Mr. Franz "Kapatas" Lugena responded to my previous article on Eliphaz. Conscience compels me commend him, he has guts. However, like his mentors, he spent quite a portion of his article discrediting his opponents before giving the answer. As a response to this, I will be professional and get to the point.
Let me set things straight: My statement: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” refers to the reality that Eliphaz, though sinning against God was later forgiven. Taking this into account, you cannot say that Eliphaz is really an evil person. But this doesn’t mean that “Eliphaz remains righteous after sinning” either. The fact that he was forgiven by God shows that Eliphaz had sinned previously and therefore unrighteous. But he didn’t remain in that state because he was forgiven later as the scripture shows.
Unfortunately, from the article where we got that, Kapatas never made such clarification whether direct or implied. He made the above qualification only after my article exposed his contradiction with Atty. Marwil Llasos. And what can you make from the above explanation? Nothing but more confusions. Think about it, what line divides evil with unrighteous?
After explaining his position on Job 22:15, Kapatas made this assertion against me:
Clearly, Eliphaz statements in Job 5:1 is wrong. He himself was forgiven precisely because of the prayers of Job, who is himself a saint. The question as to the correctness of Eliphaz’s statements in Job 22:15 is another matter. Job 22:15 is not about God but rather about “ang dating daan” and therefore not included in the wrong things that Eliphaz had said in his conversation with Job. For it to be wrong, Rodimus must first show us verses stating as such. For Rodimus to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong without biblical verses will be suicide on his part, him being a sola scriptura believer.
Huh? I don't seem to have made my own exegesis on Job 22:15. I was basing it from Kapatas' point of view when arguing against an Ang Dating Daan member. It's typical for Kapatas to misrepresent his opponents and work his way from that misrepresentation. Here is what I said:
Just for a brief background, in order to discredit the Ang Dating Daan cult of Mr. Eliseo Soriano (ADD, the old path) Mr. Lugena cites Job 22:15 where wicked men have walked the old path. Since the name of Mr. Soriano's cult is ADD or the old path, the argument concludes that the ADD cult is for wicked men. However, the ADD members reason out that in Job 42:7 Eliphaz was God's enemy and he was rebuked for not speaking the right things about God. So for Mr. Lugena to defend his stand on Job 22:15, he would at least contest that it wasn't about the old path that God was rebuking Eliphaz and Eliphaz was not really an evil man (which Mr. Lugena did).
So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person.
From there, did I make an exegesis of Job 22:15? Of course not. I was only making an analysis on the condition that Kapatas agrees with Atty. Llasos.
Let's now discuss the answer of Kapatas to my question, Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job?
As regards to Mr. Soliman’s question: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? My answer is this: Eliphaz was unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God in his conversation with Job. This is verified by God himself in Job 42:7. But Eliphaz didn’t remain in unrighteous state for he was forgiven later. Taking this into account, Eliphaz is not really an evil man.
The response barely answers the question. In fact, it is avoiding it. What about the instances where Eliphaz spoke the right things on other matters though not about God, was Eliphaz righteous in those instances? Could it be that Job 42:7 is just a matter Eliphaz making a mistake? Sorry, try again.
We also have to analyze if Kapatas and Atty. Llasos understood Job 42:7 correctly. For example in Job 5:13, Eliphaz stated this about God: He catches the wise in their craftiness. Is this wrong? If not, was God wrong on Job 42:7 wherein he told Eliphaz that he has not spoke the right things about God? Of course not. Then maybe both Kapatas and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their private interpretation of Job 42:7.
Kapatas has a couple of questions for me. Let's now answer them:
1. After failing to say right things about God, was Eliphaz righteous or not?
I have a different understanding of Job 42:7. As I gave Job 5:13 as example, this is a right statement about God. When you are brought by God to ask for forgiveness and you complied, you are obviously one of the righteous (Hebrews 12:4-12).
2. Is the statement of Eliphaz in Job 22:15, right or wrong?
It is right. So?
Let me set things straight: My statement: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” refers to the reality that Eliphaz, though sinning against God was later forgiven. Taking this into account, you cannot say that Eliphaz is really an evil person. But this doesn’t mean that “Eliphaz remains righteous after sinning” either. The fact that he was forgiven by God shows that Eliphaz had sinned previously and therefore unrighteous. But he didn’t remain in that state because he was forgiven later as the scripture shows.
Unfortunately, from the article where we got that, Kapatas never made such clarification whether direct or implied. He made the above qualification only after my article exposed his contradiction with Atty. Marwil Llasos. And what can you make from the above explanation? Nothing but more confusions. Think about it, what line divides evil with unrighteous?
After explaining his position on Job 22:15, Kapatas made this assertion against me:
Clearly, Eliphaz statements in Job 5:1 is wrong. He himself was forgiven precisely because of the prayers of Job, who is himself a saint. The question as to the correctness of Eliphaz’s statements in Job 22:15 is another matter. Job 22:15 is not about God but rather about “ang dating daan” and therefore not included in the wrong things that Eliphaz had said in his conversation with Job. For it to be wrong, Rodimus must first show us verses stating as such. For Rodimus to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong without biblical verses will be suicide on his part, him being a sola scriptura believer.
Huh? I don't seem to have made my own exegesis on Job 22:15. I was basing it from Kapatas' point of view when arguing against an Ang Dating Daan member. It's typical for Kapatas to misrepresent his opponents and work his way from that misrepresentation. Here is what I said:
Just for a brief background, in order to discredit the Ang Dating Daan cult of Mr. Eliseo Soriano (ADD, the old path) Mr. Lugena cites Job 22:15 where wicked men have walked the old path. Since the name of Mr. Soriano's cult is ADD or the old path, the argument concludes that the ADD cult is for wicked men. However, the ADD members reason out that in Job 42:7 Eliphaz was God's enemy and he was rebuked for not speaking the right things about God. So for Mr. Lugena to defend his stand on Job 22:15, he would at least contest that it wasn't about the old path that God was rebuking Eliphaz and Eliphaz was not really an evil man (which Mr. Lugena did).
So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person.
From there, did I make an exegesis of Job 22:15? Of course not. I was only making an analysis on the condition that Kapatas agrees with Atty. Llasos.
Let's now discuss the answer of Kapatas to my question, Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job?
As regards to Mr. Soliman’s question: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? My answer is this: Eliphaz was unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God in his conversation with Job. This is verified by God himself in Job 42:7. But Eliphaz didn’t remain in unrighteous state for he was forgiven later. Taking this into account, Eliphaz is not really an evil man.
The response barely answers the question. In fact, it is avoiding it. What about the instances where Eliphaz spoke the right things on other matters though not about God, was Eliphaz righteous in those instances? Could it be that Job 42:7 is just a matter Eliphaz making a mistake? Sorry, try again.
We also have to analyze if Kapatas and Atty. Llasos understood Job 42:7 correctly. For example in Job 5:13, Eliphaz stated this about God: He catches the wise in their craftiness. Is this wrong? If not, was God wrong on Job 42:7 wherein he told Eliphaz that he has not spoke the right things about God? Of course not. Then maybe both Kapatas and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their private interpretation of Job 42:7.
Kapatas has a couple of questions for me. Let's now answer them:
1. After failing to say right things about God, was Eliphaz righteous or not?
I have a different understanding of Job 42:7. As I gave Job 5:13 as example, this is a right statement about God. When you are brought by God to ask for forgiveness and you complied, you are obviously one of the righteous (Hebrews 12:4-12).
2. Is the statement of Eliphaz in Job 22:15, right or wrong?
It is right. So?
0 comments:
Post a Comment