A Critique of Ang Dating Daan

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

A CRITIQUE: THE USE OF PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8 AS BASIS FOR THE FLAWED CHRISTOLOGY OF THE CULT “ANG DATING DAAN” BY ELISEO SORIANO

__________________________________________

Note: This is a research paper I submitted in a Bible seminary. For the sake of brevity and readability, I omitted the footnotes and the bibliography.

© 2005 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

__________________________________________

Introduction

Members of Eliseo Soriano call him “the only sensible, honest and straightforward evangelist today”. They claim that his famous Ang Dating Daan program is “the only religious program which heightened the religious awareness of many people” and that millions already converted to their faith through their broadcast not only nationwide but even worldwide through their own cable TV channel, a hundred radio stations and the internet. In view of these claims, we need to discern whether Soriano is of God or not. One way of doing that is to assess his teaching that Christ is not fully man or human. This paper critiques his interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8, one of his main passages to prove his doctrine.

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God,did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation,taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death,even the death of the cross.(NKJV)

It is inconsistent with the Pauline teaching
on the humanity of Christ.

Our understanding of Philippians 2:5-8 must be in line with the over-all teaching of the Apostle Paul on the humanity of Christ. If Paul regarded Jesus as a man in one place, he cannot deny it in another. He may clarify or expand on it. But definitely Paul would not contradict himself when he wrote the Philippians passage.

Soriano denies the full humanity of
Christ, that is, He is not a man.

Soriano believes that the phrases “form of a bondservant,” “likeness of men” and “appearance as a man” in the Philippians passage proves that Christ is not man.

These verses clearly state that our Lord Jesus only assumed the form of man. And nobody can contest that! Therefore, to teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is a man is a big mistake. He is not a man by nature; He only assumed the form of a man. Don’t you have a common sense to comprehend that?[Eliseo Soriano, “How the ‘Iglesia ni Cristo’ made our Lord Jesus Christ a Man.”]

He admits that Jesus had a human body but he argues that it does not make the Lord human. He then explains away verses that clearly called Jesus “man.”

Why did John 8:40 said [sic] that our Lord Jesus was a man? It is because, that incident happened at the time our Lord Jesus was assuming the form of a human being. The Bible said, He was made in the likeness of men. In other words, He lived like a man. [Ibid.]

The apostle Paul teaches the full humanity
of Christ, that is, He is 100% human.

Dr. Donald Guthrie “frankly admitted that Paul has more to say about the divine nature of Christ than about his humanity.” [New Testament Theology] But it would be wrong to say the apostle denied the humanity of Christ. Paul certainly called our Lord “Man” (Rom 5:15, 18-19; 1 Cor 15:21; 1 Tim 2:5). That only means he assumed the fact that Christ is human. The parallelism that Jesus is the second Adam would be pointless if he is not really a man. For if Jesus is not human, then it follows that Adam is also not human. Christ also cannot mediate between God and men if He Himself is not both God and man.

Therefore, when Paul used the words “form,” “likeness” and “appearance” in the Philippians passage, he was not saying that Christ is not man. By ignoring the fact that Paul taught the humanity of Christ, Soriano made the apostle say what he did not really mean. That actually watered down the theme of the passage and made Paul inconsistent.

Anything less than real humanity would detract from the value of the cross and the striking character of the humiliation theme which is the main point of the passage. Moreover, the exaltation is affected by whether Jesus was really a man, because if he was a true man his humanity is combined with his Lordship in his exalted position. [Ibid.]

It contradicts the Biblical teaching
on the humanity of Christ.

How we understand Philippians 2:5-8 must be consistent not only with the writings of Paul but also with the rest of the Bible. What Paul taught is affirmed by the Bible. The humanity of Christ is one of the truths that the New Testament writers defended: “There can be no doubt that, at the time these letters were written, there was a pressing need to assert the real humanity of Christ because this was being undermined.” [Ibid.]

Soriano teaches a form
of Apollinarianism.

9th century Byzantine manuscript
illumination of I Constantinople
(From Wikipedia)

The attack of Soriano against the humanity of Christ is not really new. We find that the teaching of Soriano is similar to Apollinarianism, a 4th century heresy that denied the full humanity of Christ. Apollinaris, its chief proponent, was a bishop of Laodicea. Like Soriano, Apollinaris taught that “only a body represented Christ’s human nature” [Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language] and that the Lord used it only as “a vehicle without actually becoming human”. [Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology] But Apollinarianism was denounced as heresy in the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. for “it simply was not an adequate description of the Incarnation.” [Shelley] The Council stressed that Christ is fully Man. Roger Olson, in his The Story of Christian Theology, summarized the conclusion of the council.

In order to save humanity, then, Jesus Christ has to be truly human, possessing all essential aspects of a human being, including a human mind and soul, and truly divine,possessing divine nature equal with God the Father’s own being.

The Bible consistently teaches

the full humanity of Christ. 

We have to remember that the Council of Constantinople did not invent the doctrine of the humanity of Christ but they only affirmed what the Bible is teaching. It consistently teaches that Christ is truly and fully human. Like Paul, the apostle Peter “assumed rather than expressed” [Guthrie] the humanity of Christ. The Apostle John condemned as “the spirit of the antichrist” the teaching that Christ is not man (1 John 4:2-3). At that time, John refuted Docetism or the heresy that Jesus appeared only as a man just as angels appeared as men to Abraham. Docetism is different in some aspects to Apollonarianism. But they were essentially the same in denying the total humanity of Christ. Thus, the apostolic condemnation applies to both of them. Our salvation depends not only on the deity of Christ but also on His humanity for “in all things He had to be made like His brethren… to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:17)

Therefore, when Soriano denied the full humanity of Christ, he goes against the teachings of the entire Bible. Wayne Grudem warned “that to deny Jesus’ true humanity was to deny something at the very heart of Christianity, so that no one who denied that Jesus had come in the very flesh was sent from God.” [Systematic Theology]

It misinterprets Philippians 2:5-8.

Click here to read: "Was Eli Soriano
Correct in His Criticism of Hermeneutics?"

When we have a proverbial axe to grind, there is a danger that we end up making the Bible say what we want it to say. To keep us from doing so, we must apply hermeneutics or the rules of biblical interpretation. However, Soriano is against hermeneutics.

There are preachers who think that, through hermeneutics they can rightfully understand the Bible. We believe that the laws of men do not apply here. They do not contribute in developing correct interpretation and understanding of the Bible. [Soriano, "“Should the Bible be interpreted?”]

Soriano is influenced by the view of
the Iglesia ni Cristo.

It appears that the view on Christ of Soriano is a reaction to that of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC). According to an investigative article, “The ADD has its roots in the INC itself.” [Demiel Robles, “In God’s name,” Newsbreak, 15 April 2002] Eight years after the founding of the INC, Nicholas Perez, an INC minister, broke away from it due to doctrinal differences and started his own group. Soriano joined that group when he was 16 years old. Perez mentored him to be his successor. So, it is not a surprise that he devoted much time in debunking the teachings of the INC. But, in so doing, it appears that Soriano swung to the other extreme. The INC teaches that Jesus is man, not God. Soriano, on the other hand, teaches that Jesus is God, not man. Both groups now incessantly attack each other in their religious programs. Their “rivalry has gone beyond the ‘parameters of faith’” [Ibid.] because they filed cases against each other in court.

Proof-texting is a violation of accepted
hermeneutical principles.

Despite of their rivalry, however, Soriano and the INC have something in common. They both employ proof-texting or “using texts out of context” [Arthur L. Tuggy, Iglesia ni Cristo: A Study in Independent Church Dynamics] to support an assumption. Soriano claims all we have to do is to read the Bible, not to interpret it. James Sire in his Scripture Twisting argues that, because the Bible is not only the word of God but also of man, reading is an interpretation by itself: “From the standpoint of the Bible as literature, the simplest error of reading is the failure to consider the immediate context of the verse or passage in question.” In reading a passage, we need to properly interpret the meaning of terms. A term is “a key word that is crucial to what an author has to say.” [Howard Hendricks and William Hendricks, Living By the Book] How a word is used in its context determines its meaning. Words also change in meaning and usage in time. The meaning of a word then may be different in meaning now. This is the hermeneutical principle that Soriano violated in his interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8.

Soriano failed to consider the original Greek word of “form” which Paul used. Thus, he misread it to mean “outward appearance.” This is a common mistake as Alva McClain points out in The Master’s Seminary Journal.

Our English word “form” scarcely expresses its full significance. Quite often we use this term to indicate the very opposite of reality, saying of something, that it is only a form, by which we mean that the external appearance of the thing is misleading and does not truly represent the inner substance or character.

But McClain argues that Paul used the Greek word “morphe” which means “something intrinsic and essential as opposed to… [that] which is merely outward”. That is why the New International Version translated “morphe” into “very nature.” Thus, Soriano erred in understanding “likeness” and “appearance” because he already misread “form.”

If Jesus Christ was a real man, why did he have to be made in the likeness of men? All it needs is common sense to understand this. If he was already a man, why did He have to be made in the likeness of men? That only proves that our Lord Jesus Christ is a god, who assumed the form of a man.[Soriano, “How the ‘Iglesia ni Cristo’ made our Lord Jesus Christ a Man.”]

But the intended meaning of “form” should guide our understanding of the phrases “likeness of men” and “appearance of man” and not the other way around. McClain explains it this way: “The Apostle’s reason for speaking as he does in this text is not to insinuate that Christ was not true man, but probably to remind his readers that there is after all a difference between the man Jesus and man who is a sinner.” That means by nature Christ is like every man but, since He did not sin, He is unlike any man. McClain points out that “it is the guarded language of inspiration upon a theme where a misstep may invite confusion.”

It is precisely this misstep that Soriano made. Therefore, because he failed to follow hermeneutical principles, his understanding was colored by his bias against the INC.

Conclusion

A religious group rises or falls on its leader and a leader rises or falls on his teachings. We saw that Soriano fell because he failed to meet biblical standards. He had a flawed Christology or doctrine of Christ because he misread Philippians 2:5-8. His denial of the humanity of Christ went against not only the intended meaning of the Apostle Paul, the author of Philippians, but also the teachings of the entire Bible. Thus, he ended up repeating the errors of Apollinarianism. In his zeal to prove the INC wrong, he himself became wrong. He could have avoided it if he faithfully applied hermeneutics, instead of rejecting its rules.

Click here to read.

This paper by no means presented an exhaustive view of the teachings of Soriano. Sadly, materials about his doctrines are still scarce. We need to do more research so that we could equip the believers to share the Gospel to people who are deceived by his defective Christology. For it is our biblical mandate to contend for the faith.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear… (1 Pet 3:15)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here. 

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.