Thursday, February 29, 2024

JESUS BROKE THE SABBATH AND DECLARED HIMSELF GOD!


Honestly, I find it difficult to read some online posts by Seventh-day Adventists with their spirit of superiority and their ridicule of the doctrines of churches other than their own. They react as if church doctrines are the source of our salvation!

Of course, doctrines do reflect beliefs, and they also reveal whether or not a church has its roots in the nourishment of the apostles’ teachings! Yet when Adventists resort to ridicule and arrogant condescension, I can’t help wondering whether the writer/speaker might be revealing that he simply doesn’t know how to answer a new covenant understanding. Ad hominem attacks prove nothing and change no one’s mind; using them is almost always an admission of a person’s being “caught”, and unable to defend his case rationally.

After all, if you can’t disprove a person’s argument, the next defensive line is to attack the person himself.

Sadly, in dealing with this sort of defensive, bullying Adventist, I see the same behaviors described in John 5 when the Pharisees decided to kill Jesus because He broke this Sabbath rule in Jeremiah 17:21, 22:

Thus says the Lord: Take care for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem,

And do not carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath or do any work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers.

The prohibition against carrying Sabbath burdens is also described in Numbers 15:32–36:

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died (Numbers 15:32-36).

You may be saying, “But Jesus kept the law perfectly! He didn’t really ‘break’ the Sabbath!”

Yet John specifically tells us in this account that He did:

After this, there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep [Gate] a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.

Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity of thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he already had been [in that condition] a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me.”

Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.”

And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed.”

He answered them, “He who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’ ” …

For this reason, the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:1-11, 16-18)

Jesus commanded the paralyzed man to carry a heavy load on the Sabbath. The man had been lying on his pallet, his main abode, for 38 years. His pallet was not a modern, feather-weight inflatable hiking mat; it was a heavy pallet where he kept his belongings. It was a far more significant load than were the sticks for which the man in Numbers was stoned to death. Yet Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, commanded him to get up, walk, and carry that pallet on the Sabbath!

For Jesus to ask this man to carry his load on the Sabbath was to ask him to do a task that was punishable by death according to the law. Furthermore, Jesus Himself performed the “work” of healing on the Sabbath, thus setting into motion all the consequences of that healed man’s moving out of the “sick ward” by the Pool of Bethesda and initiating the disturbing conversations he would have with the Pharisees. All these things were breaking the Sabbath, and the Jews were furious.

Even more, when they confronted Jesus about His healing the man, He defended Himself by identifying with God Himself: “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”

Enraged, the Jews began seeking to kill Him. He not only broke the Sabbath but He claimed the identity of God!

Fulfilling the Shadow

It’s important to realize that when Jesus broke the Sabbath along with claiming His rightful identity as God, He was actually fulfilling the Sabbath commandment. Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, and in this incident, He demonstrated what He also claimed: that He was God with the power to do what only God could do.

Further, by His healing on the Sabbath and by instructing the healed man to carry a forbidden Sabbath load, He showed Israel that He was fulfilling the prophecies that the Messiah would make the lame walk and set the captives free. He released that man from his suffering and his spiritual misery and revealed Himself as the One who had the authority over nature: He reversed the man’s infirmity and granted Him belief in Himself as the One who came to save the lost.
By Jesus’s breaking the Sabbath laws, He did not sin but rather revealed Himself. He was the Messiah that Israel had been waiting to welcome!
For any other Jew to have attempted to do what Jesus did would have been a sin. Only God the Son had the authority over the day that foreshadowed HIM. By Jesus’s breaking the Sabbath laws, He did not sin but rather revealed Himself. He was the Messiah that Israel had been waiting to welcome! The very fact that He could do on the Sabbath what no one else could do was the act of revealing that He was the One to whom that day pointed.

The Jews, therefore, were both right and wrong: Jesus did, in His deeds, break the Sabbath as John declared that He did. In reality, though, He did NOT sin but fulfilled the Sabbath. He, the sinless Son of God was the One who ushered in true rest for those who believed, and He revealed His identity that day.

The Pharisees were not willing to see. By refusing to believe what actually occurred right in front of them, they truly broke the law. Their unbelief caused them not to see the substance of the shadows they protected so carefully.

They had made their Sabbath day more important than Jesus. Even more, they made their feelings of superiority greater than breaking their Ten Commandments Law: Thou shalt not kill.

While denouncing Jesus for breaking the Sabbath (His own “shadow”), they plotted murder.

The healed man, in contrast, received Jesus’ healing and His call to believe and to walk with integrity:

Then they asked him, “Who is the Man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?”

But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in [that] place.

Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well (John 5:12-15).

Jesus still calls us today to pick up our burdens and walk. Believe in the One who revealed Himself by His own authority over the Sabbath, over nature, and over sin, and know the freedom that only believing in the finished work of the Lord Jesus can bring.


Tuesday, February 20, 2024

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE BY VERSE: MATTHEW 5:17-18 "NOT AN IOTA, NOT A DOT WILL PASS AWAY FROM THE LAW."



My Dear Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,

Greetings in the powerful name of our Lord Jesus Christ! I invite you to study and discuss through this article as part of my forthcoming book titled "Seventh-day Adventists Answered Verse by Verse." Our goal here is not to debate but to understand each other's interpretations of Bible verses. I plan to start with the verses you use to justify whether Christians under the New Covenant should still follow the Ten Commandments. I want to understand why you use these verses to defend the Ten Commandments. I began with a focus on Matthew 5:17-18, which I know, from your perspective, is one of the strong pieces of evidence that Christians should still follow the Ten Commandments today. I'm not saying my discussion here is perfect to criticize your interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18 with an open mind. As I continue to consider your comments, I will also revise this article.

Feel free to criticize this article. I am open if you find any errors in my points or arguments. I am willing to edit any mistakes you see until we reach a point where we agree on our views. I already thank you, my Seventh-day Adventist friends, especially the SDA debaters. If possible, please comment here on social media where this article is posted. Your comments will be open to the public. I kindly request that we accompany our comments with respect and love and avoid ridicule or personal insults. We are doing this for the sake of truth, not for the sake of debate. Thank you very much. God bless us all! Let us pray that each of us may be enlightened with the help of the Holy Spirit! Let's begin our study.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

ISN'T MATTHEW 5:17-19 PROOF THAT WE HAVE TO ­CONTINUE KEEPING THE LAW?


Matthew 5:17-19 has been a proof text for many groups. It has also been a text that, when fully understood, was influential in helping our original Sabbath study and later the Worldwide Church of God make a 180 degree turn in theology. Over the years this text has been addressed several times in Proclamation! Furthermore, in my book Sabbath in Christ, a whole chapter is dedicated to this reference. Usually, we at Life Assurance Ministries have interpreted this text in reference to its use in Adventism. However, since this issue of Proclamation! references the teachings of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM), I thought it would be appropriate to look once again at this text. I have included verse 20 in this short study as it points us to the correct understanding. Here is how it reads in the New American Standard Bible.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 5:17-20).

The typical Hebrew Roots Movement understanding.

To fulfill the law does not mean to abolish or make void, it means to correctly interpret the law.[1] Therefore, Christians need to keep the laws and judgments of Torah, including the Sabbaths, new moon celebrations, and annual feast days.[2]

Evaluation

The HRM is correct in interpreting “law” as Torah. However, they along with the Adventists also find themselves in a dilemma. Note clearly that the text in Matthew states, “…not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law (Torah) until all is accomplished.” The Torah has a multitude of laws [3] regarding sacrifices,[4] cleansing and circumcision. It includes laws such as, “You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” [5]

(1) We must either keep all the laws of Torah, or (2) accept the fact that “all is accomplished”

The text in Matthew refers to “the least of these commandments”, referring to the commands contained in the Torah. Therefore, we are left with only two choices. (1) We must either keep all the laws of Torah, or (2) accept the fact that “all is accomplished”. Jesus Himself gives us the answer:

Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.”…Therefore, when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit (Jn. 19:28, 30).

For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:20).

Therefore, as Paul clearly stated, we need the very righteousness of God that is “in Christ”. This righteousness is received only by faith.[6]

Source: Proof That We Must Keep the Law? – Proclamation! Online Magazine | Former Adventist Fellowship (lifeassuranceministries.org) https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2024/02/15/proof-that-we-must-keep-the-law/

Saturday, February 10, 2024

IF YOU LOVE JESUS, YOU WILL NOT KEEP THE TEN COMMANDMENTS


One argument that sticks in the minds of our Seventh-day Adventist friends to identify those who truly love Jesus is what He said in John 15:14:

John 14:15 (NLT) 15 “If you love me, obey my commandments.

We've explained the meaning of this in our past podcasts on the Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines Facebook and YouTube pages several times. If we continue reading the verses that follow, it's clear that Jesus isn't referring to the 10 commandments here. Here are the verses in context that refute the idea that the "commandments" Jesus mentioned here are the 10 commandments:

John 15:10-14, 17 (NLT) 10 When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.11 I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. Yes, your joy will overflow!12 This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. 13 There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

It wasn't difficult for Jesus to directly say that He meant specifically the ten commandments when He said "commandments" here. He just didn't intend to teach the ten commandments in this scene because it wasn't really what He wanted to teach His disciples as preparation for entering the New Covenant. The commandments that Jesus expects those who love Him to obey, according to Jesus Himself, are nothing but "Love each other in the same way I have loved you" and "This is my command: Love each other." These commandments were not even written among the ten commandments, so how can Seventh-day Adventists say that the "commandments" in John 15:14 is about the 10 commandments?

Jesus also called these "commandments" as "new commandments" in John 10:34-35:

John 13:34-35 (NLT) 34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

So, the commandments that Jesus refers to in John 15:14 are the same "new commandment" mentioned in John 13:34-35: "Just as I have loved you, you should love each other." These are not the Ten Commandments because the Ten Commandments are "old commandments," not "new commandment."

But Seventh-day Adventists might ask us: Where can we read that Jesus said, "If you love me, you will not keep the Ten Commandments"?

Obviously, Jesus didn't always teach verbatim, so He often used parables in His preaching. In the science of biblical hermeneutics or Bible interpretation, the majority of Bible scholars accept the principle that the interpretation of the Old Testament is done by the New Testament, and the interpretation of the four gospels, particularly the important teachings of Jesus Christ, is none other than the writings of the apostles in the New Testament.

Before Jesus died, He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy Spirit to help them remember everything He had taught them.

John 14:26 (NLT) 26 But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

Because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the authors of the New Testament, we can trust and be sure, based on Jesus Christ's promise to them, that they will not make mistakes in understanding Jesus' teachings, especially concerning the Law in general and the Ten Commandments in particular. This simply means that whatever the disciples' view is on the Law and the Ten Commandments, it is surely the same as the will of Christ that He wants all Christian believers under the New Covenant to believe and accept.

What is the biggest sin of someone if they continue to insist on following and teaching others to follow the Ten Commandments, which are part of the Old Covenant that has passed away? This sin is called "spiritual adultery." Spiritual adultery is a concept found in the Bible that refers to unfaithfulness to God. It symbolizes turning away from a relationship with God and pursuing other things or authority.

How is it possible that if you obey the Ten Commandments, which forbid adultery, you still end up committing spiritual adultery?

When Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Rome, he used the example of a married couple. As long as they are alive, they are bound by the power of the law of marriage. If one of them dies, they are released from the law of marriage, so the other can marry again. But if one of them has a relationship with someone else while they are still alive under the law of marriage, they will commit adultery.

Romans 7:1-4 (TLB) ​1 Don’t you understand yet, dear Jewish brothers in Christ, that when a person dies the law no longer holds him in its power? 2 Let me illustrate: when a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, she is no longer bound to him; the laws of marriage no longer apply to her. 3 Then she can marry someone else if she wants to. That would be wrong while he was alive, but it is perfectly all right after he dies. 4 Your “husband,” your master, used to be the Jewish law; but you “died,” as it were, with Christ on the cross; and since you are “dead,” you are no longer “married to the law,” and it has no more control over you. Then you came back to life again when Christ did and are a new person. And now you are “married,” so to speak, to the one who rose from the dead, so that you can produce good fruit, that is, good deeds for God.

It is clear from this passage that the apostle Paul related the example of a married couple to something spiritual, which is connected to the Law in the Old Testament for the Israelites. Before Christ came, they were still under the power of the Law in the Old Testament, including the 10 commandments. But when Christ came, they needed to die to their relationship with the Old Testament Law. For them to have a new relationship with Christ. A true Christian who loves Christ genuinely is not unfaithful. It would be a forbidden kind of love for a Christian if they insist on being tied to and having a relationship with the Old Covenant with the ten commandments while also having a new relationship through the new covenant with Christ at the same time. That's called spiritual adultery. 

That's why Paul clarified to the Christians who are already "married to Christ" that they have died or are freed from the law. Because of that, those who are truly faithful and love Christ should serve in a new way of the Spirit and not depend on the old way of the written laws in the Old Testament that have passed away.

Romans 7:6 (TLB) 6 But now you need no longer worry about the Jewish laws and customs because you “died” while in their captivity, and now you can really serve God; not in the old way, mechanically obeying a set of rules, but in the new way, with all of your hearts and minds.

This is also the essence of the statement made by Apostle Paul to the Christians in Corinth.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (TLB) 6 He is the one who has helped us tell others about his new agreement to save them. We do not tell them that they must obey every law of God or die; but we tell them there is life for them from the Holy Spirit. The old way, trying to be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, ends in death; in the new way, the Holy Spirit gives them life.

It's sad to think that many Seventh-day Adventists are still being brainwashed by their pastors, believing that if the 10 commandments are said to be gone, there will be no more of God's commandments left in the world and the only choice left is to become a bad person. I pray that by God's grace, Adventists worldwide will break free from this kind of wrong reasoning. I hope they understand Paul's clear statement in the last part of 2 Corinthians 3:6, where it says that Christians serve the Lord "in the new way, the Holy Spirit gives them life" not anymore with "The old way, trying to be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, ends in death." 

True Christians who love and follow Christ serve Him through the Holy Spirit, who gives life and is more glorious than the 10 commandments that end in death.

2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (TLB) 7 Yet that old system of law that led to death began with such glory that people could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For as he gave them God’s law to obey, his face shone out with the very glory of God—though the brightness was already fading away. 8 Shall we not expect far greater glory in these days when the Holy Spirit is giving life? 9 If the plan that leads to doom was glorious, much more glorious is the plan that makes men right with God. 10 In fact, that first glory as it shone from Moses’ face is worth nothing at all in comparison with the overwhelming glory of the new agreement. 11 So if the old system that faded into nothing was full of heavenly glory, the glory of God’s new plan for our salvation is certainly far greater, for it is eternal.

The 10 Commandments are part of the old agreement between God and Israel. They are rules for worship. The two stone tablets with the 10 Commandments are kept inside the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies of the Sanctuary (the place of worship). When the service of the priests and the Sanctuary of the Old Testament passed away, the 10 Commandments inside it also passed away. This is what Hebrews 8:13-9:4 tells us.

Hebrews 8:13 - 9:4 (TLB) 13 God speaks of these new promises, of this new agreement, as taking the place of the old one; for the old one is out of date now and has been put aside forever. 1-2 Now in that first agreement between God and his people there were rules for worship and there was a sacred tent down here on earth. Inside this place of worship there were two rooms. The first one contained the golden candlestick and a table with special loaves of holy bread upon it; this part was called the Holy Place. 3 Then there was a curtain, and behind the curtain was a room called the Holy of Holies. 4 In that room there were a golden incense-altar and the golden chest, called the ark of the covenant, completely covered on all sides with pure gold. Inside the ark were the tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments written on them, and a golden jar with some manna in it, and Aaron’s wooden cane that budded.

Therefore, it's clear that us Christians who live under the New Covenant with Christ are "dead" to the relationship with the Old Covenant Law, including the 10 commandments. If someone insists on following and applying the 10 commandments as part of the law of the Old Testament, they are indeed unfaithful because they have two relationships: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. As long as one does not separate from their relationship with the Old Covenant, they are not truly loving and faithful to Christ. So, if you really love Jesus, you will not keep the ten commandments! 

FAFP SABBATH SCHOOL COMMENTARY OF "I WILL ARISE" (FEB 3–9, 2024)

Friday, February 9, 2024

RESPONDING TO AN ADVENTIST FRIEND ABOUT THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT | PART 1


This article talks about how me and my friend Jonathan Espina, who is also an Adventist defender, share our ideas about the SDA Sanctuary doctrine. I think Jonathan is really good at discussing SDA issues because he has a lot of theological books and SDA materials. It's easy for me to talk to him because we both understand each other's points and are excited about the same things.

Jonathan Espina says:

“In his attempt to show that Jesus as High Priest has entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, Ronald Obidos has used a biased translation of NIV for Hebrews 9:12 where it translated the Greek word Ta Hagia (literally, “the holies”) as “the Most Holy Place.”

ANSWER:

The NIV translation is right and matches the context in Hebrews chapter 9, which talks about the Day of Atonement. This day is linked to the rituals done yearly in the "Most Holy Place," not just the "Holy Place." Hebrews 9 talks about the Day of Atonement in verses 7, 8, 12, 24, 25, and probably refers to it in verses 23, 27, 28.

Hebrews 9:7 (NIV)
“But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.”

Hebrews 9:8
(NIV) “The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.”

Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV) “
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.”

Hebrews 9:24-25 (NIV)
“For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.”

The Greek words "ta hagia" and "tōn hagiōn" may look plural, but they usually mean something singular.[1] So, arguments based on them being plural are wrong. Saying "ta hagia" means "holy places" in Heb. 9:8 and other places would mess up most verses. For example, it would make Heb. 9:25 say the high priest went into two rooms, when it really means he went into one. It would also make Heb. 10:19, 20 say there were two holy places behind the curtain, which isn't right. And it would mean two places are like "the second" in Heb. 9:8, instead of one.Heb. 9 must be interpreted in its context, and on both sides of the chapter (e.g., 6:19-20 and 10:19-20) we have further allusions to the Day of Atonement in connection with what Christ has already done.

Hebrews 6:19-20 (NIV)
“We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 10:19-20 (NIV)
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.”

It's easy to see that the writer of Hebrews is really focusing on how the blood of Christ does something very special. It allows people to be with God directly, like how the High Priest could go into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Just saying that the blood of Christ is the main idea in Heb. 9 isn't enough. We need to understand that the main message of the chapter, and the whole book, is that "the blood of Christ lets us come close to God's right hand."

Saying that the NIV translation is biased is a biased argument from Jonathan Espina. He only focuses on the word "ta hagia" and ignores the context about the Day of Atonement. This should remind Christians to be cautious when discussing groups like the Seventh-day Adventist church. They are skilled at using language tricks instead of understanding the context. Even beginner students of Greek should understand that the meaning of words depends on the context.

Next, the so-called "translation discrepancy" in the NIV isn't really a problem, but rather shows honesty and careful study of the text. Hebrews 8:2 talks about the difference between the sanctuary in "heaven" (the true tent) and the one on "earth" (made by humans). So, it makes sense for the NIV to translate "sanctuary" in 8:2 as "Most Holy Place" because the contrast isn't between the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy Place."

Thirdly, their Prophet Ellen White is telling Jonathan Espina that when Christ went to heaven in 1844, He went into the first room, or "the Holy Place," not both the "Holy Place" and "Most Holy Place." If they argue for the whole Sanctuary (both Holy Place and Most Holy Place), it contradicts itself. It suggests that Jesus went into not only the "Holy Place," as Ellen White says, but also into the Most Holy Place before 1844.

Ellen White said:

“The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil” which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension…So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and present before Him also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven.” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421

Fourthly, Jonathan Espina agreed with the assessment report of the Daniel and Revelation Committee (DARCOM) from the Biblical Research Institute. This report aligns with the NIV translation.

“However, the practice of the author of Hebrews is not fully consistent, because in two clear instances he uses the plural form to denote a single apartment (9:2, 3).”

It's true that "ta hagia" is a plural word with a singular meaning. Therefore, Jonathan Espina is incorrect in his argument that the NIV consistently translates every mention of the heavenly "ta hagia" as "the Most Holy Place." He contradicts himself because earlier he mentioned that the same Greek word "Tōn Hagiōn" appears in 8:2, where the NIV translates it as "the sanctuary." It's Jonathan Espina who breaks the law of Non-Contradiction, not me. The Law of Non-Contradiction states: [insert definition].

“In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.”[2]

I saw a comment from Jonathan Espina accusing me of contradicting myself about Hebrews 9:12. He shared the link to my YouTube video titled "Hebreo 9:12: Kailan Pumasok si Jesus sa Most Holy Place," where I supported the SDA theory that aligns with Jonathan Espina's view. According to the definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction I mentioned earlier, I didn't actually contradict myself. My statement in that video was made when I was a dedicated SDA defender a few years ago. If I had made that statement now, as someone who is not SDA, then Mr. Espina and other devoted SDA defenders would have a reason to celebrate. But sorry to disappoint them once again. I didn't make that statement in the video as both an SDA defender and an anti-SDA person at the same time.

There's no denying that Heb. 9 suggests that Christ fulfilled the Day of Atonement in AD 31. So, Jonathan Espina's inability to challenge the NIV translation of Hebrews 9:12 strongly suggests that the SDA Church's doctrine about 1844 is wrong.


SHOULD I REALLY LEAVE ADVENTISM?


It is not uncommon to recognize certain problems with Adventist teaching and yet remain in Adventism anyway. There are multiple reasons why a person who recognizes problems within Adventist theology might end up being reluctant to leave. Oftentimes it is tied to comfort and familiarity. People who have grown up in Adventism, and have known nothing else, are reluctant to step away from all they have ever known and venture into the unknown. Still another reason for reluctance to leave might be family or friendship ties. A person’s family or friends may all be within Adventism, and a desire to avoid disappointing them, or a desire to avoid undermining fellowship opportunities with them—even a concern that certain relationships might be severed by leaving Adventism—can all play a part in a person’s reluctance to leave.

A third reason for a reluctance to leave Adventism might be that while the person rejects certain Adventist doctrines, they might still be really comfortable with a few of them and uncomfortable with the doctrines of Biblical Christianity on the same subjects. It is common to recognize the problematic nature of the investigative judgment, Ellen White as a prophet, the sabbath as the seal of God, diet being tied to salvation, and so forth, and yet still be wanting to keep Adventist doctrines such as the seventh-day Sabbath, the state of the dead, or annihilation of the lost.

Are these sufficient reasons to stay within Adventism? Is it ever the right decision to stay over these reasons that might make you very tempted to just continue on in Adventism, without bringing on any of the difficulties associated with leaving?

As one who has made the difficult—and potentially risky—decision to leave Adventism after many years within it, here are the reasons why I believe that leaving Adventism is always the better choice than staying.

1. Remaining in our perceived comfort zone is not what God calls us to do as faithful Christians.

The teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ on this point in unambiguous. He tells us:

“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 10:38-39 NKJV).

Notice that Jesus teaches that following Him involves taking up a cross. By the nature of carrying a cross, we know that this will involve great difficulties at times. It might mean that bringing certain hardships upon ourselves for the sake of Christ our master may be inevitable. More specifically, Jesus says that he who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for His sake will find it. In the scenario of leaving Adventism, here is what the teaching means: you will lose the life you have known within Adventism. The life that has felt comfortable to you, normal to you—in many ways and at many times, you will lose that life if you leave Adventism.
Yes, you will have to go through the difficult season of losing the life you have known as an Adventist, but you will find a life that’s much better in the long run, the life you are given from Christ.
Yet Jesus says if you lose your life for His sake, you will find it. Yes, you will have to go through the difficult season of loosing the life you have known as an Adventist, but you will find a life that’s much better in the long run, the life you are given from Christ. For the sake of new life in Christ, you must leave Adventism. For the sake of faithfulness to Him and what He teaches us, you must take up the cross of leaving your perceived Adventist comfort zone behind and finding the place where the real Jesus is worshipped and loved.

2. Remaining because of family or friendship peace and relationships, is not what God calls us to do either.

From Matthew 10 once again, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:34-37 NKJV).

As God in the flesh, our Lord Jesus knew what being faithful to Him could potentially mean for family relationships. He didn’t leave us to be torn over the right decision on this issue, but He straight up told us that to love Him, to be faithful to Him, may involve harsh family divisions. The opposition to the true gospel of Christ which exists in the minds of most Adventists (and in the world in general), means that one’s embrace of the gospel and one’s willingness to stand for the gospel, will mean that you automatically wind up having the opposers of the gospel as your enemies—and, sadly, those enemies may end up being family or friends! But Jesus is clear, we must love Him more! Jesus is worth it! The true gospel is worth it!

Remember that even if there are divisions resulting between you and your Adventist family, that you are part of the family of God now. As one in union with Christ, you are a son or a daughter of God, a joint heir with God’s perfect Son, Jesus Christ. God is truly your Father, and all Christians are truly brothers and sisters.

3. A belief that a few Adventist doctrines might be right is no reason to stay within Adventism.

When I was in the process of leaving Adventism,  the Lord really helped me to realize this issue in its proper perspective. I realized that Adventism could be right about everything else, but if they got the gospel wrong, nothing else mattered. The gospel is the key and central pillar doctrine of Christianity. Without the gospel everything else is meaningless. Even if Adventism got the Sabbath right, the state of the dead right, annihilation of the lost right, certain prophetic interpretations right, even if they got all those things right, it would not matter one bit if they are wrong about the gospel. And to make matters worse, Adventism is not just wrong about the gospel, but very closely related to the gospel is the nature of Christ and the nature of God, which not surprisingly Adventism also messes up greatly.

So the fact is that there is the Adventist way of salvation, which is faith plus keeping the Sabbath and Adventist standards perfectly, and confessing every individual infraction if there is a slip, in hopes that one’s name won’t be blotted out in the investigative judgment. But in addition to all these, there is the Adventist Jesus who, according to Ellen White, came at the risk of failure and eternal ruin.

…Jesus the God-man was fallible according to Adventism. This is both blasphemous and heretical thinking.
In other words, Jesus the God-man was fallible according to Adventism. This is both blasphemous and heretical thinking. In addition to this, Ellen White stated in Patriarchs and Prophets p. 357 that the blood of Christ did not cancel sin. This idea is completely contrary to what the Scripture says the real Christ did, which was to make propitiation through His blood (Romans3:25).

And lest we wonder exactly what propitiation is, the Greek word in Romans 3:25 is taken by Paul from Leviticus 16 in the Septuagint, and there the word speaks of what will be known to us as the mercy seat, the top cover of the ark which the high priest sprinkled the blood of sacrifice over on the day of atonement. In other words, what happened on the day of atonement in the Old Testament, happened with the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary, which was the removal and cancellation of sin. As a Christian friend recently said when I was explaining to him the investigative judgment, and what the Adventist Jesus is doing in the sanctuary, “That’s not the Jesus I know.”

Summary

How can we stay as part of a group that distorts the person and work of Lord Jesus so terribly? Is it not terribly disrespectful to our Lord if we stay part of a group that has doctrine which is blasphemous, heretical, idolatrous, and just plain contrary to Scripture? How can we stay as part of a group that distorts the way of salvation so badly, adding Sabbath-keeping, dietary laws, and other such things as stuff that must be done, lest a person lose salvation? If we have come to know the Biblical Jesus and the Biblical gospel, we cannot possibly abide these things in the least!

While the prospect of having to renounce Adventism can be disturbing and daunting, know that for those of us who have done it out of loyalty to Jesus Christ and the one true gospel there are zero regrets in having taken this step! And this is the key kicker: we do not call people to leave Adventism for nothing, just to drift aimlessly. No, not at all. The call presented in this article is to leave Adventism for Jesus Christ!
Leave Adventism for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord, for the sake of His one true saving gospel!
Leave Adventism for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord, for the sake of His one true saving gospel! Disentangle yourself from Adventism or any other group that undermines the person and work of Jesus Christ with their unbiblical doctrines, and worship with a church that exalts the true Christ and the true gospel! Find a gospel well where you can drink deeply of the water of life through worship together with the saints, hearing God’s word preached and exegeted properly, and participating in true Christian celebration of the Lord’s supper and baptism. I guarantee you that taking such a step will not only be honoring to Christ, but it will have a positive impact on your life and spiritual wellbeing beyond what you can imagine! 

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

ARE WE CLAIMING SALVATION FOR OURSELVES ALONE?


From Naomi Janerol:

Filipino:
"So ngayon kau nalang ang maliligtas kau ng mga member nyo ganun? Lahat ng Adventist na nakarinig sa inyo na hindi naniwala sa inyo hindi na ligtas?"

English:
"So now, are you the only ones who will be saved, you and your members? Does that mean all Adventists who have heard you but haven't believed in you are no longer saved?"

Many Seventh-day Adventists may also have similar thoughts regarding the ministry of the Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines. Therefore, it is important to address and clarify the misrepresentations in these statements made by Sister Naomi Janerol.

#1.) So now, are you the only ones who will be saved, you and your members?

Answer:

The Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines does not claim that only we will be saved. It is not the objective of the Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines ministry to boast that we alone proclaim the truth worldwide and that we alone are the children of God, thus prompting those leaving the Seventh-day Adventist church to join us.

The Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines is not a religion or church, but rather an association or fellowship of former SDA members whose sole purpose is to further understand the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. It was established on September 12, 2019. FAFP prioritizes former SDAs who have long left the SDA church but have yet to find a born-again Christian church to join for the growth of their faith in the Lord Jesus and nurturing. FAFP provides them with guidance on which Christ-centered Christian Church they can attend near their location. For transitioning SDAs who have not yet decided to leave the SDA church, FAFP also helps them understand the basic doctrines of Christianity through our weekly Bible study. Of course, FAFP first ensures that they understand the gospel of salvation and clarify its difference from the false gospel taught to them by the SDA church. After they understand the doctrine of salvation and some beliefs of historic Christianity, we recommend to them which gospel-oriented Christian church they can join near their location.

In simpler terms, the goal of the FAFP ministry is for every SDA member leaving the SDA church to first understand and have clarity on the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. We also provide clarity to FAFP members on the true meaning of Sola Scriptura compared to the weak understanding of the authority of Scriptures in the SDA church. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone to think that FAFP teaches that only we will be saved by the Lord. Instead, we strive to invite SDA church members to be open-minded and have the opportunity to understand the gospel of salvation that we experienced as former members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We do not want to monopolize the blessings of salvation, so we continue to share it with others. Therefore, it is not true that we promote that we monopolized the gift of salvation.

#2.) Does that mean all Adventists who have heard you but haven't believed in you are no longer saved?"

Answer:

The FAFP has no right to ever say that those who do not believe or listen to our preaching will not be saved. This is solely the prerogative of God because only He knows and understands who they are.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NLT) 19 But God’s truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: “The LORD knows those who are his,” and “All who belong to the LORD must turn away from evil.”

The sole mission of FAFP is to preach the good news of salvation to all SDAs, including those who have left, are considering leaving, and even those still within the SDA church with no plans of leaving. We consider it our duty, akin to a debt, to ensure that those who have left the SDA church, as well as our loved ones and friends who remain, come to know salvation through God's grace, solely through faith in Jesus, apart from the Law of Moses, from beginning to end.

Romans 1:14-17 (NLT) 14 For I have a great sense of obligation to people in both the civilized world and the rest of the world, to the educated and uneducated alike. 15 So I am eager to come to you in Rome, too, to preach the Good News. 16 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes—the Jew first and also the Gentile. 17 This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life."

The sole task of FAFP is to continue sowing the seeds of the gospel among SDAs and leave the fruition of our efforts to the Lord, just like the apostles did in the past.

1 Corinthians 3:5-9 (NLT) 5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters work together with the same purpose. And both will be rewarded for their own hard work. 9 For we are both God’s workers. And you are God’s field. You are God’s building.

I hope and pray that Sister Naomi Janerol has now understood the purpose and mission of FAFP: The gospel of salvation by the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone from beginning to end, is solely by grace and separate from obedience to the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, dietary restrictions such as pork, and others. I also appeal to FAFP members to include Sister Naomi Janerol and her family in our prayers, that they may also find salvation through the grace of God.

For our Seventh-day Adventist friends who still want to learn more about the doctrine of salvation, you can contact us through the following information:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook Group #1: Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines

Facebook Group #2: FAFP Community Group Chat

Website: .www.formeradventistph.blogspot.com

To support this ministry:

Gcash# 09695143944

BPI Bank Cainta Branch
Ronald V. Obidos
Savings Acct# 3259 0224 19















Sunday, February 4, 2024

REFORMED ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFICATION


This theological perspective combines elements from both Reformed theology and Arminianism, emphasizing God's grace, human responsibility, and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life.

The Purpose of Sanctification

For Jacobus Arminius, sanctification is a gracious act of God that purifies the believer. Here are the key points:

1. Definition: Sanctification involves God's work of purifying the believer who is both a sinner and a believer.

2. Process: It includes being cleansed from ignorance, indwelling sin, and sinful desires. The believer is infused with the Spirit of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

3. Goal: Sanctification aims to separate the believer from the world's life and make them conformed to God's image.

4. Christian Journey: Arminius likens the Christian life to "a pilgrim's progress", where believers continually grow in holiness [1].

The Two Aspects of Sanctification

Arminius identifies two essential aspects of sanctification:

1. Mortification: This involves putting to death the old sinful nature (the "old man") that lives by the flesh. It's a process of overcoming sinful habits and desires.

2. Quickening: The new nature (the "new man") is revived and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The believer is transformed to live righteously and in conformity with God's will.

Wrestling Between Flesh and Spirit

Arminius vividly describes the struggle between the old and new natures as a wrestling match. This imagery draws from passages like Galatians 5:17, which contrasts the desires of the flesh with those of the Spirit. Ephesians 6:12 also portrays the Christian as wrestling against spiritual forces of evil¹.

Romans 7 and Sanctification

Arminius interprets Romans 7 differently from many of his contemporaries. While most theologians saw this chapter as describing the Christian's battle with sin, Arminius viewed it as depicting the unregenerate person in sin's bondage. This perspective highlights the need for God's sanctifying grace in the believer's life.

Ongoing Process

Arminius emphasizes that sanctification is not completed in a single moment. Instead, it involves gradual growth. Sin weakens day by day, and the inner person is renewed while the outer person perishes. The believer carries the death of Christ within, progressively becoming more like Christ [2].

Contemporary Arminianism

Interestingly, contemporary Arminianism, influenced by John Wesley, often teaches that entire sanctification is both possible and expected for believers. This differs from Arminius' view, which aligns more closely with standard Reformed theology of his time [3].

In summary, the Reformed Arminian view of sanctification underscores God's grace, the believer's active participation, and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. It's a journey toward holiness, marked by wrestling, growth, and conformity to God's image. Biblical support for this view can be found in passages like Romans 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 4.

Saturday, February 3, 2024

ARE YOU AN ADVENTIST "BIGOT"?


Filipino:

"Inuoto mo na lang sarili mo bro... Ang hikayatin mo dapat Ngayon na umanib sa Inyo ay Ang mga catolico , baptist , inc. protestante ,saksi ni Jehovah..etc.. . Sumobra na Ang talino nio , Wala na kayo pinagkaiba ni Quiboloy, soriano, at iba pa na Wala ng dapat batas ng Dios na kinikilala....John 14:15... 1John 4:19-21... Galit na Galit na kayo sa dati mong Kasama gaya ni bro.johnson amican..at sa buong samahan ng seventh day Adventist.... Sana kung matino ka talaga kayo ni Balberan at Sabaupan..eh hwag na kayo mag alipusta sa mga dati nio kasamahan ..kung may mali man Ang pinaggalingan nio dahil sa kayo Ngayon Ang TAMA sa akala nio o dahil sa sama ng loob nio... Ay Doon sa ibang Wala pa talagang walang alam sa katotohanan o aral Ang puntahan at tirahin nio sa social media.. MAHIYA KAYO SA SARILI NIO KUNG WALA NA KAYONG TAKOT SA DIOS NA SUNDIN ANG KANYANG BATAS AT KAUTUSAN... Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.. ganyan lang kasimple Bro."

English:

"Just focus on yourself, bro... What you should encourage now to join you are Catholics, Baptists, Iglesia ni Cristo, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... You've become too smart, you're no different from Quiboloy, Soriano, and others who don't follow God's laws anymore. John 14:15... 1 John 4:19-21... You're really angry with your former companion like bro. Johnson Amican... and with the whole Seventh Day Adventist community... If you're really sensible like Balberan and Sabaupan... don't mock your former companions... if there was something wrong with where you came from because you think you're right now or because of your grudge... Then go to those who still don't know the truth or teachings and attack them on social media... Have some shame if you no longer fear God to follow His laws and commandments... Ecclesiastes 12:13-14... It's that simple, bro."

I posted this publicly not to embarrass Mr. Jaime Catalon but to clarify all his accusations and suggestions regarding our Former Adventist Fellowship Philippines ministry. Our only goal is to provide a reasonable answer with love and understanding to such overly emotional reactions from our Seventh-day Adventist friends. This is not the first time we've received this kind of message. I decided to respond once and for all to these kinds of message for the benefit of everyone who might attempt to express such harsh words and misrepresentations towards our ministry again.

Response:

I don't personally know bro. Jaime Catalan, and I think he doesn't know me either. I tried to check his background on his Facebook profile, but it lacked details. I would like to know if he holds a position in the Seventh-day Adventist church, like if he is an Elder, Layman, Evangelist, or Pastor. It's important for me to know his background so I can understand why he mentioned his strong sentiments about our ministry. From what I gathered from his words, I don't think he has a background in evangelism, meaning he may not know how to give Bible studies or conduct public evangelism like Crusades.

If bro. Jaime Catalan has experience in evangelism, he probably wouldn't tell us to "What you should encourage now to join you are Catholics, Baptists, Iglesia ni Cristo, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc." I said this because a thoughtful and careful person would be mindful of what they say, knowing that they should be careful with every word spoken because if they are not careful, their wrong words will come back to them. For example, for him to tell us not to encourage our fellow Seventh-day Adventists, where we came from, but instead encourage others like the religions he mentioned. People who argue like this don't even think that what they're complaining about to us, they're also doing the same thing.

If, for example, a Catholic convert to the SDA church, why do SDA leaders encourage them to persuade their former Catholic companions? And isn't it true that one of the ways SDAs persuade Catholics to prove their religion wrong is by revealing its false teachings about the Sabbath, which they changed to Sunday? Don't SDAs also encourage converts from various religions that worshiping on Sunday is wrong because it originated from Paganism and was promoted by the Roman Catholic church? Didn't the very prophet of the SDA church, Ellen G. White, also say that Protestants and other non-SDA religions are children of "Babylon the Great," the mother church being the Roman Catholic church? Jesus criticized that kind of attitude as hypocrisy.:

Matthew 7:3-5 (NLT) 3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own?4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye?5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

Why did bro. Jaime Catalan react that way? What mistake did he make in his argument that he might not realize? The root of bro. Jaime Catalan's significant mistake is what is called "Bigotry" in English. What does "Bigotry" mean? According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary:

"The fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life."[1]

This online dictionary also explained the meaning of "Bigot" or "religious bigot," which to me seems like a more fitting description for people like bro. Jaime Catalan:

"A person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong."

If you notice, the mentioned definition above emphasizes who qualifies as a bigot. The basis for why a viewpoint becomes "bigoted" is due to their "unreasonable beliefs." This simply means that a bigot's reason for declaring a belief as wrong is not logical. To understand this, let's use Matthew 7:3-5 again to show that it's not inherently bad to point out others' mistakes. It only becomes wrong if your criticism is "Hypocritical," like in the example Jesus mentioned:

Matthew 7:5 (NLT) 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

In a way, a bigot is like a hypocrite because they focus more on seeing and criticizing someone else's mistakes without realizing their own bigger mistakes.

It's really fair to say that Adventist bigots are very unreasonable because they are highly prejudiced or biased in their beliefs, which they mostly just believe without understanding why. When you ask an Adventist why they believe something, they often say it's because it's what they've been taught since they were young or what their elders and pastors have taught them without independent and critical examination. So, it's undeniable that many Adventists stay in the SDA church because of social value, good relationships, or kindness shown to them, including being part of Adventist families for many generations, aside from some material benefits and advantages. Being a Seventh-day Adventist has become their comfort zone, regardless of whether their beliefs are right or wrong.

I also mentioned that bro. Jaime Catalan's reasoning is unreasonable, and his perspective is hypocritical because the SDA church also criticizes "false teachings" like Sunday worship, eating pork, and not following the Ten Commandments. If we were to turn bro. Jaime Catalan's criticism back to him, then the SDA church should also stop criticizing those who worship on Sundays (even though we don't consider Sunday as the Sabbath!).

It's not applicable to call us "bigots" because our perspective is reasonable since we were once an Adventist for many years, so we have the right to point out what's wrong, especially since we used to be SDA defenders, Elders and Pastors. I mentioned that we have more authority to say what is right and wrong compared to bro. Jaime Catalan and other SDAs who share his perspective because they only listen to one side, making their basis biased and "unreasonable" to say that we are wrong. We came from there because we saw the mistakes and now, we are in the truth and have the assurance of salvation and eternal life solely by God's grace through faith in Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. Whereas bro. Jaime Catalan only listens only to the SDA perspective and hasn't heard the gospel of salvation like other beloved Seventh-day Adventists. So, no SDA has the right to stop our preaching of the gospel because this is the power of God unto salvation.

Romans 1:16-17 (NLT) 16 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes—the Jew first and also the Gentile. 17 This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”

SDAs haven't come to where we are now. It's true that some born-again Christians have converted to the SDA church, which I think is because they haven't studied the Bible deeply. Many SDAs have become Catholics, but I'm sure SDAs would also agree that just because someone becomes a member of the Roman Catholic church, it doesn't mean it's the true church.

Conclusion:

I'm not saying that all SDAs are "afflicted" with "religious bigotry." It's just sad that there are a few individuals like bro. Jaime Catalan who are unreasonable. One reason why a Seventh-day Adventist becomes a religious bigot is because of fear and ignorance. As I read somewhere, "fear of the unknown" is one of the main reasons why a person becomes a bigot. Fear often drives bigotry. When people encounter something unfamiliar or different, they may react with prejudice due to ignorance or lack of understanding.

In truth, bro. Jaime Catalan's emotions overshadowed his intellect here, to the point of claiming, "You're really angry with your former companion like bro. Johnson Amican... and with the whole Seventh Day Adventist community," which is untrue. We hate the false teachings of the SDA church NOT the people. If our issue was only personal anger and not doctrinal, why would we leave the SDA church? Because no matter which church you go to, there are more "Tares" than "Wheat," and they will remain until the Second Coming of Christ. Our minds have matured regarding such personal matters, so we are not affected by them anymore. We are more affected when teachings are wrong and worse, when the SDA church refuses to acknowledge and correct them but instead hides them. This is a grave sin against the Lord. Often, those who accuse us of leaving due to personal grudges are the ones reflecting their own character flaws. They are the ones who are judgmental, projecting onto us even if it's not true.

If bro. Jaime Catalan can't accept the truths we're revealing about the false teachings of the SDA church, then we advise him to refrain from watching our program for now because he hasn't yet ready to accept the fact that the SDA church is wrong in their teachings. I want to share with bro. Catalan the advice of their most respected and revered authority in the SDA church about her rebuke for those SDAs who are mistaken in their thinking that the doctrines of SDAs are perfect and infallible:

“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” (Christian Writers and Editors p.35)

Therefore, according to this advice from their prophet, the most effective antidote to the bigotry for bro. Jaime Catalan and other members of the SDA church is to refrain from assuming that the doctrines of the SDA church are already perfect and unchangeable. In other words, they should be open-minded and learn to listen to what others are saying before hastily judging a perspective without understanding what it truly entails. We former Adventists did not fall short in this aspect. It's more likely that the level of study and depth of our research into the teachings of SDAs has not yet been reached by bro. Jaime Catalan. For example, his accusation against us, claiming that we no longer believe in the validity of the 10 Commandments for Christians and implying that we can become criminals, is merely gossip and an "unreasonable belief" because, in truth, we born-again Christians believe, "Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit."

Romans 7:6 (NLT) 6 But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit.

Because of that, we live under God's grace, which teaches us to stay away from evil:

Titus 2:11-12 (NLT) 11 For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. 12 And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with wisdom, righteousness, and devotion to God.


IS THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT A MORAL LAW?


The question was heartfelt—even a little desperate. The writer, a never-been-Adventist, was struggling to deal with the Sabbath arguments of a well-known Adventist theologian and writer who happened to be a close family member. Even by email the question signaled a level of desperation for an answer that made sense.

Here is part of the letter:

"So, if I understand correctly, when an Adventist asks you why your life looks like you have a respect for only 9 of the 10 commandments, one way you could respond would be to say that the fourth commandment was the only one that wasn’t a moral law?

I’m not intending to debate. I’m just trying to develop my best defense. Does the position that the 10 commandments were “nailed to the cross” and the “fourth is not moral” struggle with Hebrews chapter 4? The author seems to make sure and connect the concept of rest to the fourth commandment in vs. 4 and 9. Then, in verse 10, he connects it to what God did at creation which seems to me to indicate that there’s a moral component to this. This chapter in Hebrews is why I’ve felt like I needed to maintain that the 4th commandment is indeed moral, but since the rest that “Joshua had given them” was clearly inadequate, there is a new rest found in Christ. Therefore, I “keep” the fourth when I have faith in Christ’s recreation work in me. With this line of thought, I’d argue that the Adventists ironically have an incredibly low view of the Sabbath as they “only” rest one day out of the week, and my entire life is consumed with rest."

The writer continued by identifying the Adventist with whom he is in conversations, and when I read the name, I suddenly understood the confusing, disorienting nature of the writer’s interactions. Being familiar with the Adventist’s arguments that change the meanings of Scripture’s context, I knew the person contacting us needed details.

Further, I realized that the email writer is not unique. We who have been Adventists need to know how to answer this question with its related references to Hebrews 4: is the Sabbath commandment a moral law, or is it ceremonial? What is a Sabbath rest for the people of God today?

Here is my answer to him.

Good Question

Your question about the fourth commandment is a good one. Technically, the fourth commandment is not “moral” in the eternal, righteousness-of-God sense of morality. The Sabbath is part of the ritual laws of Israel, and in Leviticus 23, where Moses listed and explained all the sacred sabbaths for Israel, the seventh day is the first sabbath listed and explained. The seventh-day Sabbath was a ritual law just as were the sabbaths of Pentecost, Passover, New Moon, and so forth. According to Colossians 2:16, 17, Jesus fulfilled the sabbaths, including the seventh day, with HIMSELF. He is the reality toward which the shadows pointed.
I had to understand the nature of the law before I could understand that the Sabbath was a ritual requirement.
As a former Adventist, however, who had a fixed view of the Decalogue as eternal and authoritative for all time, the argument that the Sabbath was merely “ritual” and not “moral”, although technically correct, I found almost not worthy of discussion. The fact that it was placed in the Ten was the “proof” it was moral. I had to understand the nature of the law before I could understand that the Sabbath was a ritual requirement. This understanding came as I learned that the Bible itself identifies the Ten as the actual “words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:27, 28), and the law was an indivisible unit that included the abstract, if you will, written in the Ten Words, and the rest of the law was explained the Ten.

Law Built On Levitical Priesthood

Hebrews 7 helped me see that the OT law could not exist without the foundation of the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7:11 states overtly,

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need [was there] for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11).

Until I actually memorized Hebrews 7 a few years ago, the impact of that passage had never dawned on me. The law was given on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. Without the levitical priesthood, there is no law—and the entire existence of the levitical priesthood was ritual! They carried out all of the sacrifices and ceremonies demanded by the law, and infractions against the Ten were dealt with by the priesthood. In fact, they performed or administered all the laws and consequences for moral infractions done by the Israelites. They had to offer the blood sacrifices and perform the oversight over diseases and lead the nation in worship and thanksgiving and administer justice.

Hebrews 7 explains carefully that, if there is a change in the priesthood, there must, of necessity, be a change of the law. Read it in Hebrews 7:12:

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also (Heb 7:11-12).

Adventists NEVER deal with this passage contextually.

The law, as R.K. McGregor Wright’s article explains in detail, is a UNIT and cannot be dissected into categories, some eternal and some temporal. In fact, James 2:10 says that if a person stumbles even over one point of the law, he breaks the WHOLE law. That whole law does not refer to the Ten alone; Adventists insist the Ten are a separate document, that the law of Moses was written by Moses, but the Ten were written by God. This argument, however, is untrue. The Bible never separates the individual laws into categories and then further separates them from each other. It never says that part of the law is eternal, and part is temporary.
Galatians 3:17–21 clarifies that the law had a beginning—430 years after Moses—and an ending: when the Seed came.
On the contrary, Galatians 3:17–21 clarifies that the law had a beginning—430 years after Moses—and an ending: when the Seed came. Furthermore, we can see from the words of the gospel of Luke that the ritual law and the Law of God are not separate things. In Luke 2:22, in speaking about Joseph and Mary and the infant Jesus, Luke says this:

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (Luke 2:22).

So far, so good—according to the Adventist argument. The ritual purification required after childbirth was part of the “law of Moses”; Adventists would say this requirement was part of the ceremonial, or ritual, law—part of the law that Moses wrote out, not that God wrote.

But then Luke gets “confusing” from an Adventist perspective; he says this in verses 23-24:

(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY [firstborn] MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS” (Luke 2:23-24).

Adventists understand that the laws of first fruits and all the sacrificial laws were merely “ceremonial”, part of the “law of Moses” and not eternal as they suppose the Ten Commandments to be. Yet right there the Bible says the law of first fruits and the law of sacrifices which dictated that a poor person could offer doves instead of lambs or rams—both of which are CEREMONIAL or RITUAL laws—are in the Law of the Lord!
The Ten and all the rest of the law which explained the administration of the Ten were one law.
I have never heard an Adventist address this detail—yet I find it incredibly clear. The entire law was indivisible. The Ten and all the rest of the law which explained the administration of the Ten were one law. That one law entirely rested on the authority of the levitical priesthood who carried out the terms of the covenant before God as mediators for the nation.

The core of the Law was a death sentence: if you break one detail of this law, you will die, and blood sacrifices were the only provision for the Israelites. Only blood could atone for breaking a law—and those animal sacrifices were not permanent.

So how DO we deal with the idea that, if the Ten are part of the whole law and Jesus fulfilled it, its requirements are listed in the New Testament? And if the Ten are Moral, how do we deal with the Sabbath?

Finding Answers

Here’s what I have come to understand as I have studied the New Testament. While we can look at the law and separate out those that are strictly rituals for Israel while others (like the NINE) are still moral requirements, yet the collection of all of the 613 laws (which incudes the Ten Commandments) of the Mosaic Law was moral for Israel. For the nation to whom the law was given, every single command was MORAL.

God demanded that each of those laws be kept. In fact, the sacrifices (the ones which Adventists most readily see as “ritual”) were at the heart of God’s moral requirements for Israel: without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sins! The Israelites remained in sin if they did not offer sacrifices and keep the sabbaths of the Lord. God demanded these things of them. In fact, Judah was exiled into Babylon for 70 years partly because it had failed to keep its Jubilee sabbaths for the land. The 70 years were for all the land-sabbaths that the nation had failed to observe.
The seventh day WAS truly ritual, but because it was the sign of the covenant and a demand of God, it was, for Israel, MORAL
So, the argument of “moral” and “ceremonial” is almost a moot point for an Adventist—and even, frankly, for me. The seventh day WAS truly ritual, but because it was the sign of the covenant and a demand of God, it was, for Israel, MORAL.

Hebrews 10:1 says that the law (meaning the whole law, not the Ten) was a shadow of the good things to come. When Jesus came, He fulfilled every single expectation the law demanded from Israel. I’ll talk through it from my perspective of having been Adventist and now seeing what He actually did.

Jesus: The Perfect Israel

He was the Perfect Israel, the spotless Lamb of God. He personally, in His flesh, fulfilled the whole law—including its demand that the one who sinned would die. He “became sin” for us (2 Cor. 5:21) so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. That means that He took our IMPUTED sin into Himself, and as the Logos (as stated in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word”), he was the living Torah. (See again the article I linked above to “the Unity of the Law” by R.K. McGregor Wright.)

“Logos” is the Greek term for the meaning of the Hebrew word “Torah”. Jesus was the living Word of God. Into Himself He took our sin. He took our punishment physically on the cross, shedding human blood for human sin. He suffered the wrath of God as He hung on the cross, as the sun went dark, as the earth quaked. Jesus experienced the separation from the Father that is the eternal consequence of our sin. He died our death and was buried. But because His sacrifice was sinless and eternal—because He was also God the Son and could therefore bear the responsibility for the sin of His creation and offer a sufficient propitiation to satisfy God’s demands for sin, He rose from death on the third day according to Scripture. He had paid the sufficient price to shatter the death sentence!
All of the Mosaic law—including the Ten which contained the sign of that covenant—was completed and fulfilled, like a will is fulfilled when a person dies, and the benefits are distributed.
All of the Mosaic law—including the Ten which contained the sign of that covenant—was completed and fulfilled, like a will is fulfilled when a person dies and the benefits are distributed. (See Galatians 3 and Romans 7.) The terms of the entire Mosaic covenant were fulfilled in Jesus’s perfect, sinless blood, and the sentence of death to sinners was broken. When a person trusts Jesus alone and His finished work, he is no longer under the death sentence.

What About Us?

So, what about this side of the cross? Paul couldn’t be more clear: if anyone goes back to the law after trusting Jesus, he falls from grace (Gal. 5). Paul feared for the Galatians that he had preached to them in vain because they were again keeping days (Gal. 4:8–11). The law given on Mt Sinai (and the Ten are clearly included since they were the commands written by God on stone!) is a covenant of death (2 Cor. 3; Gal 4:21–31), and on this side of the cross, the Law (which we have to see includes the Ten) represents SLAVERY now!

In the Old Testament the law foreshadowed the good things to come in Jesus; now it represents Hagar, of all things! Paul even made the point that the covenant of Sinai declares everyone who keeps the law to be a child of Hagar. That person is in slavery.

But we have come to a different mountain: the heavenly Jerusalem, and Sarah—the mother of the Promised Son-–is our mother if we are in Christ. We are not to take any part of the law for ourselves. All of it—including the moral commands, were fulfilled in Christ.

So what about our morality?

When we are in Christ, we are literally imputed with His personal righteousness. In fact, Romans 3:21, 22 tells us:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (Rom 3:21-22).

The law and the prophets were merely WITNESSES of God’s own personal righteousness which is imputed to us through faith in Jesus. This means that even the commands to honor God only, to NOT kill or commit adultery or steal or covet—all the laws were fulfilled for us in Christ. When we trust Christ, we are credited with His personal righteousness, and we receive the reality of the Sabbath: the new birth, peace with God, reconciliation, new life in Him.

Our justification is dependent ONLY upon belief. In fact, Jesus said that when we believe, we pass from death to life (Jn. 5:24). Belief is the only requirement for justification before God. Once we believe, our sanctification is the area where God works in us. Adventists see sanctification as necessary for salvation; they do not see justification as the point at which we are saved; they say sanctification is also required. But sanctification is the work God does in the life of a born-again believer, and all the commands of the New Testament are written to BELIEVERS.
We are now under a new law, not the law given on Sinai.
We are now under a new law, not the law given on Sinai. We are alive with Jesus’ life, justified by His personal righteousness and not by our obedience. The Author of the Law indwells us and teaches us to apply Scripture to our lives.

What Is the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews?

Hebrews 4 is not teaching a Sabbath day; it explains in detail that God set a different day because the seventh day brought no one rest. The new day is called TODAY. Furthermore Hebrews 4:9 is not talking about observing a day. The Greek underlying the “sabbath rest for the people of God” is unique in the New Testament: sabbatismos. No other place is this word used. It means “a sabbath-like rest”, or “sabbathing”. It means the rest that comes from believing TODAY. It is not speaking of a day in any sense. It is referring to the new covenant fulfillment of the seventh-day sabbath: the “sabbath-like rest” that remains for a specific group of people: “the people of God”.

Who, in context, are the people of God? Those who have believed. Those who have trusted the finished work of Jesus as the complete atonement for their sins; those who have been born again and who have passed from death to life. THEY have that sabbath-like rest: the literal life of God in them. These are the ones who have passed from death to life (not a future hope but a present reality) as Jesus said in John 5:24.

Epilogue

The day after I sent the above explanation to our correspondent, I received another email from him. His relief was palpable, and as a former Adventist, I resonated with the clarity he finally had:

You helped a bunch with pointing out the word for Sabbath in Hebrews 4 is sabbatismos. It’s a shame that our modern translations don’t pick up on this! I’ve really wrestled with that text over the years, and this helps a lot.
When we trust Him and His finished work of atonement for sin, we enter His rest.
The fourth commandment was fulfilled in Jesus. When we trust Him and His finished work of atonement for sin, we enter His rest. That is the point of Hebrews 4: if we hear His voice Today—Believe! Jesus Himself is our rest. The “place holder” of a Sabbath day is fulfilled in Jesus, and when we are born again and ushered into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, we inherit His righteousness and are reconciled to God.

We cease our work to justify ourselves in His sight, and we rest in His finished work.

Paul tells us in Romans 14 that now, in the new covenant, the matter of observing a day is a matter of personal conscience—but it is not a matter of command. There is no new covenant instruction for keeping a day. In fact, when Christians meet together on Sunday, that assembly does not mean the day is sacred.

Sabbath was always a shadow pointing to the Lord Jesus, and when we know Him, we have Sabbath rest—we have Sabbatismos.


Source: Is the Fourth Commandment a Moral Law? – Proclamation! Online Magazine | Former Adventist Fellowship (lifeassuranceministries.org): 
https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2024/02/01/is-the-fourth-commandment-a-moral-law/