INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM: “How the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) changed what Sola Scriptura really means?”

Introduction

The doctrine of sola Scriptura stands at the heart of the Protestant Reformation and remains a defining principle of classical Protestant theology. It affirms that Scripture alone is the final, infallible authority for Christian doctrine and practice, and that all other authorities, tradition, ecclesiastical judgment, prophetic writings, or theological opinion are subordinate to the biblical canon. While the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church professes adherence to sola Scriptura, the denomination’s historical development and practical theological structure raise questions about how the principle is understood and applied. This essay surveys the biblical and historical foundations of sola Scriptura, examines its articulation within SDA theology, and evaluates divergences between classical Protestant and Adventist interpretations.

Sola Scriptura in Scripture and History

The Latin phrase sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) emerged as one of the core axioms of the Protestant Reformation. It articulated the conviction that the Bible is the only inspired, infallible, and normative rule of faith and practice. As Sabbath School Net summarizes, the principle established that “the Bible is the only infallible, final authority,” while all other sources remain subordinate. ¹

Reformation leaders embraced this doctrine with unshakable resolve. Luther’s statement at the Diet of Worms, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures … I cannot and will not recant,” has become emblematic of the Reformation’s rejection of ecclesiastical authority when it contradicted Scripture. ² Likewise, Calvin argued that Scripture is “self-authenticating,” meaning that its authority rests not on the church’s approval but on God’s own revelation.³

Historically, sola Scriptura included several sub-principles:

1. Authority of Scripture: Scripture possesses the final word on faith and practice.

2. Sufficiency of Scripture: Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation and godly living.

3. Clarity of Scripture: The essential truths necessary for salvation are understandable.

4. Finality of Scripture: All doctrines and traditions must be tested by Scripture alone. ⁴

These principles formed the theological scaffolding for Protestantism and remain foundational to its identity.

The Seventh-day Adventist Definition of Sola Scriptura

The SDA Church’s official writings appear, at first glance, to affirm the Reformation meaning of sola Scriptura. Fundamental Belief #1 declares:

“The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.”⁵

Similarly, SDA publications assert that “the Bible alone is the source of doctrines and practice.”⁶ Adventist scholars, including the authors of the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, acknowledge that the Reformers grounded doctrine exclusively on Scripture.⁷ Early SDA pioneers such as James White, Uriah Smith, and R. F. Cottrell frequently appealed to the Bible as the church’s rule of faith, even though they did not regularly employ the Latin term sola Scriptura. Ellen G. White likewise affirmed that Scripture is the believer’s authoritative guide and that “the Bible is its own expositor.” ⁸

Thus, in principle, SDA literature recognizes the biblical and historical meaning of sola Scriptura.

SDA Divergence from the Classical Protestant Principle

Despite formal agreement, several features of Adventist practice diverge from the classical Reformation understanding.

1. The Bible + Prophetic Writings Model

Classical sola Scriptura affirms that only the biblical canon is inspired and infallible. Adventism, however, introduces a second authoritative voice: the writings of Ellen G. White. Some Adventist interpretations describe her writings as “inspired no differently than that of the scriptures” and functioning as an “infallible, interpretive guide” to Scripture.⁹ This elevates White’s corpus to a de facto canonical or near-canonical role, resulting in a “Bible + prophet” model inconsistent with the Reformers’ insistence that Scripture alone is the final authority.

2. Institutional Authority as Final Arbiter

Reformation theology insists that ecclesiastical bodies are subject to Scripture and cannot function as infallible interpreters. In contrast, the SDA polity grants significant doctrinal authority to the General Conference in session. Critics note that Adventist leaders have asserted that members must surrender “private independence and private judgment” when doctrinal decisions are made. ¹⁰ This functionally assigns an authority to the institution that the Reformers reserved only for Scripture.

3. Elevation of Pioneer Tradition

Classical sola Scriptura maintains that all human traditions are subordinate to Scripture and amendable when inconsistent with biblical teaching. Adventist rhetoric often emphasizes the theological legacy of the pioneers and cautions against deviating from their views. Statements urging believers to “repeat the words of the pioneers” give their writings quasi-normative status.¹¹ While historical voices can be instructive, elevating them to binding authority undermines the doctrine that Scripture alone normatively establishes truth.

4. Hermeneutical Control Through Fixed Interpretive Frameworks

Reformers interpreted Scripture through the analogy of faith: Scripture interprets Scripture. Adventism often relies on fixed prophetic charts, typological systems, and unique interpretive grids that shape exegesis beyond the plain historical-grammatical meaning. Adventist Today observes that “the life and ministry of Ellen White…dominantly overshadow[s] every other influence” in shaping interpretation. ¹² When external frameworks constrain the text, sola Scriptura is compromised.

Biblical Exegesis of Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 3:16–17 and Psalm 19:7

A core biblical foundation for sola Scriptura is found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

“Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable … that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

The Greek phrase pasa graphē theopneustos (“every Scripture is God-breathed”) affirms divine inspiration in a way that applies to Scripture alone. The conclusion that Scripture equips the believer “for every good work” supports the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice.

Psalm 19:7 likewise declares:

“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.”

The Hebrew tôrāh YHWH temimah (“the law of YHWH is perfect”) underscores the completeness and adequacy of God's revealed Word. These texts formed central exegetical pillars of the Reformers’ doctrine.

While SDA writers frequently cite these verses, the presence of additional authoritative voices (EGW, institutional rulings, pioneer tradition) means that Scripture does not, in practice, function as the sole infallible authority.

Reformation Sola Scriptura vs. SDA Functional Model

The contrast can be summarized as follows:

Reformation View

• Scripture alone is infallible.

• Church, tradition, and prophetic voices are reformable and subordinate.

• Scripture interprets Scripture.

• Believers may appeal to Scripture over church authority.

SDA Functional Model

• Scripture + EGW + conference decisions + pioneer tradition collectively shape doctrine.

• Extra-biblical authorities often guide interpretation.

• Institutional interpretations may override personal biblical study.

• Scripture is not the sole or final norm in practical theology.¹³

In effect, the “alone” of sola Scriptura is eroded.

Conclusion

Although the SDA Church formally professes the principle of sola Scriptura, its practical theological structure diverges from the classical Protestant doctrine. The elevation of Ellen G. White’s writings, the authoritative role of denominational decision-making bodies, the influence of pioneer tradition, and the dominance of extra-biblical interpretive frameworks collectively result in a “Bible plus authoritative extras” model. This differs significantly from the Reformation conviction that Scripture alone is the infallible, sufficient, and final authority.

For Adventist believers committed to biblical faithfulness, this discrepancy invites critical reflection. If Scripture is truly the supreme and final authority, then every other voice no matter how cherished—must be measured by it. As Jeremiah 6:16 urges believers to “ask for the ancient paths,” so also must Christians ensure that their theology rests on Scripture alone, not Scripture supplemented by institutional or prophetic authorities.

---

Selected Notes

1. “Sola Scriptura,” Sabbath School Net.

2. “The Reformers and Ellen G. White,” Ministry Magazine, October 2016.

3. Ibid.

4. “Sola Scriptura – What it Means and Why It Matters,” AskAnAdventistFriend.com.

5. “Fundamental Belief #1,” Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs, atoday.org.

6. “Sola Scriptura,” ColumbiaUnion.org.

7. Raoul Dederen et al., Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Review & Herald, 2000).

8. Fernando Canale, “Sola Scriptura and Hermeneutics,” Andrews University Digital Commons, 2016.

9. “Does the SDA Church Believe in Sola Scriptura?,” AnsweringAdventism.com.

10. Ibid.

11. “Pioneer Statements,” Theos Institute; SDAPillars.org.

12. “Sola Scriptura? It’s Complicated,” AdventistToday.org, November 28, 2022.

13. Ibid.; AnsweringAdventism.com; Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology

---

FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc 

SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03 

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph 

Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.

• GCash: 0969-514-3944

• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph

• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos

APOLOGETICS BIBLE STUDY Q&A: "Paul-Only Christianity: Bakit Mali ang Hyper-Dispensationalism (At Bakit Ito Delikado)?"

APOLOGETICS BIBLE STUDY Q&A: "Paul-Only Christianity: Bakit Mali ang Hyper-Dispensationalism (At Bakit Ito Delikado)?"

Minsan, kapag galing tayo sa isang legalistic at performance-based background, ang tindi ng takot natin na mabalik sa "works-righteousness." At sa paghahanap natin ng kalayaan sa biyaya ng Diyos, madali tayong ma-hype sa mga theological systems na sa unang tingin ay mukhang "pure grace," pero kapag sinuri mo, extreme at baliko na pala.

Isa na rito ang Hyper-Dispensationalism (tinatawag ding Mid-Acts o Acts 28 Dispensationalism).

Ang argument ng grupong ito: si Paul lang daw ang bukod-tanging Apostol para sa Church ngayon, sa kanya lang daw ipinagkatiwala ang Gospel of Grace, siya lang ang pattern natin, at ang 13 letters lang niya (Romans to Philemon) ang pwedeng i-apply sa atin. Ang daling ma-hype dahil mukha silang "Berean" kung mag-dissect ng Bible. Pero kapag sinuri mo gamit ang buong Kasulatan, nagigiba ang sistema nila.

Hatiin natin ang mga argumento at tingnan natin kung bakit hindi ito umaayon sa katotohanan ng New Covenant.

1. Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles: Solo Flight nga ba Siya?

Yes, we agree na si Paul ay may unique at natatanging tawag bilang apostol sa mga Hentil (Romans 11:13). Pero ang mali sa hyper-dispensationalism ay ang ideya na exclusive lang ito sa kanya.

Si Peter ang nauna: Bago pa man nagsimula ang full-blown mission ni Paul sa mga Hentil, si Apostol Peter na ang unang pinadala ng Diyos para mag-preach kay Cornelius, na isang Hentil (Acts 10). Sa Acts 15:7, malinaw ang sabi ni Peter: 

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe." Acts 15:7(NIV)

Ang Great Commission: Ang utos ni Hesus sa Matthew 28:19 ay para sa lahat ng apostol na gawing alagad ang lahat ng mga bansa (all nations/ethne), hindi lang ang mga Judio.

Paul’s Strategy: Tuwing pumupunta si Paul sa mga lungsod ng mga Hentil, laging sa sinagoga ng mga Judio ang una niyang bagsak (Acts 17:2). Bakit? Dahil ang puso niya ay para sa parehong Judio at Hentil.

The Reality: Ang pagtawag kay Paul ay natatangi (distinctive), pero hindi kailanman nag-iisa (never solitary). Sa ilalim ng New Covenant, binuwag na ang pader na naghihiwalay sa Judio at Hentil upang maging isang bagong katawan kay Kristo (Ephesians 2:14-16).

¹⁴ For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, ¹⁵ by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." Ephesians 2:14-16 (NIV)

2. The Gospel of Grace: Dalawang Ebanghelyo?

Dito nagiging delikado ang hyper-dispensationalism. Sinasabi nila na magkaiba ang ebanghelyong ipinangaral ni Peter (Gospel of the Circumcision na may halong gawa at kautusan) sa ebanghelyo ni Paul (Gospel of the Uncircumcision pure grace).

Ito ay isang malaking distortion. Iisa lang ang Ebanghelyo mula sa pasimula hanggang sa wakas.

Peter’s Confession: Noong pinag-uusapan ang kaligtasan ng mga Hentil sa Jerusalem Council, tuwirang sinabi ni Peter:

"No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Acts 15:11(NIV)

Peter preached salvation by grace alone!

Paul’s Confirmation: Nang isulat ni Paul ang core definition ng Gospel sa 1 Corinthians 15, sinabi niya sa verse 11:

"Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." 1 Corinthians 15:11(NIV)

Walang kompetisyon o pagkakaiba sa mensahe nila.

Pinoy Context Note: Bilang mga Pilipino, pamilyar tayo sa konsepto ng "tapat" at "orihinal." Ang ebanghelyo ay hindi parang smartphone na may "Version A" para sa Judio at "Version B" para sa atin. Kay Kristo, ang biyaya ay para sa lahat, walang dual-class citizenship sa kaharian ng Diyos.

3. Paul as the Only Pattern: Sino ang Ultimate Standard?

Sinasabi ng mga hyper-dispensationalists na dahil si Paul ang ating pattern, hindi na natin pwedeng tularan ang buhay o pananampalataya ng ibang mga apostol o mga karakter sa Old Testament.

Pero kung babasahin mo mismo ang mga sinulat ni Paul, makikita mong itinuturo niya tayo pabalik kay Kristo.

Sabi ni Paul: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1(NIV). Si Kristo ang ultimate standard, si Paul ay salamin lamang.

Sa Hebrews 13:7, inutusan ang mga Christians na alalahanin at tularan ang pananampalataya ng kanilang mga naging pinuno (na hindi lang si Paul).

"Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith." Hebrews 13:7(NIV)

Si Peter din ay nag-utos sa mga elder na maging halimbawa sa kawan 1 Peter 5:3.

"Not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:3(NIV)

Ang paggawa kay Paul na tanging pattern ay pagbabaluktot sa mismong layunin ni Paul ang itaas si Kristo higit sa lahat.

4. Paul’s Epistles: 13 Letters Lang ba ang Bibliya Mo?

Ito ang pinakamalungkot na bunga ng hyper-dispensationalism. Para silang may "gunting" na pinuputol ang ibang bahagi ng Bibliya. Sinasabi nila na ang Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) at ang General Epistles (James, Peter, John, Jude, Hebrews) ay hindi para sa Church ngayon.

Pero ano ang sabi ng Kasulatan?

All Scripture: Sabi ni Paul kay Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16(NIV). Noong isinusulat ito ni Paul, ang "Kasulatan" na tinutukoy niya ay ang Old Testament at ang mga umiiral nang New Testament writings!

For Our Instruction: Sinabi rin ni Paul sa Romans 15:4, "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope." Romans 15:4(NIV)

Kapag tinanggal mo ang Gospels at ang ibang mga sulat, ninanakawan mo ang sarili mo ng yaman ng salita ng Diyos. Ang mga turo ni Hesus sa mga Ebanghelyo ay ang mismong pundasyon ng New Covenant reality na tinatamasa natin ngayon.

Ang Konklusyon: Isang Katawan, Isang Ebanghelyo

Ang hyper-dispensationalism ay nag-e-exaggerate sa kaibahan ni Paul hanggang sa punto na nagbubunga ito ng maling pagkakabaha-bahagi: dalawang ebanghelyo, dalawang bayan ng Diyos, at dalawang magkaibang Bibliya.

Ngunit ang New Testament ay may iisang malakas na deklarasyon:

• Iisang Ebanghelyo (Galatians 1:6–9)
  
  ⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel ⁷ which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" Galatians 1:6-9(NIV)
  
  

• Iisang Katawan (Ephesians 4:4–5)
  
  ^"4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called ; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Ephesians 4:4-5(NIV)
  
  

• Iisang Pundasyon: ang mga apostol at mga propeta, na si Kristo Hesus mismo ang panulukang-bato (Ephesians 2:20)
  
  "Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Ephesians 2:20(NIV)

Ang isang totoong Berean ay hindi nag-iisa kay Paul mula sa ibang bahagi ng Bibliya. Sa halip, sinasaliksik niya ang buong Kasulatan araw-araw upang makita ang kadakilaan ni Kristo. Huwag nating hayaan na sa pagtakas natin sa legalismo ay mahulog naman tayo sa teolohiyang naghahati-hati sa bayan ng Diyos (wrongly dividing the church!).

FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: "End Times Panic Culture: Bakit Hindi Ka Dapat Madala sa mga Trending ‘Signs’ sa Social Media?"

FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: "End Times Panic Culture: Bakit Hindi Ka Dapat Madala sa mga Trending ‘Signs’ sa Social Media?"

Alam mo, bentang-benta sa ating mga Pinoy ang mga "End Times" topics. Isang viral YouTube video lang tungkol sa nagaganap sa Middle East, o kaya balita tungkol sa paglipat sa cashless systems gamit ang e-wallets, biglang magpa-panic ang buong Christian Facebook feed natin. Takutan na naman, share dito, share doon.

Pero kung hihimayin natin ang kasaysayan ng ganitong uri ng eschatology (end-times theology), mapapansin mong matagal na tayong pinaiikot-ikot sa parehong cycle ng panandaliang takot at recycled marketing.

Ang Negosyo ng "End Times" Sensationalism

Let’s look at some history. May isang sikat na dispensationalist na may-akda, si John Walvoord. Noong matapos ang Gulf War, ang libro niya ay ibinebenta na lang sa halagang twenty-five cents kada kopya kapag binuod mo! Pero bago mangyari 'yun, ang libro niya ay nakabenta na ng halos 1.7 million copies at nakakuha pa ng Platinum Book Award mula sa Evangelical Christian Publishers Association.

Grabe ang kita, 'di ba? Dahil patuloy ang takbo ng mundo, inilabas ng Tyndale House Publishers ang ikatlong edisyon noong 2007 na may bagong pamagat para sumabay sa uso: Armageddon, Oil, and Terror.

Ang nakakatawa rito, tinanggal na nila 'yung sinulat ni Walvoord noong 1957 na: "There is no teaching of any intervening event." Pero ang promotional material nila? Todo sigaw pa rin na ang content daw ay:

“…is as current as today’s news … and every prediction rings true.”

Pamilyar ba ang linyahan? Siyempre! Ganyan na ganyan din ang eksaktong marketing catchphrase na ginamit nila noong 1974 para sa first edition ng Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis. Dahil mabenta ang ganitong hula-hula books, Walvoord went on to write another book entitled Major Bible Prophecies: 37 Crucial Prophecies that Affect You Today.

Dito na pumasok ang matinding logical contradiction. Walvoord repeatedly taught his students and readers over the years na kapag sinunod mo nang tapat ang Kasulatan, makikita mong walang kahit anong signs na ibinigay bago ang Rapture. It is supposed to be imminent pwedeng mangyari any moment, signless, at walang abiso. Pero bakit punong-puno ng "signs mula sa balita" ang mga libro niya?

Ang Magulong Logic ng "Signless Event" na may "Signs."

Hindi lang si Walvoord ang biktima ng sarili niyang theology. Marami silang magkakasama sa industriyang ito na pumupuri sa ideya ng imminency, pero gumagawa naman ng librong nagpapabulaan dito.

J. F. Strombeck (First the Rapture): Sabi niya, dapat asahan ng mga Kristiyano si Jesus "at any moment." Pero ang opening paragraph niya, puro pananakot gamit ang hula ni H. G. Wells na malapit na raw magwakas ang mundo, pati quotes mula sa mga heneral at gobernador na nagsasabing 90% ng mga Amerikano ay mamamatay sa atom bomb sa loob ng limang taon. Sabi pa ni Strombeck, ang mga atom bomb na ito ang katuparan ng Great Tribulation sa Olivet Discourse!

The Logical Fail: Kung ang atom bomb ay prophetic sign, at na-imbento lang ang atom bomb noong 20th century... ibig sabihin, hindi pwedeng mangyari ang Rapture mula 1st century hanggang 19th century! Paano naging "at any moment" 'yun?

Wendell G. Johnston: Isinulat niya na ang pagdating ni Kristo ay imminent at walang kahit anong event sa Word of God na kailangang matupad muna. Pero sa parehong libro, bigla niyang sasabihin na: "Since 1948 Israel has been gaining in power... The Bible prophesies this will happen." Tapos nag-discuss pa siya tungkol sa Russia at Egypt bilang mga "signs." Doble-kara ang logic: sinabing "signless," pero naglista ng mga bansa bilang senyales.

Tim LaHaye & Mark Hitchcock: Si LaHaye ay may listahan ng 12 signs. Si Hitchcock naman ay may Seven Signs of the End Times, at ang number one sign niya ay ang pagbabalik ng mga Judio sa Israel. Dahil walang sinasabi ang New Testament tungkol sa muling pagtatatag ng Israel bilang sekular na bansa, pumunta siya sa Old Testament. Pero teka ayon sa mismong dispensationalism, hindi ba't ang "Church Age" ay isang misteryo na hindi kailanman binanggit sa Old Testament sa kahit anong paraan? Bakit ka kukuha ng sign doon para sa Church ngayon?

Kahit ang Premillennialists, Na-Umay Na Rin

Kahit ang mga kapwa nilang premillennialist ay napansin ang maling kalakaran na ito. Si John R. Rice, isang kilalang dispensationalist din, ay naging prangka at kritikal sa mga kasamahan niyang mahilig mag-imbento ng signs bago ang Rapture. Sabi niya:

"Ang kaugalian ng maraming premillennial Christians na mag-abang sa pagbabalik ni Kristo dahil lang sa First o Second World War, o dahil itinayo ng mga Zionists ang modernong bansa ng Israel sa Palestine... Ang mga taong ito ay mas nagpapakilos pa sa mga balita sa pahayagan kaysa sa malinaw na utos ng Panginoong Hesus."

Binigyang-diin ni Rice na ang paghahanap ng mga senyales tulad ng digmaan, lindol, taggutom, o ang pagsikat ng komunismo at sosyalismo ay direktang sumisira sa doktrina ng imminency. Kung kailangan muna ng mga 'yan para dumating si Jesus, ibig sabihin hindi Siya puwedeng dumating bago sumikat ang mga ideolohiyang 'yan.

Isang Mas Maayos at Mayamang Pananaw (Preterist Perspective)

Bilang mga believers na tumitingin sa Bibliya gamit ang Partial Preterist at Postmillennial lens, alam nating hindi natin kailangang sumayaw sa takot ng dyaryo at social media trends.

Ang totoo, ang mga mabibigat na hula sa Olivet Discourse (Gaya ng Matthew 24 at Luke 21) tungkol sa mga lindol, digmaan, at huwad na propeta ay nagbunga at natupad na noong Unang Siglo (AD 70), noong wasakin ang Templo sa Jerusalem. Hindi 'yan hula para sa nuclear warfare sa ating panahon!

Ang Bagong Tipan (New Covenant) ay hindi nag-iwan sa atin sa isang state ng perpetual panic kung saan kailangan nating hulaan kung aling giyera o aling app sa phone ang magpapadala sa atin sa kapahamakan. Si Kristo ay naghari na, ang Kanyang Kaharian ay patuloy na lumalago sa kasaysayan, at ang tungkulin natin ay hindi ang maging mga "prophecy watchers" na naghihintay lang na matakasan ang mundo, kundi maging asin at ilaw dito sa lupa.

Call to Action: Huwag mong hayaang nakatali ang pananampalataya mo sa kung ano ang trending sa balita o kung ano ang bago at patok na "prophecy book" sa Christian bookstores. Sa susunod na may mag-post sa feed mo ng nakatatakot na end-times video, i-off mo ang data mo, buksan mo ang Bibliya mo, at magpahinga ka sa katotohanang si Jesus ang Panginoon ng kasaysayan. Maging tapat tayo sa pagbuo ng pamilya, pagtatrabaho, at pagpapakalat ng Ebanghelyo ng Kaharian ngayon.