"24 Years an Adventist: Why I Finally Walked Away?"

Every now and then, I see the same comments floating around on social media and in our local group chats whenever someone steps out of the church.

• “Pastor Ronald is just holding a grudge.”

• “He just got offended by the brethren.”

• “Maybe he just wants to be famous or get attention.”

To be honest, I am no longer surprised. In our Asian culture, which is heavily built on getting along and a deep sense of debt of gratitude, when you leave a system that you’ve belonged to for so long, a system that claims to be the "one true remnant church,"people will automatically assume you have an attitude problem, not a theological one. It’s easier to say, “There is something wrong with him,” rather than admit, “Wait, maybe there is something wrong with our doctrine.”

But let's think about this properly: if leaving the religion of your youth makes you a traitor, then Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and all the Reformers were traitors, too. If that’s the standard, even Abraham, who left Ur of the Chaldees to follow God, was just "rebelling against his family’s religion." But no! He wasn't rebelling; he was leaving error to follow the truth.

Just a Grudge?

Let’s get real. If hurt feelings were the only reason for my departure, I would have left a long time ago. In my 24 years as an Adventist evangelist and debater, I’ve experienced my fair share of church politics. I was hurt, treated unfairly, and misunderstood by leadership multiple times.

Why did I stay back then? Because I truly believed the truth was still with the system. Holding a grudge is for beginners. It’s not the reason someone who has dedicated their entire adult life to the ministry walks away. You don’t abandon a ship just because you find the captain annoying; you leave the ship because you realize it has a massive hole in the bottom, and the doctrines keeping it afloat are sinking.

The Elephant in the Room: The Exodus of Leaders

Let’s pause and look at the bigger picture. If the SDA church is truly the one and only church of Christ, why are so many former pastors, theologians, and devoted laypersons slowly leaving? Are we all just "offended"?

Why are veterans, people who have served even longer than I have, suddenly realizing that the unique, distinctive doctrines of Ellen G. White do not align with the Bible?

In the Philippines, we are very familiar with groups that rely on "extra-biblical authority." I have read the Pasugo of the INC, but I have also read the Spirit of Prophecy of the SDA. Do you know the striking similarity? They both add to Scripture. If Felix Manalo is the "messenger" in the INC, Ellen White is the "prophet" in the SDA.

We know the Holy Spirit is alive and still empowers believers today. Spiritual gifts are very real. But here is the biblical test: true gifts of the Spirit will never add to the finished canon of Scripture, rewrite the Gospel, or claim infallible authority over the Bible. When a "new light" contradicts the clear light of the New Testament, that’s not a revelation anymore, that’s deception.

Nothing Personal, Just Doctrinal: The 1844 Problem

Let me make this clear: there is no personal vendetta here. No jealousy. This is strictly about Truth vs. Tradition.

How can a believer find peace in a church that teaches your sins are "forgiven" but not actually "blotted out" yet? The SDA doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment" claims this process started on October 22, 1844, a date pulled from the faulty calculations of the Karaite Jewish calendar¹.

Let's look at what the Bible actually says. On the cross, Jesus cried out, "It is finished" (John 19:30). Under the New Covenant, the work of salvation is complete. The Old Covenant system of ongoing mediations and incomplete sacrifices is over.

• If Jesus said it is finished, why does the SDA teach that it is "not yet finished"?

• If the blood of Christ is truly enough, why do we need to go through a "heavenly investigative review" before our sins are completely erased?

Is that the free grace of the Gospel, or is that probationary legalism? The Bible teaches that God's saving grace is freely available to all. When we respond in faith, our salvation is secured in Christ's finished work, not left hanging in a heavenly audit.

The Law, The Sabbath, and The New Covenant

If the SDA were truly teaching the pure Gospel, I would gladly defend it to the death. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

But the moment you see that the foundation is built on the sand of failed prophecies and Old Covenant shadows, why would you stay?

The SDA system teaches a formula of Faith + Sabbath, Grace + Obedience to the Decalogue, Christ + Ellen White. They heavily enforce the Ten Commandments as the ultimate standard of the Christian life. But under the New Covenant, we are no longer bound by the old written code given exclusively to national Israel. The Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, were shadows pointing to a reality, and that reality is Christ.

Jesus is our Sabbath rest. We don't rest on a specific day to prove our loyalty; we rest completely in His finished work on the cross. As the Apostle Paul warned:

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Galatians 2:21

Christ Saves, Not a Denomination

For many of us, our religious identity is deeply tied to our family. Leaving the church often feels like betraying your parents or your clan. If your identity is tied to your denomination instead of God, ask yourself this hard question:

"If your denomination disappeared today, would Christ still remain in your life?"

Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 10:37-38:

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

You don't need to stay in a faulty system just to please your family. You don't need to trade biblical truth just to have "peace" at home while your conscience is troubled. In the end, when we stand before God, He won't check the name of the church on your ID card; He will look at whether Jesus Christ is truly the Lord of your heart.

A Call to Courage

Brother, sister, I am talking to you directly. If you feel like something is wrong every time you read the New Testament, don't ignore that conviction.

If you know there are holes in the doctrine, don't cover them up with denominational loyalty.

Do not be afraid of what other people will say. It is far more terrifying to stay silent when you already know the truth.

"Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life." John 12:25

If God is calling you out of the shadows of the Old Covenant and into the glorious light of His grace, don't wait for someone to pull you out. Start walking. Sometimes, leaving what you grew up with is not rebellion, it is the highest form of obedience to God.

Final Thoughts

My departure from the SDA is not a betrayal; it is a return to the center of the Gospel. It is not holding a grudge; it is taking a stand for our freedom in Christ. It is not walking away from God; it is drawing closer to Him without the barriers of denominational tradition.

To all my friends and family who are still defending the teachings of the SDA, I love you, but I love the Truth more.

Real Talk Reflection

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

Call to Action: Step out of the shadows of religious tradition and embrace the freedom found only in the finished work of Jesus Christ!

Why I Left the SDA: Not Because of Hurt Feelings, But Because of the Truth

“I didn’t turn my back on the faith, I returned to Christ.”

"SDA as True Church Claim Debunked!"

Recently, a trending video posted by an "SDA Bible Missionary" on Facebook has been making the rounds. It features an old clip of me confidently declaring that the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church is the only true church, and there is no other.

Back when I was an active SDA evangelist/apologist, my favorite punchline to the congregation was this: "People in other religions are actually luckier than Adventists. Why? Because when they leave their church, they can still transfer to the true one, the SDA church! But for us Adventists, if we leave our church, there’s nowhere else to go but hell!"

Since I stepped out of the denomination on September 12, 2019, this exact quote has been weaponized against me. Some of my former brothers and sisters pull this out like old "receipts" to prove that by leaving, I’ve made the biggest mistake of my life.

But does this argument actually hold water? Is it the ultimate proof that the SDA church is the one and only truth? Let's unpack this together.

The Blind Spot of My Past

Yes, I said those words. I own them. But I said them when I was still an Adventist. Since leaving, my eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit to a much grander view of God's grace.

For 24 years, I was genuinely blind to the fullness of the New Covenant. I was conditioned to believe that salvation was tied to our specific organization. Using my past blindness to disprove my current freedom in Christ is a logical fallacy. It’s like telling a butterfly it’s wrong for flying because it used to aggressively defend life as a caterpillar. When the light of the gospel shines, perspectives change.

The Plot Twist: I Said the Same Thing for the Jehovah's Witnesses

If anyone wants to insist that my old quote is solid, unshakeable evidence that the SDA is the true church, then they have a massive problem on their hands. Why? Because to be consistent, they would also have to accept that the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are the true church!

Here is the plot twist: I used that exact same argument in my preaching during my 16 years as a Jehovah’s Witness! I actually learned that "nowhere else to go" reasoning back in the 1980s from my JW friends, the De Leon brothers from Tondo, who were also deeply into religious debates.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. In 1992, I had a public debate in Bulacan against Mr. Eliseo Soriano of Ang Dating Daan. The topic? "Alin ang tunay na Iglesia na ililigtas ng Diyos?" (Which is the true Church that God will save?). During that intense debate, I passionately defended that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the exclusive group that would survive Judgment Day. That entire debate is recorded on video.

Imagine if a JW apologist posted that 1992 video on Facebook today with the caption:

"Ronald Obidos testifies that Jehovah’s Witnesses is the true church! We are already in the truth, if you leave, there is nowhere else to go but hell!"

Who would be happy about that? The Adventists or the Jehovah's Witnesses? Obviously, the JWs would win that round. It would completely backfire on the SDA Bible Missionary because I was using that exact script for the JWs long before I ever brought it into the Adventist pulpit!

The Cultural Mindset of the "True Church"

In our Filipino culture, loyalty is a huge deal. We love to belong to a samahan (a group or brotherhood), and we easily attach our identity to our affiliations. Sadly, this spills over into religion. Denominations use fear to keep their members in check, acting like exclusive clubs with VIP access to heaven.

This is an empty, man-made concept. Often, it operates like a franchise a money-making scheme hiding behind the name of religion.

This is where understanding New Covenant theology changes absolutely everything. Under the New Covenant, we are not made righteous by keeping Old Testament laws. True salvation is a free gift of grace, fully paid for by Christ, not by our exhausted efforts to keep the law.

Conclusion: Who is the Real Truth?

Does this mean I believe there are no saved people inside the SDA denomination? Of course not. I firmly believe there are true, born-again children of God sitting in those pews. When the Lord Jesus returns in the clouds to gather His people, many of them will rise to meet Him.

But hear me clearly: they will not be saved because they are card-carrying members of the Seventh-day Adventist organization. They will be saved because of their personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. They are saved by grace, not by their own law-keeping righteousness.

To my SDA friends: I kindly ask that you stop using my old testimonies as proof of your church's exclusivity. It is a recycled argument that any cult or religion in the world can use, and I know you wouldn't accept it if another group used it against you.

Jesus Christ alone is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE (John 14:6), not the SDA church. Jesus is perfect; human denominations are not. I pray that you won't let fear stop you from researching and seeking the truth. Keep your hearts and minds open to the light God wants to show you before it’s too late.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Call to Action: Today, take a brave step and examine where your security truly lies. Is your confidence rooted in a church name, a set of rules, and fear, or is it resting entirely in the finished, perfect work of Jesus Christ on the cross? Open your Bible, read the New Testament without the lens of your denomination, and let His grace set you free. Share this message with someone who needs to hear about the true freedom found in Christ alone!

“Kapag ang SDA Bible Commentary ay Kumokontra mismo sa mga SDA Defenders tungkol sa Matthew 19:17.”

"Jesus answered, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.'" Matthew 19:17

Nakita ko lang ang isang post ng isang SDA layman tungkol sa kanyang sagot sa isang nagtanong: "Bakit sa Mateo 19:17 ay tila ang pagsunod sa mga utos ang nagliligtas?" Ang sagot niya: "Hindi ang mismong pagsunod sa kautusan ang nagliligtas sa talatang iyan, kundi ang KABUTIHAN ng Diyos... Malinaw na ang pagsunod sa mga utos ay bunga ng kaligtasang nagmumula sa kabutihan ng Diyos."

Kahit na mukhang napaka-spiritual at evangelical sa pakinggan sa unang tingin, tama ba ito? Let's investigate this carefully using a New Covenant Theology perspective.

1. Historico-Grammatical Hermeneutics: Ang Kautusan bilang Salamin, Hindi Blueprint

Para tama nating ma-interpret ang isang talata, kailangang tingnan ang historical context at ang takbo ng usapan.

• The Context: Lumapit ang Mayamang Binata kay Jesus na may works-based mindset. Ang tanong niya, "Guro, anong mabuting gawa ang dapat kong gawin upang magkaroon ako ng buhay na walang hanggan?" (Mateo 19:16). Isa siyang 1st-century Jew na lumalakad sa ilalim ng Old Covenant paradigm.
  
  
• The Pedagogical Trap: Sinagot ni Jesus ang binata kung nasaan siya, sa ilalim ng Kautusan. Sa Old Covenant, ang patakaran ay: "Gawin mo ito at mabubuhay ka" (Leviticus 18:5). Itinuro ni Jesus ang Sampung Utos hindi bilang simpleng description ng "fruit" ng isang Kristiyano, kundi bilang isang mabigat na salamin para ipakita ang espirituwal na pagka-pulubi ng binata.
  
  
• The Deception in the SDA View: Sinasabi ng SDA layman na sinasabi raw ni Jesus na ang pagtupad sa mga utos ay "bunga" ng kaligtasan. Pero historically at grammatically, sinasagot ni Jesus ang "works" question gamit ang "works" answer. Itinaas ni Jesus ang standard ng Law para ma-realize ng binata na hindi niya kayang iligtas ang sarili niya. Sa pagtawag dito bilang simpleng "bunga", pinalalambot ng SDA ang tunay na condemnatory purpose ng Kautusan na ginagamit ni Jesus.
  

  Sa pag-claim na ang obedience ay simpleng "bunga" lang sa specific verse na ito, completely ignored ang Pharisaical context na kinikilala pa nga ng mismong SDA Bible Commentary nila na hindi sumasang-ayon sa imbentong paliwanag lang ng SDA layman.
  
  "What good thing? This question reflects the typical Pharisaical concept of righteousness by works as a passport to “eternal life.” (Nichol, Francis D., editor. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980, p. 457.)
  
  Tinataasan ni Jesus ang standard ng Law para ma-realize ng binata na hindi niya kailanman kayang iligtas ang sarili niya. Hindi kailanman sasang-ayunan ni Jesus ang "Pharisaical concept of righteousness by works" ng binata at ng mga Phariseo na tila sinasang-ayunan pa ng SDA layman na ito.
  
  

2. Greek Exegesis: Imperative Command vs. Indicative Reality

Kung susuriin ang original Greek text, doon tuluyang bumagsak ang argumento ng SDA.

• The Text: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments" (εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς).
  
  
• The Grammar: Ang pariralang "keep the commandments" ay ginamitan ng salitang Griyego na tērēson (τήρησον), na isang Aorist Active Imperative¹. Isa itong direktang utos na nakadepende sa isang kondisyon ("Kung ibig mong pumasok…").
  
  
• The Exegetical Reality: Conditional statement ito. Hindi ginamit ni Jesus ang indicative mood² dito. Hindi niya sinabi na, "Dahil natanggap mo na ang kabutihan ng Diyos, susundin mo ang mga utos" (na siyang magpapakita ng bunga). Ang sabi Niya, "Kung gusto mo ng X, gawin mo ang Y." Inilatag ni Jesus ang imposibleng requirement ng Old Covenant Law para sa justification. Noong sinabi ng binata na nasunod niya ang lahat, binigyan siya ni Jesus ng ultimate heart test (ang pagbebenta ng kanyang mga ari-arian), na nagpatunay na ang binata ay isang idolater na lumalabag sa mismong unang utos.
  
  

3. Mga Logical Fallacies sa Argumento ng SDA

May ilang critical errors sa logic ang paliwanag ng SDA layman:

• Eisegesis (Pagpilit ng kahulugan sa teksto): Sinasabi ng SDA layman, "Malinaw na ang pagsunod sa mga utos ay bunga..." Pero hindi iyon malinaw sa teksto. Gumagawa siya ng eisegesis sa pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng isang valid New Testament truth (na ang good works ay bunga ng tunay na pananampalataya) at pinipilit itong isiksik sa isang talata kung saan ang ginagawa ni Jesus ay ang pagpapangaral ng Kautusan para basagin ang yabang ng isang makasalanan.
  
  
• Non Sequitur (Hindi konektado ang konklusyon): Ginamit niya ang sinabi ni Jesus na "May iisa na mabuti, ang Diyos" at lumaktaw sa konklusyon na ang commandment-keeping daw sa talatang ito ay bunga lamang ng kabutihan ng Diyos. Hindi lohikal na sumusunod ang konklusyong iyon sa premise. Ginamit ni Jesus ang kasabihang iyon para hamunin ang mababang pananaw ng binata kung ano ba talaga ang ibig sabihin ng "mabuti" at para ipakita ang absolute perfection na hinihingi ng Kautusan.
  
  

4. Ang New Covenant Application

Sa New Covenant Theology, naiintindihan natin na ang Kautusan ni Moises, kabilang ang Decalogue, ay isang temporary covenant na idinisenyo para sa bansang Israel at para dalhin ang mga makasalanan kay Cristo sa pamamagitan ng pag-expose ng kanilang kasalanan (Galatians 3:24).

"So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24(NIV)

Kailangang-kailangang palabasin ng SDA na ang Mateo 19:17 ay utos para sa mga Kristiyano na sundin pa rin ang Ten Commandments (lalo na ang Sabbath) ngayon. Pero hindi naglalatag ng New Covenant ethic si Jesus dito; ipinapatupad Niya ang Old Covenant sa isang taong nag-aakalang kayang kitain ang langit sa sarili niyang gawa. Ngayon, ang mga mananampalataya ay wala na sa ilalim ng Kautusan ni Moises, kundi nasa ilalim ng Kautusan ni Cristo (1 Corinthians 9:21), ligtas sa pamamagitan ng biyaya, habang ang Banal na Espiritu ang Siyang nagbubunga ng kabanalan sa ating mga buhay.

Gamitin ang 3 Questions na ito kapag nakikipag-usap sa ganitong uri ng SDA claim.

Q1: The Grammar Check

"Kung ang sabi mo ay 'bunga' lang ng kaligtasan ang pagtupad sa utos sa Mateo 19:17, bakit ginamit ni Jesus ang salitang 'KUNG' (If)? Ang sabi ni Jesus, 'Datapuwa't KUNG ibig mong pumasok sa buhay, ingatan mo ang mga utos.' Hindi ba malinaw sa grammar na ginawa itong kondisyon ni Jesus para sa isang taong nagmamalaki sa kanyang sariling gawa, at hindi bilang isang description ng taong ligtas na? Bakit natin papalitan ang salitang 'KUNG' ng salitang 'BUNGA' para lang bumagay sa doktrina ng SDA?"

Q2: The Law as a Mirror, Not a Ladder

"Kung totoong ang itinuturo ni Jesus dito ay 'fruit of salvation' mula sa kabutihan ng Diyos, bakit umalis na malungkot ang binata sa dulo ng kuwento (Mateo 19:22)? Hindi ba't ginamit ni Jesus ang Kautusan para wasakin ang self-righteousness ng binata at ipakitang hindi niya kayang iligtas ang sarili niya dahil sakim siya? Paano naging 'bunga ng kaligtasan' ang isang utos na mismong naging dahilan para ma-expose na ang binata ay walang kaligtasan?"

Q3: The Old Covenant Trap

"Sa New Covenant, alam natin na walang taong aaring ganap sa pamamagitan ng pagsunod sa Kautusan (Roma 3:20). Kaya noong tinanong ng binata kung anong 'MABUTING GAWA' ang dapat niyang gawin para maligtas, sinagot siya ni Jesus ayon sa batas ng Old Covenant, para ipakitang imposible ito. Bakit pilit ginagamit ng SDA ang talatang ito para ibalik ang mga Kristiyano sa pag-keep ng Ten Commandments bilang batayan ng buhay, gayong ginamit ito ni Jesus para ipakitang kailangan ng tao ng Tagapagligtas dahil imposibleng masunod ito nang perpekto?"