. He believes that in the time of the Old Testament, only God the Father was the savior. Jesus Christ His Son was only appointed savior when He was born and began to preach the gospel, and even then, he had only a limited jurisdiction of salvation, namely the Church.
Soriano appeals to such texts as Eph 5: As implied above, Soriano denies that the Church is the only instrument of salvation. This is because he believes that it would logically follow that everyone who did not hear the gospel preaching of the Church would be damned, which is contrary to Romans 2: He appeals to all the peace loving Chinese people who never heard the name of Christ. Supposedly, these two parallel paths of salvation will still be valid for the rest of history; God the Father is a savior from the beginning to the end of humanity, and Jesus Christ is the savior of the Church.
Now, the first step in refuting this doctrine we have already accomplished, when we noted that the Bible describes both God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as saving Christians, the Church. Timothy, and the rest of the Christian Church.
This is very explicit. All three Persons of the Godhead save all who ever will be saved. Recall, according to him, the Father is directly the savior of those who do not hear the gospel, and only indirectly the savior of those who do. Paul should have said that God is the savior of all men, especially those who do not believe i. Finally, Soriano is wrong to assert that anyone at all may be saved without Christ.
There are no two parallel paths of salvation. As alluded to above, he does not believe that God is omnipresent. Which is true now?
Bro. Eli – Less Traveled Road
Is He in heaven? Or, is He in Mary?
You are fooling yourselves! God is simultaneously in heaven and on earth: The heavens cannot contain Him: Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? They are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know?
Category: Bro. Eli
Or where can I flee from Your presence? God fills the entirety of the heavens and the earth: He is omnipresent; we live and move in Him, and He sustains and holds all things in existence by a continual act: Next, in order to resolve the apparent contradiction between these verses and the passages which Soriano alleges against the omnipresence of God, it is necessary to provide some theological background. When did news media ever become incorruptible? For one making a prognosis such as looking for facts, facts, and more facts to save people from power-brag and hypnotism but never considering the system that houses his fawning compliments, there is much to say.
You should have done your research, man! And did you ever imagine that fawning could be a form of corruption too? Binay is like the following: The answer is facts, facts, and more facts. News media is incorruptible. The best that the gentleman could have done is to tie his prescriptive issue to a conclusion and fix it there. A Presidential Candidate should be upright and proper.
The Office of the President is the conscience of the nation, it deserves a moral occupant. However, what Padilla did was to drag in other people aside from mixing the concepts of power-grab and hypnotism, and then finally tossed in the uncalled-for praise on media that is devoid of logic.
In effect, how is the flow of connections? But he made an equation, right? He then takes a dangerous, illogical and unjust path: Padilla, you have included Soriano in your accusation, right? The Soriano The only link that can be seen between Bro. That is because Bro. Eli is well-versed in the Bible and is primarily a faithful steward of Bible truth such that he cannot let these things pass: Correcting the Pope maybe shocking to Padilla who does not appear steep in spiritual experience but to people honed in an environment that is suffused with learning, that is expected of Bro.
That was rather power of knowledge and understanding at play but not power-grab. If thousands of Catholics are leaving their Church every week after learning the truth from the Bible Expositions of Bro. Eli, that is hardly power-grab. It is the power of the Holy Spirit in the man that can explain mysteries from the Bible.
Eli does not merely tell stories like priests in other churches do. He expounds on Bible verses very well. It is also not the work of hypnotism if people can listen to Bro. Eli for hours and hours on end for three consecutive days and more. It is rather due to the understanding of the man that is un-equalled in the entire world. Of all churches, it is only in the Members Church of God International or Ang Dating Daan as locally known where members are encouraged and challenged to think with the preacher.
They do not merely listen. Eli conducts his preaching through Socratic questioning. The style is interactive — between preacher and the audience — and a group that facilitates Bible reading because every teaching comes from the Bible.
Here, there is no place for a Svengali because the culture within is characterized by questioning and answering all the time. Every week-end where there is Worship Service followed by Thanksgiving, there is a Consultation Period where any question can be asked.
To be sure, the language used in Church services is mostly Tagalog and then translated into English, Spanish, and Portuguese, so there is nothing hidden from the members attending services through satellite systems worldwide. Lately, Chinese and Japanese translations were added.
There are no images around to venerate and everything is directed to God where the members are taught to worship The Almighty in spirit and in truth. The names Padilla mentioned do not fall under a single category. Are they dictators like Marcos? Are they known as corrupt like Arroyo?
What connection do they have to power-grab that Padilla implied?
Padilla is hitting fellows he does not like. The danger with his equation is that he has hit innocent people like Soriano. Surely, there is no other Soriano that is a religious leader than Bro. Eli — or a religious leader of his stature.
Eli have entrepreneurship to speak of that are the product of corruption? Between one man who cannot construct well his arguments, yet accuse Soriano whom he only knows from rumor, and the average of 1, people getting baptized every week from Bro. Verily, he has not even seen fit to supply a single support to his equation claim.
You have to supply it to be credible. And to a supposed author, tsk! Of course, anyone can be an author nowadays, but not a writer. A writer would be careful about his reasoning. Media Literacy Why was there a need for media literacy to be taught in the first place?
The premise is that media is not all the time responsible. It can give out lies or half-lies. It can be tricky. There are many factors. There are many influences that may come in between performing its social responsibilities and offers for material comfort. There are the owners of media who may want to earn profits from political ads and would like to forego rules of parameters. There are the advertisers who may threaten to leave if their rival is given preferential treatment.
There are the customers with money with some demands, and the like. On the other hand, there are the audiences that can believe that whatever they read and watch are true — just like what Padilla just wrote — until debunked.
In effect, some people become victims of media carelessness or irresponsibility. It is false and hollow in most parts. That piece will stay there no matter what untruth it preaches. Now is the time they will know that Padilla lacks proper perspective — to even call himself a journalist.
A backhanded compliment — that is rightfully what it is! Aside from tossing that unmerited praise to media, the sycophant clearly lacks a wide perspective on religion, more yet a sound spiritual experience. It appears that his search for truth — if there is — is very much behind his eagerness to write and blow off praise to those who do not deserve while he compromises the innocent.
He writes — This means that the only way to debunk lies and to uncover the truth is to research and present the facts, facts, and more facts. As scholarly writing is, yes!
That also goes for journalism — even personalized journalism like column writing. This advice is apt for you, Efren Padilla. Scholarly writing, as well as journalism, does not exaggerate and encourage the penchant for observing adjectives only at the extreme ends of supposed binaries. There could be things in-between as one thing may not be the opposite of another. Nor is everything in superlatives or necessarily the cause of another.