IT IS NOT TRUE THAT DOCTRINE WAS THE ROOT OF CAND. JEREMIAH PASCUAL’S RESENTMENT

(by Rev. John Flores)

IN the early days when he (Candidate Jeremiah Pascual) attended the FRCB (then known as the Protestant Reformed Church of Bulacan), the church warmly welcomed him and his then-girlfriend, Leslie. However, their membership was transferred to the Berean PRCP. They stayed there for a few years. But when he expressed his desire to enter the seminary of the PRCP under the teaching of missionaries from the PRCA (Revs. Kleyn and Smit), he decided to return to Bulacan. Perhaps he thought I could give him more time and support in entering the seminary. So when he decided to transfer to FRCB, I was surprised by the reaction of then-Elder Jorge Baguhin. He was not pleased. Why? Because he knew “Jhem” (his nickname) very well—not only as someone who attended Berean, but as his own nephew. He was not happy that Jhem would be entering the seminary because he knew his nephew’s weakness when it came to humility. He was concerned that this might become a problem in the future. In fact, Elder Jorge Baguhin did not attend church the day Jhem and Leslie returned to FRCB. I was shocked.

Nevertheless, Elder Jorge Baguhin couldn’t do anything because the council had approved the couple’s request to be accepted as confessing members.

Why am I saying this? First, because even then, Jhem already had a strong desire to enter the ministry. Second, even then, the very attitude Jhem is now showing was something his own uncle had warned me about. I didn’t listen.

When the FRCB consistory recommended Jhem as the first seminarian to Classis, many delegates immediately opposed it due to his lack of academic requirements (such as Logic, Philosophy, Languages, etc.). However, the FRCB delegates pleaded for the requirements to be relaxed due to the urgent need for more ministers. In other words, I supported his pursuit of the ministry as the pastor of FRCB at that time.

"....the very attitude Jhem is now showing was something his own uncle had warned me about. I didn’t listen."

THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PRCA AND RPCA

Then came, by God’s providence, the controversy within the PRCA regarding the place of good works in salvation. The FRCB council had quietly been monitoring the developments since 2019 through articles published in The Standard Bearer and Protest, which were recorded in the Acts of Synod. So when Rev. Andy Lanning and his consistory and members withdrew their membership from Byron PRC, we followed it closely. This often became a topic of conversation in our home with Jhem, Reuben, Matt, etc. In fact, they told me they had already spoken with Rev. Lanning, saying that if the Bulacan consistory would not listen to them, they would leave the church and form their own. I was surprised. What I wanted was to first hold a free and open discussion within the congregation, followed by one at Classis, so everything would be clear. They encouraged me: “Pastor, they’re willing to support us, even financially, so your salary and the benevolent assistance to Leyte won’t be affected. Just say the word if we’re going to leave!” This was how they made their appeal to me. So at that point, it became clear to me that the doctrinal controversy in the PRCA was no small matter and that our mission works in the Philippines could be seriously affected.

On May 16, 2020, after explaining the issue of the controversy, the entire congregation (including Leyte) decided to withdraw membership from the PRCP.

In our early months with the RPC, Reuben Catalan and Matt Raguirag served as part of the FRCB consistory. At that time, we were working on our budget adjustment for submission to the First RPCA. I was excused from a meeting because the topic concerned my salary adjustment. When I returned, I noticed wide eyes—not of joy, but because they had doubled my basic salary! I wasn’t pleased. I was worried. Elder Ronald Mercado said, “I told you (Reuben, Matt, Jorge, Eric Castano), Pastor John wouldn’t like this.” I asked, “Elder Reuben, why did you make my basic allowance this high?” (Elder Reuben was the chairman of the finance committee). “Pastor, it’s time for the church to give you the salary you deserve—and it will also set a precedent for the next pastor of Bulacan.” That was a red flag. I jokingly replied, “Ah, so you’re not doing this for me, but to prepare for Jhem becoming the next pastor of Bulacan!” (Because Elder Reuben Catalan was rushing my acceptance of the missionary post in Bulacan so that Jeremiah Pascual could replace me quickly.) They laughed.

During that time, I was preparing to step down as pastor of Bulacan and become the first missionary to the provinces of Leyte and Laguna. And because we were in desperate need of additional ministers, both Jeremiah Pascual and Emmanuel Jasojaso were placed under examination. On January 24, 2022, both passed their “classical examination.” They were issued certificates, and it was made clear that both were equally qualified to become candidates for the ministry.

The consistory decided that the next pastor of FRCB would be chosen through an election, not by appointment. Reuben Catalan expressed concern. “Why do we need an election? Wasn’t the agreement that Jeremiah would be the pastor of Bulacan and Emmanuel would go to Leyte?” But the consistory made a clear decision—there would be an election. Everyone was confident that Candidate Jeremiah Pascual would be chosen, not Emmanuel Jasojaso. The day of the election came. Almost everyone was present. It was held after the morning worship service. I was the chairman, Elder Ronald Mercado read the votes, and Elder Jorge Baguhin recorded them. At that time, we had 25 male confessing members, so the majority vote was 13. Midway through the counting, I paused and whispered to the two elders, “Isn’t this different from what we expected? How many votes does Candidate Emmanuel have so far?” “Ten, Pastor,” Elder Jorge replied. And three for Jeremiah. And we were only halfway through the votes. God’s will was clear, I told myself. When the counting ended, Candidate Jasojaso received 18 votes, and Candidate Pascual received only 7. As chairman, I announced the results to the congregation. Everyone was joyful—except for Jeremiah. You could see on his face that he was trying to smile, but his heart couldn’t hide the sadness. “I’m sad about the result. Because I’m the son of Bulacan,” he said. I didn’t understand that.

"Ah, so you’re not doing this for me, but to prepare for Jhem becoming the next pastor of Bulacan!” (Because Elder Reuben Catalan was rushing my acceptance of the missionary post in Bulacan so that Jeremiah Pascual could replace me quickly.)

They laughed."

After that day, Candidate Jeremiah Pascual became noticeably downhearted. This continued until the ordination of Pastor-Elect Emmanuel Jasojaso. And it was then that the series of criticisms from his friends—Reuben Catalan and Matt Raquirag—began against the decisions of the consistory under the leadership of Rev. Emmanuel B. Jasojaso and his preachings.

to be continued.....

Next issue: "BAPTISM: It’s not a true controversy—just a made-up issue."

Proverbs 14:15

“The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.”

THE ISSUE OF BAPTISM WAS THE EXCUSE HE THOUGHT OF TO LEAVE THE CHURCH WITH A “LEGITIMATE” REASON.

In my previous writings, we saw that the behavior currently being displayed by Candidate Jeremiah “Jhem” Pascual is not something new, but a long-standing weakness.

Do you think Jhem’s relatives and friends would say that the reason for their withdrawal is because they couldn’t accept that 72% of FRCB congregation did not want Jhem to become their pastor?

Absolutely not!

In fact, the baptism—which he allegedly opposes—hadn’t even happened yet, and they were already spreading disgrace within the congregation! The election to call for a new minister was held on March 27, 2022. Right after the results were announced, one of his friends went straight to the brethren in Baseco, Manila, to ask, “Who did you vote for as the next pastor of Bulacan?” Is that right thinking? Did he need to do that? One of the saints in Manila responded, “Sorry, Elder Reuben, but I can’t tell you who I voted for.”

You, the reader, ask yourself—was this group’s main issue really about doctrine? In truth, they were creating division! “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him… A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Prov. 6:16, 19

The baptism hadn’t even occurred yet. But the whole congregation could already sense the cold treatment these people were showing toward others, thinking that the church disliked Jhem.

Second, their inability to accept the results of the election led his friends to become critical of the consistory’s actions and decisions. Now the issue became about the confessing membership of brethren in Leyte. They belittled the intellectual capacity of the people in the province and compared it to the supposedly higher intellect of those in the city.

Yes, it's true—the saints in Leyte may not be as theologically deep as those in Manila or Bulacan since many of them haven’t even finished elementary school. But they understand the basic knowledge of the gospel! Often, they express their understanding in Cebuano. They’re not fluent in Tagalog or English. But because Candidate Jeremiah and others in the consistory don’t understand Cebuano, I have had to translate it into Tagalog. And because of this, they assume the Christians in Leyte don’t know enough.

Their third issue was: Why is their (Leyte) membership registered in Bulacan? They did not recognize the decision of the consistory. Infact, Jhem’s own friends were members of the consistory and had even approved those decisions themselves. That’s shocking.

I will devote more time to discussing the baptism issue in the next article, so I’ll skip that for now. But even so, you can already see from their string of criticisms toward the consistory that their arguments are not truly valid but rooted from their disappointment that their friend, Candidate Jeremiah Pascual, did not become pastor.

WHY DID HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WITHDRAW THEIR MEMBERSHIP? According to the letter they submitted last June 11, 2022, their reasons focused only on:

The issue of baptism,
My preaching on May 29, 2022, and
The issue of hierarchy.

One notable thing about the letters the consistory received: they all bear the same “thumbprint.” What do I mean? They weren’t written by different people. It was the same person writing all of them, just slightly changing the wording and sentence structure—but the tone and idea are all the same.

Who wrote them?

Did you know that one of his original members left the First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan because she said she was no longer receiving spiritual nourishment, nor was she being edified by what she was hearing? She was getting tired of the constant attacks on our church (FRCB) and on me personally. The gospel was gone. Sadly, she returned to the PRC in the Philippines. She requested a transfer letter from FRCB so she could be accepted back into the PRC. Because PRCP does not recognize Candidate Jhem’s group as a legitimate church because they know it started the wrong way.

According to this woman I spoke with, she did not write her own withdrawal letter and admitted that the letter had already been written without her reading it before it was sent to FRCB. Terrible. And the same thing happened with others who sent withdrawal letters. I was shocked.

But what did Jhem tell the RPC in America? That all these people left FRCB and he even gave them copies of these letters online. He deceived even the RPC in America! They witnessed a lie that was a blatant violation of the 9th commandment!

In fact, I spoke to one of his members in Laguna just last month, and told me:

“I don’t even know, Pastor, why we left the church (FRCB).”

Candidate Pascual, I know you’re reading this article. If I’m being personal or lying, can you boldly say—from the pulpit and before God—that what this former member told me is false?

Can you say, “Before God, they wrote their own withdrawal letters, and I did not help them write those letters”?

Proverbs 14:15 says: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

You in the RPC in America—are you simple-minded? You, Rev. Nathan Langerak—are you foolish for so easily believing what Jhem told you? Still, I’ll try to be gracious to you, Nathan. Maybe you simply don’t know the full story yet?

This is the very problem with the PRCA and RPCA! We boldly claim to uphold the confessions, but don’t actually live them out. Proudly we say, “We hold firmly to LD 43 of the Heidelberg Catechism!”

Q.112. What is required in the ninth commandment?

Answer: “…That I bear false witness against no man, nor falsify any man’s words; that I be no backbiter, nor slanderer; that I do not judge, nor join in condemning any man rashly or unheard…”

A beautiful confession! But it just falls to the ground after being preached. This is what we’ve experienced from others who claim to be “reformed believers”! Once they hear something, they instantly believe it—forgetting the very spirit of LD 43. Even the rules of court are better! In court, there's something called due process. They understand the value of the presumption of innocence—a fundamental legal principle.

Every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. A person must first be presumed innocent, not instantly believed guilty just because of the first accusation or fake news you receive. But the RPCA treated us as guilty—unless proven innocent. So, before they even heard our side, Rev. Langerak had already given advice to Jhem instead of saying, “Go back to your consistory and don’t speak to me yet!”

"But the RPCA treated us as

guilty—unless proven innocent."

I’ll explain this more in detail in my response to Rev. Langerak. But you will see soon enough: Jhem’s group should never have left the church—if only the RPC ministers had not meddled in the issue of baptism, which Jhem used as a weapon against all of us.

Hierarchy!

Next article: “Gossiping inside the car” --- “A scene of gossip and self-exposure, revealing the true contents of their hearts.”

“The fish is caught by its mouth.”

12 May 2025

WE REMAINED SILENT FOR THREE YEARS, THINKING IT WOULD HELP PREVENT THE CONFLICT FROM GROWING. WE WERE WRONG.

Proverbs 12:23

“A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.”

IN the previous article, I mentioned two things that Candidate Jhem will likely just deny. He will lie about them—because that is the easiest way for their group to defend themselves.

The issue regarding his relationship with his uncle, which led to their absence from worship services after we accepted Jeremiah and Leslie (his girlfriend at the time) as confessing members. But what if he denies my testimony about former elder Jorge Baguhin? That would be difficult. Because if Jorge didn’t say, “I know my nephew!”, then what was he referring to when he said, “I know Jhem”? Was it about food? Or about movies? That’s shallow. In truth, this issue was the very reason why Jorge didn’t attend worship the following Lord’s Day. What serious reason would cause him to violate the 4th commandment—to keep the Sabbath Day holy?

Second, it would be difficult for Candidate Pascual to deny the issue of why one of his members left, because that person was no longer being spiritually nourished. Why did Candidate Jeremiah Pascual have to lie to his group, to the FRCB, and provide false information claiming that the women in Sta. Cruz, Laguna wrote a three-page withdrawal letter—when in reality, Jeremiah himself was the one who wrote it? And this woman later admitted, “I had nothing to do with this letter, nor did I even know about it.” Lies. Lies.

“Gossiping inside the car” — a scene of gossip and self-exposure, revealing the true contents of their hearts.

Candidate Pascual has repeatedly claimed that baptism was the reason for his and his relatives’ and friends’ withdrawal. But is it really true that baptism was the trigger for them to leave the church? No.

On June 8, 2022 (just four days before they inaugurated their first service under the name First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan), an incident occurred inside the vehicle of an FRCB member.

One of those inside the vehicle was the son of Jorge Baguhin (cousin of Jeremiah Pascual). According to his gossip, they had a reason for wearing all black on May 29, 2022. This is what he told to the three of FRCB members (who also happen to be their relatives):

According to him, they planned to wear black because they knew I would be preaching on May 29, 2022. And they were going to do this as a sign of protest against Pastor John Flores.

He added, “We didn’t even listen. My older sister just watched a sermon on YouTube instead of listening to Pastor John.”

He further said, “So when Pastor John noticed we weren’t paying attention and that we were all dressed in black along with Jhem’s friends, he got mad during the sermon! He even banged the podium in anger! Hahahahaha!”

Now, here’s what I want you to notice from this event:

Even before I began to preach, they already had an issue with me. But about what?

This group claimed that their reason for withdrawing membership was baptism and my preaching on May 29, 2022. But why did their protest (wearing black and deliberately not listening to the preaching) come before they even heard the sermon?

If the reason for their premeditated protest was baptism, why was the protest directed at me?

a. I was not the minister who baptized the child they were sulking about.

b. They knew that I, as the former pastor of FRCB and current missionary, also opposed conducting baptism before formal acceptance as confessing members from the PRCP.

c. So if I wasn’t involved in the baptism, why were Candidate Pascual’s cousins so angry at me?

According to him, “We believe Pastor John Flores manipulated the members so they wouldn’t vote for Kuya Jhem, and instead chose Kuya Emman (Rev. Emmanuel Jasojaso) as pastor of FRCB.”

GOTCHA!

So, it was not really about baptism, or even my May 29 preaching, that triggered their explosive anger—it was the result of the election! On that day inside the car (June 8), God exposed the true content of their hearts—jealousy and envy toward Rev. Jasojaso! Here in the Philippines, we have a saying: “The fish is caught by its mouth.”

Proverbs 12:23

“A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.”

The fool doesn’t care about what is true. What matters to him is that he has something to say!

Can he (cousin of Jeremiah) deny everything he said, which is corroborated by 3 witnesses?

Deuteronomy 19:15

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity… at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

In fact, I even have an audio recording of that conversation!

Just like the female member who testified that she didn’t write the withdrawal letter—that it was just put into her mouth without her knowledge—this conversation in the vehicle is also hard to deny! You’d have to be an expert pathological liar to pull it off!

I have no personal issue against the Baguhin family. In fact, in my next article, I will prove that their first elder in that group is not a legitimate elder—he just self-appointed himself. This family is not strangers to me, especially brother Jorge Baguhin. Our relationship in the church was more than brotherly.

“We believe Pastor John Flores manipulated the members so they wouldn’t vote for Kuya Jhem, and instead chose Kuya Emman (Rev. Emmanuel Jasojaso) as pastor of FRCB.”

The point of this article is to expose the truth:

The real issue behind their departure along with Candidate Jeremiah Pascual was their disappointment over the election results—because the congregation did not choose him.

Next issue: “The fruit of the poisonous tree” — The beginning was illegitimate, so everything that followed is also illegitimate.”

“Those who rashly thrust themselves into the ministry, without being duly called, cannot be held to have any lawful ministry at all.” – John Calvin, Institutes IV.3.10

The question we will examine now is this:

Is the First Orthodox Reformed Protestant Church in Bulacan a legitimately instituted church of Christ?

I raise this question because, after Candidate Jeremiah Pascual’s group left the First Reformed Church in Bulacan on June 12, 2022, they immediately held a formal worship service. Specifically:

They immediately called themselves a “Reformed Church.”
A man named Brother Jorge Baguhin stood and presented himself as an “elder.”
In the following Sundays, they even installed other officebearers—elders and a deacon.

According to the Church Order, here’s what is stated regarding the selection of officebearers:

Church Order – Article 3 (Of the Offices):

“No one, though he be a professor of theology, elder, or deacon, shall be permitted to enter upon the ministry of the Word and the sacraments without having been lawfully called thereunto. And when anyone acts contrary thereto, and after being frequently admonished does not desist, the classis shall judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic or is to be punished in some other way.”

Therefore, self-appointment is strictly prohibited by the Church Order of Dort. But why am I emphasizing this now?

Answer:

Because the first “elder” of the FORPCB, Brother Jorge Baguhin, was no longer a legitimate elder—14 days before the so-called church was even formed. On May 28, 2022, he sent an Irrevocable Resignation Letter via email to our clerk, Elder Eric Mescallado (the actual letter is below).

As I explained in the previous article, they used my sermon on May 29, 2022 as one of the the tools to justify their group’s withdrawal of membership. Yet, a day before that, Jorge Baguhin had already resigned via letter. At that time, only the clerk was aware of the resignation. It was then discussed and accepted by the council on Sunday, May 29, before our meeting with Candidate Pascual regarding his objections to a baptism. That Sunday morning, the council was unaware of Jorge’s resignation, so Elder Eric privately asked him to still approve the sermons for that morning—because the council had not yet formally received the resignation.

Now, Brother Jorge might say, “If my resignation was already effective, why did the council still allow me to shake hands with the minister after the sermon, as a sign of elder oversight? Doesn’t that mean my resignation was not yet in effect until our family left the church on June 1?”

Perhaps Jorge is thinking also, “I wasn’t aware that when I left the church building on May 29, 2022 after the worship service, I was already considered resigned. So as long as I haven’t been informed that my resignation was accepted, I’m still an elder!”

But then—why did you resign in the first place?

Does Jorge really think the council would come knocking at his door to say, “Hello brother Jorge, your resignation has been accepted. It’s now effective”?

Wrong.

After the two services on May 29, 2022, the resignation letter was shared with the whole council and was officially accepted. Therefore, Jorge was no longer part of the council that afternoon, when we met with Candidate Pascual about his baptism concerns.

Brother Jorge Baguhin laid down his office on May 28, 2022, and it became effective on May 29, 2022. He was no longer an elder by noon that day! That’s why in the withdrawal letter dated June 1, 2022, signed by him and his entire family, he made no mention of resigning from eldership—only withdrawing as a member of the church. Because he knew he was no longer an elder.

So, May 28, 2022 – Jorge submitted his irrevocable resignation.

And June 1, 2022 – his whole family withdrew their membership from the FRCB.

"Acta invalida ab initio et sine auctoritate ecclesiae"

(Acts invalid from the beginning and without the authority of the church.)

After the Baguhin family submitted their withdrawal on June 1, others followed, including him Candidate Pascual and his friends. On the evening of June 11, 2022, those from Sta. Cruz, Laguna also sent withdrawal letters—though it turns out those letters weren’t actually written by them.

FYI: Did you know that on the night of June 11, 2022, the people who had left the FRCB gathered in one house in Bulacan to plan how they would submit their withdrawal letters and boycott the Lord’s Supper at FRCB the next day? This didn’t happen spontaneously. It was premeditated and organized, led by Candidate Jeremiah Pascual.

On June 12, 2022, Deacon Matt Raguirag and Brother Jorge Baguhin led the reading and signing of the Formula of Subscription. The first two signatories were Deacon Matt Raguirag and “Elder” Jorge Baguhin. So Jorge “became” an elder again that day. But who appointed him to continue in the office? No one. He assumed he was still an elder when they left FRCB on June 1, 2022.

Why didn’t he know his resignation had been accepted? Because after abandoning his post through irrevocable resignation, he never returned to the church. On June 1, we received only a letter from him—Brother Jorge was "missing in action". This wasn’t new: Jorge had a pattern of resigning whenever he had an issue with the church. In fact, his May 28 resignation was already his third. He never learned.

So we were shocked when on Sunday morning, June 12, we found out they had already formed a “church.” And we were even more shocked that Jorge was calling himself “elder” again—just to legitimize their church!

But what stunned us further was that on July 3, 2022, Jorge Baguhin installed a new elder, Reuben Catalan, and a deacon, Ralph Catalan.

Where did he get the authority to do that?

Nowhere.

Because of the false belief that he remained an elder after resigning.

In civil law, this is called “null and void ab initio”—all actions he performed had no legal force. Therefore, even his installation of officebearers on July 3 was invalid and an act of pretense!

Hebrews 5:4, And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. is called of God, as was Aaron.”

In Reformed church polity, the special offices—including elder—do not reside in the man himself. It is a calling from Christ through the church. Once an officebearer resigns or is released, he is no longer authorized to perform any duties—including reading sermons, giving oversight, or installing new officebearers.

That is usurpation of authority.

A legitimate elder is called by the Lord through the election and approval of the church, according to Church Order Article 22.

Most importantly, this group disregards the clear teaching of the Belgic Confession, Article 31, which says:

Belgic Confession:

“We believe that the ministers of God’s Word, and the elders and deacons, ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teacheth. Therefore every one must take heed, not to intrude himself by indecent means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord.”

Most shocking of all: the initial “elder” (Jorge) went on to install another elder (Reuben Catalan), and together they ordained a minister of the Word—Candidate Jeremiah Pascual!

In a court of law, there’s a principle called the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.”

The "tree" is Brother Jorge Baguhin.

The "fruits" are his acts of oversight, installation of officebearers, and ordination of a minister.

Because the tree (his authority) is illegitimate, all that proceeds from it is null and void ab initio.

Consequently, anything done by these “fruits”—elders, deacons, ministers—is invalid: baptisms, the Lord’s Supper, discipline, preaching, marriages, etc.

The First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan is not an instituted church.

It has no legitimate elders, deacons, minister—or even the status of a church.

That’s the plain fact.

Was this the same as what happened to the Second RPCA, as Rev. Nathan Langerak claimed in his magazine Sword and Slander (oops, I mean Shield)—that PRCA did the same to them?

No.

I, along with the FRCB, believe there was injustice in how the officebearers of the RPC were treated by the PRCA. They were not judged fairly, and the real issue was PRCA’s unwillingness to admit their doctrinal error in the "Good Works Controversy", which they should have dealt with long ago.

But in the case of the First Orthodox RPC in Bulacan, especially with Brother Jorge Baguhin—no injustice happened. He voluntarily relinquished his office and duties as an elder, and no one forced him at gunpoint to resign. He did it of his own free volition. You will not find any mention of doctrinal issues in his resignation.

This is not comparable to the Second RPCA.

But because Rev. Nathan Langerak’s tongue is quicker than his brain, he hastily compared the two situations and even criticized the previous financial support for the FRCB.

Proverbs 18:13

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

I will address this more fully in my upcoming response to Rev. N. Langerak.

Let us not be deceived by their schemes.

Yes, they pretend to be a church, but only to fulfill their real goal in leaving FRCB: to make their relative and friend, Candidate Jeremiah Pascual, a pastor.

Next Issue: Baptism: Procedural Error or Doctrinal Issue?

English Translation

I am writing to convey to you my desire to relinquish my duty as an elder in our church for the reason that I see I can no longer carry it out. I ask for your broad understanding.

May grace and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Your brother,

Jorge Baguhin

The documents are publicly available on the FB page of FORPCB.

THE ISSUE OF BAPTISM THAT HAPPENED ON APRIL 24, 2022: A PROCEDURAL ERROR AND NOT A VIOLATION OF SCRIPTURAL TEACHING OR THE CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS.

When the baptism of a baby girl took place at FRCB, it became one of the reasons for Candidate Pascual’s group to leave the FRCB. They thought, baptism is a matter of sacrament, and the sacraments are the second mark of a true church. Their conclusion? FRCB is no longer a true church.

Candidate Jeremiah Pascual’s syllogism:

Major premise: The sacraments are one of the marks of a true church.
Minor premise: Baptism is a sacrament.
Conclusion: Therefore, an error in the matter of baptism is an error in the sacraments, and so FRCB is a false church because of this error in baptism!

If you listen to Candidate Jhem’s Bible studies, it seems he is implying that the FRCB instantly became a false church on April 24, 2022. But is this syllogism by FORPCB valid?

NO.

Because the sacraments are not the only mark or sign of a true church. Also included are the faithful preaching of the Word and Christian discipline. Before I tackle his argument on the matter of baptism, let me use his logical syllogism and apply it to a serious error they committed in the third mark of a true church — Christian Discipline.

On September 10, 2023, FORPCB held a false observance of the Lord’s Supper (because of the illegitimacy of the office bearer and the instituted church). On the same day, their illegitimate office bearers decided to place their fellow illegitimate office bearer under public discipline simply because he left the country and would be gone for three weeks — hence, he could not attend their Lord’s Supper (the actual bulletin is shown below). Even though they cannot be called a legitimate church, they tried to implement one of the marks of a true church — discipline.

However, just a few months later, on December 10, 2023, they issued a bulletin apologizing for the hasty and hierarchical decision they made in suspending an office bearer publicly (which was even posted on their Facebook page). They admitted their process of placing a member — and not just any member, but an office bearer — under discipline was wrong! Members and office bearers are equal when it comes to discipline if they do not repent. But Scripture gives a strong warning about this:

“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.” — 1 Timothy 5:22

Even the Church Order, Article 77, speaks of the careful process required in discipline. First, the sin is to be announced — but without the person’s name. But if the name is to be included (next stage), it requires the advice of the neighboring consistory.

Just as they were quick to decide to leave the FRCB without formal talks (just one conversation, and that only with Jeremiah Pascual), they were just as quick to enforce discipline. Reckless decision! That is the mark of FORPCB!

It took them three months before realizing they made a mistake in implementing discipline — one of the marks of the true church.

Let us now use Candidate Pascual’s syllogism on this situation concerning discipline (since sacraments and discipline are both marks of the true church):

Major premise: Christian discipline is one of the marks of a true church
Minor premise: Sacraments and discipline are both marks of the true church
Conclusion: Therefore, to err in the matter of discipline is like erring in the sacraments — FORPCB is a false church because of their error in discipline!

They are not even a legitimate church because of a wrong beginning. If I apply Jhem’s logic, then they’re automatically a false church.

Now, since they publicly admitted on December 10, 2023 that they failed in implementing one of the marks of a true church, is it fair to say that Candidate Jeremiah Pascual is a hypocrite, for practicing double standards?

When FRCB made a procedural error (not doctrinal) on April 24, 2022, Jhem made many harsh accusations against FRCB (bitter because of the election). All of that now rebounds on them. The three marks of a true church are component marks — none of them can be missing in a true church.

As the Belgic Confession of Faith says (a quote Jhem often uses against FRCB):

Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church

“…The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church…”

If you examine carefully, Article 29 of the Belgic Confession does not say, “if she maintains the perfect administration of the sacraments…” Nor does it say, “if church discipline is perfectly exercised in punishing of sin…” It only says, “if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ.” Because even the church can make mistakes. The church or the consistory is not infallible!

That’s why in the Church Order of Dort and the Reformed tradition, there is a clear distinction: there are true churches, but they are measured as more or less pure. Thus, a mistake (like the one made by FRCB) in procedure, mode, or program, etc., is not sufficient grounds to immediately declare a church false.

Instead, there is a gradation or level of recognition of a church. It is not just about ecclesia vera vs. ecclesia falsa (true and false). That was the view of the Synod of Dort and even other Reformers.

“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists… Errors in minor doctrines or in sacramental practice do not immediately destroy the church.” – John Calvin, Institutes IV.1.12

Calvin acknowledges that even with imperfections, the church can still be true — if the core of the gospel is preserved.

So why does FORPCB claim this baptism issue was a doctrinal one and not just a procedural error? And why do we say that it had nothing to do with the covenant issue of the parents, but only with the procedure of a transferred member from the PRCP?

I thought, rather than answering it right away now, we will present an explanation within the church itself. Since Jhem has been relentlessly and continuously slandering FRCB for the past three years through his Bible Studies, Sword and Shield articles, and personal blog, I challenge you now, Candidate Jeremiah Pascual — to a public debate in the presence of your members and FRCB members. Representing FRCB will be Deacon Rodolfo “Jake” Magturtor, Jr.

In this way, your side will not be the only one heard. Our side will be heard too.

Debate Topic: FRCB ERRED DOCTRINALLY IN THE BAPTISM CONDUCTED ON APRIL 24, 2022

Affirmative: Jeremiah Pascual
Negative: Rodolfo “Jake” Magturtor, Jr.

Announce the date and location on your church’s FB page. The sooner the better, since I know you’re prepared from all the accusations you’ve been throwing at us.

I await your response.

“Don’t pretend to be a lion in the pulpit if you run like a mouse when challenged to a fair debate.”

Next Topic: Response to Rev. Langerak's accusations to FRCB.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse