FAP Commentary on SDA Sabbath School Lesson (November 1–7, 2025) Title “The Enemy Within.”

 

🧭 Overview

This week’s SDA Sabbath School lesson focuses on Achan’s sin in Joshua 7, where Israel’s defeat at Ai was linked to disobedience within their own ranks. The lesson frames the story around the danger of sin in the covenant community, asserting that Israel’s collective failure flowed from one man’s greed. It emphasizes obedience to the covenant as the condition of divine victory and portrays Achan’s downfall as an example of how God’s people must maintain purity within the camp to keep God’s presence and blessing.

The lesson consistently draws moral parallels between ancient Israel and the modern Seventh-day Adventist Church, warning that God’s blessing and “heavenly inheritance” can only be secured through the community’s faithful adherence to the covenant.

📖 FAP Response

While the story of Achan indeed teaches us about the seriousness of sin and God’s holiness, the SDA interpretation once again filters everything through an Old Covenant framework, applying Israel’s national-covenantal dynamics directly to the New Covenant Church.

This is a hermeneutical misstep. The covenant under Joshua was conditional and corporate, tied to land, law, and lineage. The New Covenant, however, is personal, spiritual, and fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 8:6–13). The “enemy within” today is not a covenant-breaker who endangers our corporate salvation, but the indwelling sin of the flesh that Christ alone can conquer through His Spirit (Rom. 7:23–25).

The SDA lesson subtly reinforces legalistic theology, suggesting that “victory” depends on obedience to “the stipulations of the covenant.” But the gospel teaches the opposite order: Victory is the gift of grace through faith (1 Cor. 15:57), and obedience flows from that victory (Rom. 6:14–18). The Israelites fought to earn victory under the old system; the Christian fights from a position of victory already secured by Christ.

The repeated allusions to “faithfulness” as the means to “secure” divine favor reveal the ongoing tension in Adventist theology between grace and performance. It’s not that the lesson denies grace; it’s that grace is still framed as empowerment to keep the law rather than the unmerited favor that saves and transforms.

Even worse, the lesson uses corporate guilt theology to imply that one believer’s hidden sin could cause communal defeat, mirroring Adventism’s long-standing obsession with “purity” and “investigative judgment.” This mindset often breeds spiritual paranoia instead of gospel assurance.

🕊️ FAP Theological Conclusion

The true “enemy within” is not merely personal failure or moral compromise, but the human heart apart from the gospel (Jer. 17:9). The law exposes the problem, but only the cross cures it. Unlike Joshua, who uncovered sin by tribal lot, Christ bore our sin by divine grace. In the New Covenant, God no longer relates to His people through collective punishment but through individual justification in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

Adventism’s covenant framework collapses the Old and New into one continuous legal system, turning the church into “spiritual Israel” still under conditional terms of blessing. But the New Covenant declares:

“Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb. 10:17)

That’s not the language of probation, it’s the promise of finished redemption.

The real takeaway from Achan’s story is not “keep the covenant or you’ll lose the battle,” but “trust the God who provided the true Joshua (Jesus) who wins every battle on our behalf.”

💬 Reflection for Former Adventists

If you’ve left Adventism, this lesson may feel like déjà vu, a subtle guilt trip wrapped in moral language. It reminds you of that old feeling: “If I fail, the whole community suffers.” But Christ already carried that communal guilt on His shoulders.

The gospel frees you to face the “enemy within” not with fear of exclusion, but with faith in redemption. The Holy Spirit convicts not to condemn but to conform you to Christ. Unlike the old Joshua who judged Achan, our greater Joshua took Achan’s place.

So, when the SDA quarterly warns, “Be faithful or you’ll lose the inheritance,” remember what Peter actually says:

“An inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that does not fade away, kept in heaven for you… guarded by God’s power through faith.” (1 Pet. 1:4–5)

You’re not maintaining your salvation by obedience; you’re walking in obedience because salvation is already secured.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

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

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

FAP Sunday School Lesson for November 2, 2025 — “The Heart of Prayer” Focus Passage: Genesis 18:16–33

Opening Prayer

 Lord, open our hearts to understand what true intercession means. Teach us to pray with compassion, as Abraham did. Amen.

 Scripture Reading

 Genesis 18:16–33 – Abraham intercedes for Sodom.

“The men got up from there and looked out over Sodom, and Abraham was walking with them to see them off. Then the LORD said, “Should I hide what I am about to do from Abraham? Abraham is to become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him so that he will command his children and his house after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just. This is how the LORD will fulfill to Abraham what he promised him.” Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.” The men turned from there and went toward Sodom while Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Abraham stepped forward and said, “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away instead of sparing the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people who are in it? You could not possibly do such a thing: to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. You could not possibly do that! Won’t the Judge of the whole earth do what is just? ” The LORD said, 'If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham answered, “Since I have ventured to speak to my lord ​— ​even though I am dust and ashes ​— ​ suppose the fifty righteous lack five. Will you destroy the whole city for the lack of five? ” He replied, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Then he spoke to him again, “Suppose forty are found there? ” He answered, “I will not do it on account of forty.” Then he said, “Let my lord not be angry, and I will speak further. Suppose thirty are found there? ” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” Then he said, “Since I have ventured to speak to my lord, suppose twenty are found there? ” He replied, “I will not destroy it on account of twenty.” Then he said, “Let my lord not be angry, and I will speak one more time. Suppose ten are found there? ” He answered, “I will not destroy it on account of ten.” When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he departed, and Abraham returned to his place.” Genesis 18:16-33 (CSB)

 Teaching Points

 1. Prayer is Fellowship Before it is Request

Before we ask anything from God, prayer is first and foremost fellowship, a sacred conversation between Creator and creature, Father and child, Shepherd and sheep. It’s not just about presenting needs; it’s about drawing near.

Abraham’s example is striking. In Genesis 18, Abraham didn’t approach God with a shopping list. He stood before the Lord and spoke with Him as a friend. He reasoned, listened, and interceded not from entitlement, but from relationship.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25) That wasn’t arrogance; it was intimacy. Abraham knew God’s heart, and God welcomed his voice.

God desires partnership, not just petitions. Prayer is where we align our hearts with His. It’s where we pause, listen, and say, “Lord, what are You doing and how can I walk with You in it?” Jesus modeled this in John 15:15:

“I no longer call you servants… I have called you friends, for everything I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

So before we ask, we abide. Before we plead, we pause. Before we seek answers, we seek Him.

This truth is powerful for former Adventists and seekers alike. Many have been taught to pray out of duty or fear. But here, we remind them: prayer is not a transaction, it’s a relationship. And in that relationship, God doesn’t just hear us, He walks with us.

2. Prayer Aligns Our Heart with God’s Justice and Mercy

Prayer is not just about expressing our desires; it’s about allowing our hearts to be shaped by God's own character. When we pray, we don’t just speak to God; we begin to think with God. We enter into His heart where justice and mercy meet.

Abraham’s intercession for Sodom is a powerful example. In Genesis 18, Abraham didn’t plead for personal gain. He stood before the Lord and asked, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” (Genesis 18:23). His concern wasn’t just for Lot; it was for justice, for mercy, for the possibility that even a few righteous lives might spare a city.

But notice: Abraham didn’t argue against God’s holiness. He aligned himself with it. He didn’t demand mercy at the expense of justice; he appealed to both.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25)

This is the heart of true prayer. It’s not manipulation, it’s participation. God invites us to wrestle, to reason, to intercede. And in doing so, our hearts begin to reflect His own:

• A heart that grieves over sin

• A heart that longs for redemption

• A heart that hopes for mercy even in judgment

Prayer is where we learn to care about what God cares about. It’s where we stop asking, “Lord, bless my plans,” and start praying, “Lord, align me with Yours.” It’s where we stop seeing people as enemies and start seeing them as souls God longs to redeem.

Many former Adventists carry wounds, some from harsh judgment, others from theological confusion. But here, you can remind them: prayer is not just a lifeline, it’s a heart-shaping grace. It teaches us to love what God loves, to plead for mercy without compromising truth, and to walk humbly with the Judge who is also our Redeemer.

3. Persistent Intercession Reveals Compassion 

True prayer is not just about asking once and walking away; it’s about staying, pleading, and caring deeply. When we intercede persistently, we reflect the heart of God Himself: patient, merciful, and unwilling to give up on people.

Abraham’s example in Genesis 18 is striking. He didn’t stop at one request. He kept returning:

“What if there are fifty righteous? Forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten?” Each appeal was not a negotiation; it was compassion in action. Abraham wasn’t trying to change God’s mind; he was revealing a heart aligned with God’s mercy. He cared enough to keep praying.

This is the mark of a true disciple. Real disciples don’t just pray for convenience; they intercede because they love. They stand in the gap for others, even when the situation looks hopeless.

• Moses pleaded for Israel after the golden calf (Exodus 32:11–14)

• Paul said he had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” for his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:2–3)

• Jesus wept over Jerusalem and prayed even for His enemies (Luke 19:41; Luke 23:34)

Persistent prayer is not weakness; it’s love refusing to quit. It’s the kind of prayer that says, “Lord, I know You are just, but I also know You are merciful. And I will keep asking not because I doubt You, but because I trust Your heart.”

This truth is powerful for those who feel weary or unheard. You can remind them: God is not annoyed by repeated prayers; He is moved by them. And when we persist in intercession, we are not just praying for others, we are learning to love them as God does.

Discussion

1. How does Abraham’s example show the balance between God’s holiness and mercy? 

2. Who should we intercede for today?

 
Summary & Closing Prayer
Prayer is about sharing God’s heart. Lord, make us intercessors who carry Your compassion for

 the world. Amen.

“Sabbatismos = Saturday? Inside an SDA Apologist’s Take on Hebrews 4:9”

Hebrews 3–4 is primarily warning about unbelief and calling people into God’s eschatological rest. The single NT hapax σαββατισμός (sabbatismos) must be read in that paragraph’s flow; it does not force the meaning “literal weekly Sabbath-keeping” as a single, unambiguous doctrinal conclusion. Lexica (BDAG, Liddell-Scott) may list “Sabbath-observance” as one gloss, but a lexical gloss ≠ exegetical verdict. Context decides. When you read Hebrews in its grammar, literary shape, and theological purpose, sabbatismos functions as a theological figure of entrance into God’s rest (an eschatological reality), not simply a liturgical command to keep Saturday.

1) Begin with the lexicon: hapax + context

• σαββατισμός is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament (occurs only in Heb 4:9). That fact cautions us against building major doctrine on the word alone.

• BDAG and Liddell-Scott may render it “Sabbath-observance” or “keeping of a Sabbath.” That is a possible lexical meaning, not an exegetical ruling. The author of Hebrews intentionally uses a rare term. Why? The immediate argument, not dictionary entries, should answer that.

If a single lexical gloss settled doctrine, why did inspired authors often choose unusual words that require interpretation rather than blunt legal commands?

2) Read Hebrews 3–4 as a rhetorical unit (historico-grammatical)

• Hebrews 3–4 runs this argument: Psalm 95 warns Israel for their unbelief in the wilderness (didn’t enter God’s rest). The author applies that warning to his readers: don’t repeat their unbelief; enter the rest that still remains.

• The key semantic cluster: παρακαλέω/φοβηθῆτε/εἰσέλθῃτε call to faith and obedience. The point is pastoral and soteriological, not liturgical scheduling.

Therefore, σαββατισμός sits inside a warning about unbelief and perseverance, not inside an instruction manual about weekly worship logistics.

3) Two Greek words for “rest” don’t collapse them

Hebrews uses two related but distinct words:

• κατάπαυσις (katapausis) — general rest; the reality of entering God’s rest.

• σαββατισμός (sabbatismos) — the hapax term.

Some read v.9 as: “There remains therefore a Sabbath-observance for the people of God,” and convert that into “you must keep the weekly Sabbath.” But note the flow: the author moves from the reality of God’s rest (katapausis) to the remaining availability of that rest. The sabbatismos is best understood as the manifest, covenantal way God’s rest is signified and still available, not necessarily a legal prescription about the Saturday meeting schedule.

Analogy: If I say “there remains a feast for God’s people,” in context, that could mean a final banquet to enter, not an instruction about which tablecloth to use every Thursday.

4) Semantic caution on “Sabbath” language (Hebrew/Gk nuance)

• Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 are important: creation language anchors Sabbath theology. But creation origin ≠ an automatic universal legal application in every context. Biblical authors often cite creation as the theological root for later covenant commands (e.g., marriage), but the later application (how that institution functions within covenant life) is shaped by further revelation. Moses himself in Exodus frames the Sabbath for Israel (a sign, covenant marker).

• On Hebrew specifics: Be careful drawing rigid dichotomies from single verbal forms. The Old Testament uses several words and idioms to speak of God’s rest and human rest; the canonical theology must weigh uses across the corpus.

If Jesus and the apostles repeatedly root moral truth in creation, does that automatically make every ceremonial expression of Israel universal and unmodified for every age? Or does the New Testament reform how old institutions point us to Christ?

5) The author’s theological aim: eschatological rest, faith, and entering

Hebrews is preoccupied with entrance into promised rest (eschatological, realized/anticipated), and the moral corollary: persevere in faith; do not harden your heart. The weekly Sabbath can be one way a community shows this rest, but the thrust of the chapter is spiritual: rest in God’s finished work and perseverant faith, not ritual maintenance.

If the author meant “obligatory weekly Sabbath observance” as the point, why the extended wilderness-Israel typology and the pastoral admonition against unbelief? The chapter’s pastoral goal would be served more simply by a legal injunction; Hebrews is not structured like a code.

6) Colossians 2 and “shadows” don’t make the verses contradict

Some defenders insist that Hebrews affirms the literal Sabbath while Paul (Col 2:16–17) removes it as a binding norm. Those positions can be reconciled by careful exegesis: Colossians combats liturgical, legalistic rules (food laws, festival calendars, ceremonial sabbaths). Hebrews addresses faith-rest. The theological point: some Old Testament observances were typological and fulfilled in Christ; the creation-rooted pattern of rest is referred to in Hebrews as the pattern God intends for his people to enter by faith. That doesn’t force a simple “abolished vs. perpetual” either/or.

Which is a safer hermeneutic: forcing every NT text into a single liturgical program, or reading each book by its theological purpose and then harmonizing?

Appeal to early church writers complicated evidence, not support for a single practice

You cited Justin Martyr and the Apostolic Constitutions as if they settled the matter. But early church practice was diverse: many Christians honored both the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in the second century; others increasingly emphasized the Lord’s Day (Sunday) as the primary weekly assembly. The existence of later texts that pair Sabbath and Lord’s Day shows development and diversity, not uniform proof that Hebrews mandates Saturday-keeping for all Christians in every era.

Finding both black and white garments in old closets doesn’t prove everyone preferred black; it shows historical variety.

8) Use of SDA sources (Ministry, SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen White), they help but don’t settle the exegetical question for non-SDA readers

Many SDA theologians do read Hebrews 4 as support for Sabbath continuity and point to Ellen White’s language that the Sabbath points to Christ. That’s a coherent SDA theological posture. But several SDA commentaries and articles (including careful treatments in the SDA Bible Commentary and various scholarly critiques) admit Hebrews’ primary emphasis is eschatological rest and warn against reducing the chapter to simply “keep Saturday.” In short, SDA secondary sources contain nuance and plural readings; they do not provide a monolithic exegetical proof that sabbatismos = binding weekly law for all Christians.

SDA sources like Ministry magazine, the SDA Bible Commentary, and Ellen White’s writings affirm the theological value of the Sabbath, but they also acknowledge that Hebrews 4 primarily emphasizes eschatological rest—not merely a command to “keep Saturday.” These sources offer theological coherence for Adventists but do not provide a unanimous or unambiguous exegetical conclusion for all readers.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown with actual quotes and references:

Ministry Magazine (August 2024): Hebrews 4:9 Yes, It Is a Key Text

In a recent Ministry article, the author affirms the significance of Hebrews 4:9 for Adventist theology but also acknowledges the broader context of the epistle:

“The ancient prophetic revelation, ceremonies, priesthood, and covenants have been superseded by new and better things: the revelation of the Son, the divine sacrifice, the heavenly priesthood and sanctuary, and the new covenant. In contrast to all this, one Jewish practice endures: the Sabbath” Ministry Magazine.

Yet the article also notes that:

“Even some Adventists took the position that sabbatismos in Hebrews 4:9 does not refer to the seventh-day Sabbath per se, but to a broader, spiritual rest.”

This demonstrates that within SDA scholarship, there is a recognition of sabbatismos as a theological symbol of rest in Christ, not merely a command to observe a literal Saturday Sabbath. 

SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 7 (on Hebrews 4:9, 11)

Ellen White’s commentary, as included in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, offers a spiritualized interpretation of the rest in Hebrews 4:

“The rest here spoken of is the rest of grace, obtained by following the prescription, Labor diligently. Those who learn of Jesus His meekness and lowliness find rest in the experience of practicing His lessons” (7BC, p. 928.6) Ellen G. White Writings.

This aligns with the eschatological and spiritual rest motif of Hebrews 4, rather than a direct command to observe the weekly Sabbath. The commentary continues:

“It is not in indolence, in selfish ease and pleasure-seeking, that rest is obtained... Only from earnest labor comes peace and joy in the Holy Spirit—happiness on earth and glory hereafter” (7BC, p. 928.7).

Thus, even Ellen White’s remarks while affirming the Sabbath’s spiritual value do not reduce Hebrews 4 to a legalistic command to keep Saturday.

Ellen White’s Broader Writings

Ellen White consistently presents the Sabbath as a symbol pointing to Christ:

“The Sabbath calls our thoughts to nature, and brings us into communion with the Creator... It points to Him as both the Creator and the Sanctifier” (The Desire of Ages, p. 281).

But she also affirms that:

“The rest of faith is found when all self-justification is renounced, and the soul rests entirely upon Christ” (Faith and Works, p. 36).

This reinforces the idea that Sabbath rest, in its fullest sense, is not merely about a day but about a relationship with Christ.

Exegetical Implications

The Greek term sabbatismos (Hebrews 4:9) is used only once in the New Testament. While Adventist scholars often interpret it as supporting Sabbath continuity, even respected SDA sources admit the term’s primary referent is spiritual rest in Christ. The Complete Word Study Dictionary notes:

“In the NT used only of an eternal rest with God (Hebrews 4:9)... the Sabbath was instituted as a symbol of that eternal rest” in-him.com.

Given this diversity within SDA scholarship, it is intellectually dishonest to quote these sources as if they offer a unanimous, unambiguous interpretation that Hebrews 4 mandates Saturday observance for all Christians. If even the Ministry and the SDA Bible Commentary acknowledge eschatological and spiritual dimensions, then selective proof-texting misrepresents the Adventist scholarly tradition.

A fair dialogue must reflect the nuance and plurality within one’s own tradition. As I rightly imply, if this SDA defender's own reference works include caveats and nuance, is it honest to quote them selectively as if they are unanimous? The answer is no. This simply demonstrates that the SDA defenders' claim that sabbatismos always refers to the weekly seventh-day Sabbath is merely one among several interpretations held within the SDA community. It does not represent the official or final doctrinal position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but rather reflects his personal theological opinion.

9) Logical fallacy to avoid: proof-texting a hapax

Constructing a major doctrine by isolating one rare word in one epistle and reading it outside the book’s rhetorical aim is classic proof-texting. The better method is grammatical-historical reading of the flow, intertextual relationships (Genesis–Exodus–Hebrews), and canonical purpose. The author of Hebrews writes to call persecuted, wavering believers to perseverance in faith; that pastoral aim shapes his vocabulary.

Reduce to absurdity: If every rare word became decisive, legal systems would be rebuilt on a single dictionary entry of chaos.

10) Practical pastoral conclusion

• Affirm: Sabbath language in Scripture is serious; creation and covenant are real anchors. The Sabbath points to God’s order and to the Creator-Redeemer.

• Caution: Hebrews 3–4 should not be pressed into a narrow legalistic proof for Saturday-obsession. The chapter’s pastoral heart is faithful perseverance into God’s rest in Christ.

• Pastoral posture: Christians who keep Saturday as a meaningful sign of God’s creational and redemptive work should be humble and careful not to claim Hebrews as an airtight legal warrant that excludes other faithful practices. Christians who do not keep Saturday should not weaponize Hebrews to erase the chapter’s call to enter God’s rest.

Do we want Hebrews to make people proud about a day or humble about entering God’s rest by faith? Which better serves the book’s pastoral plea?

---

Former Adventists Philippines

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

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

FAP Sunday Service: "Remembering the Dead, Redeeming the Living" Pastor Ronald Obidos

The Investigative Judgment: When a Doctrine Collapses Under Its Own Weight

Let’s be honest, this image says it all. The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment (IJ) doesn’t just strain biblical theology; it collapses under the sheer weight of its own absurdity.

According to SDA teaching, since 1844, Jesus has been conducting a heavenly “audit” reviewing the records of every person who has ever lived to determine who’s truly saved. The image rightly asks the obvious question: If God is reviewing the lives of all 120 billion people who’ve lived, how long would that actually take?

If the judgment took just one minute per person, that’s 228,000 years. Even at one second per person, that’s still 3,805 years, and that’s not even counting the people born since the calculation was made!

Now pause for a second. If God is truly omniscient, meaning He knows everything instantly, do we really believe He needs thousands of years to “review files” like some celestial bureaucrat?

The Biblical Problem

The Investigative Judgment was invented by early Adventists after their failed 1844 prophecy, the “Great Disappointment.” When Jesus didn’t return as predicted, they needed an explanation. So they reinterpreted Daniel 8:14 (“Unto two thousand three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”) to mean that Christ entered a new phase of ministry, moving from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in heaven to start examining human records.

But here’s the issue:

• Hebrews 9:12 says Christ already entered once for all into the Most Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption. Not “will enter,” not “began entering in 1844,” but already did.

• John 5:24 says, “Whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be judged but has passed from death to life.”

So how can a believer “not come into judgment” (Greek: krisis) if they are supposedly still under a heavenly audit?

Logical Breakdown

Let’s use a simple analogy. Imagine a teacher who says, “You passed the final exam!” Then she spends 180 years reviewing every test answer to confirm it. That’s not assurance, that’s insecurity.

The SDA idea of God needing thousands of years to review human records is like saying the all-knowing Creator runs on a dial-up internet connection. How can the omniscient God who numbers the hairs on your head (Luke 12:7) need celestial record books to verify who’s faithful?

What the Bible Actually Teaches

Judgment in Scripture isn’t a process of information gathering; it’s a declaration of verdict.

• Acts 17:31 — God “has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has appointed.”

• Romans 8:1 — “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

• Hebrews 10:14 — “By one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

The cross was the investigative judgment once and for all. There’s no need for a cosmic spreadsheet review.

The Real Good News

When Jesus cried, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He wasn’t saying, “Phase one complete, phase two begins in 1844.” He was declaring that redemption’s work was done. The believer’s judgment already took place at Calvary. Christ bore it all.

Final Thoughts

This meme exposes the theological flaw of the SDA system better than any debate could. If your doctrine makes the all-knowing God look like He needs a calculator and 200,000 years to finish a judgment, then maybe just maybe the problem isn’t with Scripture but with the interpretation.

Salvation isn’t under review; it’s already secured in Christ. Stop auditing grace. Start resting in it.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” — Ephesians 2:8

Prayer Meeting: Becoming a True Disciple Matthew 5:13-16 Ptr. Romeo Ramoran

Debunking the Claim: “Sunday Worship Emerged from Apostasy”

The assertion that Sunday worship was a second-century apostasy born of anti-Judaism, Roman sun cults, and the growing authority of the Church of Rome sounds plausible to the modern ear only when history is flattened and context ignored. When we turn to the primary sources of early Christianity and the testimony of respected historians like Everett Ferguson, the theory crumbles under its own weight. Sunday worship, far from being a deviation, was a natural continuation of apostolic practice rooted in the resurrection of Christ, the event that transformed history itself.

1. Was Sunday worship born out of anti-Judaism?

If the first Christians were Jews, and indeed they were, then why would they deliberately adopt a new day of worship merely to spite their own people? Would fishermen from Galilee, tax collectors, and tentmakers suddenly replace a divine commandment just to differentiate themselves from their kin?

Early Christians did not abandon the Sabbath because of hostility toward Jews, but because the resurrection of Christ gave new theological meaning to time itself. Sunday became known as “the Lord’s Day” (Kyriake hemera), not “the anti-Jewish day.”

As Everett Ferguson notes in his Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (2nd ed., Routledge, 2013, pp. 1007–1008), early Christian worship on Sunday “was a memorial of the resurrection and not a rejection of the Sabbath.” Ferguson further explains that “the first day of the week held significance already in the apostolic era,” citing Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, where believers gathered and gave offerings on that day.

Consider Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107), who wrote to the Magnesians (9:1):

“If those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again through Him...”

Is Ignatius here expressing anti-Jewish sentiment? Or is he proclaiming the resurrection as the dawn of a new creation? The difference is theological, not ethnic. Sunday was not a protest against Judaism; it was a celebration of Christ’s victory over death.

2. Did the Roman sun cult influence Christian Sunday worship?

It is often claimed that since the Romans honored the Sun on “dies Solis” (the day of the sun), Christians merely baptized a pagan custom. But this is a case of confusing coincidence with causation. Does the fact that both the Romans and Christians used the same day mean one copied the other? To argue so is like saying that because both the U.S. and France celebrate holidays on a “Monday,” one borrowed the calendar from the other.

The worship of the sun god was widespread, but the Christian observance of the first day is recorded before the cult of Sol Invictus became prominent. For instance, Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) wrote in his First Apology (67):

“We all hold our common assembly on the day of the Sun, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.”

Notice Justin’s reasoning: creation and resurrection, not solar veneration. The sun cult explanation ignores this double symbolism. If Christians were adopting pagan worship, why would they fill their assemblies with readings from the Hebrew Scriptures, psalms, and Eucharist, all centered on the risen Christ and none on Helios or Mithras?

As Ferguson and other scholars such as Robert L. Wilken (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Yale University Press, 1984) point out, the early church’s Sunday observance was theological, not syncretistic. The resemblance of terminology (“day of the sun”) was linguistic convenience, not doctrinal corruption.

3. Was the change driven by the authority of the Roman Church?

If Rome had unilaterally changed the day of worship, wouldn’t we see fierce resistance from Eastern churches like Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, known for their independence? Yet all these communities, as the record shows, worshiped on Sunday well before Rome’s influence was dominant.

The Didache (late first century) already instructs Christians:

“On the Lord’s own day, gather together and break bread…” (Didache 14:1)

That text predates any centralized Roman ecclesiastical authority. Likewise, Bardaisan of Edessa (early 2nd century, in Mesopotamia far from Rome) mentions Christians observing Sunday. The universality of the practice across languages, cultures, and distances suggests not Roman coercion but apostolic origin.

Would all these geographically scattered believers, speaking Greek, Syriac, and Latin, spontaneously agree to shift their day of worship without communication or controversy? Only if they shared a common apostolic tradition, the memory of the day Christ rose.

4. The Theological Fulfillment of the Sabbath

To understand early Christian Sunday worship, one must grasp its continuity with, not its replacement of, the Sabbath. The Sabbath looked back to God’s rest in creation; the Lord’s Day looked forward to God’s rest in the new creation. The Sabbath was the shadow; Sunday was the day of Christ's resurrection, the substance (cf. Colossians 2:16–17).

Thus, Sunday was not a different day of the week to replace Saturday; it was a different dimension of meaning, the beginning of the “eighth day”, symbolizing eternal life. As the Epistle of Barnabas (15:9) puts it:

“We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”

Is it apostasy to celebrate the fulfillment of what the Sabbath foreshadowed? Or is it fidelity to the divine story that began in Genesis and culminated in the empty tomb?

Conclusion: Sunday Worship is a Continuity, Not Corruption

When all the evidence is laid bare, the claim that Sunday worship was a second-century apostasy collapses. The earliest Christian writings, spanning continents and cultures, consistently show that believers gathered on the first day of the week not because of Roman influence, anti-Jewish sentiment, or pagan assimilation, but because on that day, Christ rose and time itself was reborn.

Sunday worship is not the mark of apostasy; it is the memorial of resurrection. To call it otherwise is to misunderstand both history and theology, mistaking the sunrise for the Son itself.

---

References

• Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2013), pp. 1007–1008.

• Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 9:1–2.

• Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.

• Didache 14:1.

• Epistle of Barnabas 15:9.

• Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Yale University Press, 1984).

---

Former Adventists Philippines

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

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES (FAP) One-Page Manifesto of Faith, Freedom, and Fellowship

We, the members of the Former Adventists Philippines (FAP), affirm before God and man that our fellowship stands not as a new church, but as a movement of grace, truth, and restoration for those who have come out of the bondage of Adventism and into the freedom of the Gospel of Christ.

1. FAP IS A FELLOWSHIP, NOT A CHURCH

FAP is not a new denomination. It is a sanctuary, a refuge for healing, and a family of restoration. We exist to provide peace, clarity, and biblical truth to those who have left the SDA Church. We do not claim ecclesiastical authority over any church.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.” — Galatians 5:1

2. MEMBERSHIP IS PERSONAL, NOT POLITICAL

Our membership is an individual decision of conscience. No pressure, no persuasion, no political agenda, just honest fellowship. Being part of FAP does not mean representing any church or denomination. It is simply a public testimony that we stand for biblical truth, not institutional control.

3. FAP EXISTS FOR RESTORATION, NOT REBELLION

We are not enemies of people, but witnesses to the truth. FAP was founded to bring healing from religious legalism and freedom in Christ, not to attack individuals or organizations. We reject bitterness, and we choose to live by grace.

“The truth will set you free.” — John 8:32

4. FAP RESPECTS CHURCH AUTONOMY

Every church stands accountable to God alone. FAP does not interfere with church affairs, nor does any church govern FAP. Partnerships are voluntary, mutual, and rooted in love, not control.

5. FAP TEACHES TRUTH, NOT TRADITION

Our programs focus on biblical discipleship, apologetics, and gospel-centered theology. We train believers to know Christ deeply and defend the faith clearly. But every church has the freedom to decide how to apply what it learn.

6. FAP IS GOVERNED BY INTEGRITY

FAP has a duly organized body and operates transparently, legally, financially, and spiritually. No denomination funds, directs, or manipulates this fellowship. We answer to God, the Scriptures, and the collective conscience of our members.

7. OUR MISSION

We exist to bring former Adventists into the joy of the New Covenant to rediscover the gospel of grace, live under the law of Christ, and proclaim salvation by faith alone. We are not defined by what we leave behind, but by who we follow. Our loyalty is not to a denomination, but to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church.

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.” — Romans 8:2

OUR DECLARATION

We, the Former Adventists Philippines, will never again be bound by the yoke of religious slavery. We are free, forgiven, and firm in the faith, walking together as one family under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

FAP — Not a Church, but a Fellowship of Freedom.

Not a Denomination, but a Declaration of Grace.

Not a Movement of Men, but a Mission of God.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

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

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

“Never Say I Am Saved?” — Bible vs. Ellen G. White Part 1

FAP Sunday Service Online | October 26, 2025