Investigating Ellen G. White #6: "The Prophet’s Wrath: Kapag Tinuligsa ang “Propeta,” Galit ng Diyos Ba o Galit ng Tao?" [Taglish]

Ang artikulong ito tungkol sa “The Prophet’s Wrath” ay tumama talaga sa puso ko. Bakit? Kasi kitang-kita dito yung pattern ng reaksyon ni Ellen G. White (EGW) sa mga tumutuligsa sa kanyang mga “visions.” Ang tanong: kapag ba may kumontra sa kanya, nararanasan nila ang galit ng Diyos—o baka galit lang ng tao na nakabalot sa relihiyosong authority?

Sa blog na ito, titingnan natin ang ilang kwento mula sa history ng SDA, at susuriin ito gamit ang Biblia at kasaysayan ng SDA church.

Ang Pattern ng Pagtutol at Paghihiganti

Kapag may tumutuligsa kay EGW mula sa loob ng SDA church, madalas nagbabago ang tono niya: mula sa papuri → biglang pagkondena.

Example #1: Moses Hull (1862)

Isa siyang pioneer ng Adventism na nagsimulang magduda sa doktrina. Sinubukan pa siyang kausapin ng mag-asawang White. Pero nang hindi siya natinag, binantaan siya ni EGW:

“If you proceed in the way you have started, misery and woe are before you. God’s hand will arrest you… His wrath will not slumber.” [1]

Pero guess what? Hindi siya natakot. Umalis siya sa SDA dahil sabi niya, “outgrown na niya ito”—at namuhay siya ng mahaba, payapa, at walang dumating na hinulaan na kapahamakan.[2]

Tanong: kung totoong propesiya iyon, bakit hindi natupad? Sa New Covenant lens, parang Old Testament ang dating ng banta, pero kulang sa humility na ipinakita ni Cristo nang umiyak Siya para sa Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44), imbes na magmalaki sa personal na galit.

Example #2: Charles Lee (1860s)

Nagdasal sila para kay C. Carlstedt, na may sakit. Sabi ni EGW, gagaling siya kasi nandoon ang “restoring power” ng Diyos. Pero ilang araw lang, namatay si Carlstedt.

Nang magpahayag ng duda si Lee, agad siyang sinabihan ni EGW na siya raw ay “under the influence of devils.” [3]

Hindi ba parang convenient na label yun? Imbis na sagutin ang duda sa pamamagitan ng Biblia, mabilis niyang ginamit ang “spiritual warfare rhetoric” para patahimikin ang kritiko. Pero ayon sa Deut. 18:22, kapag hindi natupad ang propesiya, hindi iyon galing sa Diyos.

Example #3: Snook & Brinkerhoff (1860s)

Noong 1861, pinuri ni EGW ang pamilya Snook, calling their home a “good home.”[4] Pero noong 1865, nang hindi nila matanggap ang kanyang visions at naglabas sila ng libro na pumupuna sa kanya, bigla silang tinawag na unconverted, walang prinsipyo, at naging “bitterest enemy” ng SDA.[5][6]

Kita niyo yung shift? From “good home” → “enemy of the church.”

Mga High-Profile na Kaso

D.M. Canright (1880s)

25 taon siyang SDA leader, pero nag-struggle sa konsensya niya. Sa isang liham noong 1880, binalaan siya ni EGW na magiging “Satan’s special agent” kung aalis siya.[9]

Pero after EGW’s death, inilathala ni Canright ang Life of Mrs. E.G. White (1919), exposing deception.[10] Hanggang ngayon, pinapaitim pa rin ng SDA ang pangalan niya. Pero tanong: kung kaya niyang magsinungaling, bakit ang daming specific details ang tumugma sa historical record?

A.T. Jones (1906)

Dati siyang “Lord’s messenger” ayon kay EGW, halos 200+ beses niya itong sinabi.[12] Pero nang magtanong si Jones tungkol sa credibility ng kanyang testimonies, bigla na lang siyang “weighed in the balance and found wanting.” [13] [14]

So… “messenger of the Lord” kapag agree, “apostate” kapag hindi. Ano ulit sabi ni Isaiah 1:18? “Come now, let us reason together.”

Albion Ballenger (1905)

Nag-aral siya ng book of Hebrews, at na-realize niya na hindi suportado ng Biblia ang SDA sanctuary doctrine. Sumulat siya kay EGW. Pero imbes na magbigay ng biblical defense, sinabi niya na si Ballenger ay pinamumunuan ng “Satanic agencies.” [15][16]

Irony? Namatay siyang faithful Christian, ayon mismo sa testimonya ng anak niya.[17]

Makikita mo ang pattern:

* Sumang-ayon ka kay EGW → faithful servant ka.

* Kumontra ka → “under devils” ka.

* Umalis ka → “doomed” ka na.

Ang Espiritu ng Diyos ang sumusulat ng batas sa ating puso (Jer. 31:33). Hindi ito nakasalalay sa isang modern-day prophet na gumamit ng takot para kontrolin ang katapatan ng tao. Kaya malinaw: ang galit ni EGW ay galit ng tao, hindi galit ng Diyos.

Conclusion

Mga kapatid, ang tunay na prophecy ay nagtatayo, hindi naninira (1 Cor. 14:3). Ang tunay na prophet ay nagtuturo pabalik kay Cristo, hindi humihingi ng blind loyalty sa kanyang sarili.

Kaya ang tanong para sa atin: pagharap natin sa Diyos, si Ellen White ba ang magiging tagapamagitan natin—o si Cristo lamang?

Kung nahihirapan ka magpasiya, tandaan: may kalayaan kay Cristo. Ang Kanyang biyaya ay hindi batay sa takot, kundi sa pag-ibig. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Notes

[1] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 430–43

[2] Moses Hull, “Why I Left Adventism,” Hope of Israel 1, no. 18 (September 7, 1864): 1.

[3] Charles Lee, Three Important Questions for Seventh-Day Adventists to Consider (Boston: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1876), 3.g

[4] Ellen G. White, An Appeal to the Youth (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864), 63–64.

[5] B.F. Snook and W.H. Brinkerhoff, The Visions of E.G. White Not of God (Marion, IA: Advent and Sabbath Advocate Office, 1866).

[6] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 625.

[7] E.W. Waters, “Letter to the Editor,” Hope of Israel 1, no. 22 (November 16, 1864): 1.

[8] Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 13 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), 346.

[9] Ellen G. White, Letter 1, 1880, in Notebook Leaflets from the Elmshaven Library (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1945), 73–75.

[10] D.M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1919), 144.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Robert K. Wieland and Donald K. Short, 1888 Re-Examined (Leominster, MA: Eusey Press, 1987), 17.

[13] Ellen G. White, Letter, July 3, 1906, J-242-’06, Kress Collection (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1906), 33.

[14] Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Messages (Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University Press, 1980), 276–277.

[15] Ellen G. White, Letter 329, 1905, in Selected Messages, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1958), 161–162.

[16] Ellen G. White, Manuscript 59, 1905, Manuscript Release #760 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1980), 4.

[17] H.F. Brown, “Personal Testimony, December 5, 1984,” in Ellen G. White—The Myth and the Truth, by Asmund Kaspersen (Oslo: Self-published, 1999), chap. 6.

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

"Hindi ba bunga ng kaligtasan ang pagsunod sa 10 utos?"

 

SDA Question:

“Biblical naman ang dietary law, Sabbath, at investigative judgment, bakit parang hindi na ito pinapansin ng iba dahil nasa grace na raw sila? Di ba ang pagsunod sa utos ay bunga ng pagmamahal sa Diyos, hindi pilitan? At kung tunay na may pananampalataya, dapat may bunga—dahil nasa proseso pa tayo ng sanctification.”

Answer:

Maganda yung punto mo kapatid, kasi malinaw na seryoso ka sa kabanalan at sa pagmamahal sa Diyos. Pero dito papasok ang masusing pag-unawa sa Biblical grace vs. SDA system.

Totoo hindi ibig sabihin ng biyaya ay license para magkasala. Paul already answered that: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” (Rom. 6:1–2). Pero tanong: ano ba ang batayan ng kabanalan, ang lumang kautusan, o ang bagong buhay kay Cristo?

Isipin mo ito: Kapag may driver’s license ka na, kailangan mo pa bang mag-practice ng bicycle rules sa barangay? Hindi, kasi ibang sistema na. Ganun din sa Christian life: “You are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Ang ibig sabihin, hindi ka bound sa Old Covenant ceremonial laws (dietary, sabbath, investigative judgment) para mapanatili ang salvation.

Oo, may justification, sanctification, glorification. Pero sa bawat hakbang na yan, kay Cristo nakasentro, hindi sa dietary law, hindi sa Sabbath keeping, hindi sa IJ. Ang danger kasi ng SDA system, imbes na ang sanctification ay bunga ng finished work of Christ, nagiging requirement siya para manatiling saved.

Tanong ko: Kung ang kaligtasan ay parang kuryente na may monthly bill (keep Sabbath, eat clean, survive the IJ), hindi na yan “free gift of God” (Rom. 6:23)?

At yung investigative judgment, saan mo makikita sa Bible na noong AD 1844 lang nagsimula si Jesus mag-check ng record books? Kung si Jesus mismo nagsabi “He who hears my word and believes has eternal life and will not come into judgment but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24), bakit pa tayo babalik sa isang doctrine na parang mas malakas pa kaysa sa assurance na binigay ni Cristo?

Tama ka: the faith that produces good works, yan ang tunay na sanctification. Pero iba ang faith that produces good works sa works that keep salvation. Kapag ang works na ang nagiging “insurance policy” mo, hindi na ‘yan grace.

So kapatid, hindi namin tinatanggihan ang holiness, obedience, at love. Ang punto lang: Ang kabanalan ay bunga, hindi kondisyon.

• Kumakain ka ng healthy food? Praise God, but don’t call it a requirement for salvation.

• Nagpapahinga ka sa isang araw? Okay lang, pero huwag gawing covenant sign.

• Nagtitiwala ka kay Cristo? Yan ang ebanghelyo.

Kaya tanong ko ulit: kung tunay na “His yoke is easy and His burden is light” (Matt. 11:30), bakit gagawin nating mas mabigat kaysa sa dinisenyo ni Jesus?

Paano binabaliktad ng SDA system yung tatlong stages ng salvation kumpara sa Biblical (Evangelical) view.

1. Justification

Biblical View:

• One-time act of God, declaring a sinner righteous because of Christ’s finished work.

• By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

• Assurance agad: “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

SDA View:

• Yes, they say “by grace through faith,” pero may hidden clause: dapat mag-keep ng Sabbath, sumunod sa health reform, at eventually dumaan sa Investigative Judgment.

• Parang sinasabing: “Justified ka na… but we’ll see later if you’ll stay justified.”

• Result: walang tunay na assurance.

Analogy: Para kang na-declare na “innocent” sa korte, pero sabi ng judge, “I’ll keep your case open, we’ll review it again later.” Justification ba talaga ‘yun?

---

Sanctification

Biblical View:

• Process ng paglago sa kabanalan bilang bunga ng justification.

• Works = evidence, not requirement.

• Ang Holy Spirit ang gumagawa ng transformation, hindi ang Old Covenant regulations.

SDA View:

• Sanctification becomes the condition to keep salvation.

• Ang obedience sa law (lalo Sabbath at diet) = test of loyalty.

• Investigative Judgment checks if you’re “holy enough” to pass.

• Kaya ang sanctification, imbes na bunga, nagiging burden.

Analogy: Parang relasyon ng mag-asawa.

Biblical sanctification = dahil mahal mo siya, nagbabago ka.

SDA sanctification = “Kung hindi ka magbago, divorce agad.”

---

3. Glorification

Biblical View:

• Guaranteed future for all who are in Christ.

• Resurrection and eternal life secured by Christ’s victory (Rom. 8:30).

• Hindi nakasalalay sa performance, kundi sa promise.

SDA View:

• Glorification is not guaranteed.

• Nakadepende kung papasa ka sa Investigative Judgment.

• Kaya kahit na justified ka “by faith,” may risk pa rin na ma-expose ang “record” mo at ma-reject ka.

Analogy: Para kang binigyan ng plane ticket to heaven, pero sabi ng airline: “Final check at the gate. If you don’t look good enough, we’ll cancel your seat.”

---

Summary

• Biblical salvation = It is finished → Assurance now → Good works flow naturally → Glorification secured.

• SDA salvation = It is probationary → Assurance impossible → Good works to prove worthy → Glorification uncertain.

---

Kaya kapatid, tanong ko: ano mas tunay na “Good News”?

• Yung Gospel na nagsasabing “Tapos na, secured ka na kay Cristo”?

• O yung gospel na nagsasabing “Tuloy ang trial, depende kung makapasa ka sa huli”?

---

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

"Pastor, sang-ayon po ba kayo kay Dr. Francis Beckwith na ang mga Adventists ay evangelical?"

Answer:

Kung tatanungin mo ako: Agree ba ako kay Dr. Francis Beckwith na evangelical ang mga Adventists? Sagot ko: hindi.

Bakit? Kasi kung titingnan mo, evangelical ang isang tao o grupo hindi lang dahil nagdadala sila ng Bible, nagbabanggit ng pangalan ni Jesus, o may moral na pamumuhay. Evangelical means nakaugat ka sa Ebanghelyo ng biyaya, yung simpleng katotohanan na tayo’y naliligtas kay Cristo lamang, sa biyaya lamang, sa pananampalataya lamang.

Eh ang problema, SDA theology—officially—hindi talaga aligned doon. Oo, sasabihin nila, “We believe in salvation by grace through faith.” Pero pagkatapos ng statement na ‘yan, idadagdag nila ang requirements: Sabbath-keeping, dietary laws, investigative judgment doctrine. Parang sinasabi nila: “Yes, grace saves… pero may dagdag checklist ka dapat tapusin.” Tanong ko: Evangelical pa ba ‘yun, kung binibigyan mo ng ibang kundisyon ang kaligtasan?

Isipin mo na lang: kung bumili ka ng isang iPhone, at sinabi sa’yo ng tindero, “₱50,000 lang po sir.” Tapos bigla siyang bumawi, “Ah, pero may ₱10,000 na hidden charge, kailangan para ma-unlock ang phone.” Ang tanong: mura pa rin ba? Hindi, kasi may dagdag. Ganyan din ang ebanghelyo na hinaluan ng SDA distinctives. Hindi na siya “Good News” kundi “Good News plus requirements.”

At kung evangelical ka talaga, hindi mo pwedeng ihalo ang Old Covenant requirements sa New Covenant gospel. Kaya nga sinabi ni Paul sa Galacia 1:8–9: “Kung may magturo ng ibang ebanghelyo, kahit kami o isang anghel, ay sumpain siya.” Mabigat, diba?

So, respectful ako kay Dr. Beckwith, pero hindi ko kayang tawagin ang Adventism na evangelical movement. May mga Adventist individuals na nakakakilala kay Cristo at nagkakaroon ng tunay na pananampalataya—oo, and by God’s grace, ligtas sila dahil kay Jesus, hindi dahil sa pagiging SDA. Pero as a system, hindi talaga evangelical ang Adventism.

Kaya kapatid, tanong ko rin sa’yo: kung may grupo na ang pundasyon ay hindi talaga ang purong ebanghelyo ni Cristo, tama bang tawagin silang evangelical? O mas tama bang sabihin, “They are religious, sincere, moral… pero they still need to be reformed by the true gospel of grace”?

Ikaw, gusto mo ba ng Gospel na may dagdag kondisyon, o yung Gospel na talagang “It is finished” sa krus ni Cristo?

Evangelical Gospel vs. SDA Gospel

---

Kung titignan mo, parang may “plus” palagi sa SDA system.

Parang may fine print—yung parang contract na may nakasulat na “Terms and Conditions Apply.” 😅

Kaya kung tanungin: Evangelical ba ang SDA movement? — Hindi.

Pero: May mga SDA ba na tunay na nakakaunawa ng grace at ligtas? — Oo, dahil sa biyaya ni Cristo, hindi dahil sa sistema ng Adventism.

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

“Paano malalaman kung ang Bible verse ay tungkol sa eternal life o Bema judgment?”

Answer:

Salamat kapatid, at happy 6th anniversary din sa ating Former Adventists Philippines ministry! Napaka-gandang tanong ‘yan, kasi madalas nalilito talaga ang mga tao kung alin ba ang tungkol sa eternal life at alin ba ang tungkol sa Bema Judgment.

Kapag binabasa natin ang isang passage, lagi nating tinitingnan kung ano ang immediate context, sino ang kausap ng author, at anong Greek words ang ginamit.

Eternal Life (ζωὴ αἰώνιος / zoē aiōnios)

Sa Greek, ang eternal life ay hindi lang basta buhay na walang hanggan sa haba, kundi quality of life—a life in fellowship with God. Kaya si John 17:3 malinaw: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

So, eternal life ay regalo ng Diyos by grace through faith in Christ (Efeso 2:8-9). Hindi ito reward, kundi gift.

Tanong: kung gift ito, may karapatan ba tayong ipagyabang na in-earn natin? Obviously, hindi. Kasi kung pinaghirapan mo, hindi na siya gift, kundi wage. Pero sabi ni Paul sa Roma 6:23, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.”

Bema Judgment (βῆμα / bēma)

Ngayon, ‘yung Bema seat—galing sa Greek na “bēma” na ibig sabihin “judgment seat” or “tribunal platform.” Sa 2 Corinto 5:10 at Roma 14:10–12, ito ay tumutukoy sa paghuhusga ng mga mananampalataya. Hindi ito para hatulan kung saved ka o hindi (kasi settled na ‘yan sa cross). Instead, ito ay evaluation ng works ng believers.

Think of it like Olympics noong time ni Paul. Ang “bēma” seat doon ay kung saan nakaupo ang judge para magbigay ng crowns (stephanos) sa mga nanalo. Hindi ito criminal court na nagdedeklara ng guilty or innocent, kundi awarding platform.

Eternal life is entry into the stadium (free ticket dahil kay Cristo). Pero Bema Judgment is the awarding ceremony pagkatapos ng laban. Ang tanong, tumakbo ka ba nang may katapatan?

Paano malalaman kung eternal life or Bema ang tinutukoy ng verse?

Simple principle:

• Kung ang passage ay tungkol sa justification, grace, faith in Christ, gift, or salvation from sin/death, iyon ay eternal life.

• Kung ang passage ay tungkol sa accountability, giving an account, rewards, crowns, fire-testing of works, iyon ay Bema Judgment.

Example:

• John 5:24 → eternal life (“whoever hears my word and believes…has eternal life”).

• 1 Corinto 3:12-15 → Bema Judgment (“the fire will test what sort of work each one has done”).

Sa New Covenant, eternal life is secured once and for all through Christ’s perfect obedience and sacrifice. Wala nang old covenant works-righteousness. Pero dahil saved ka na, ikaw ay tinawag para sa good works (Efeso 2:10). Dito pumapasok ang Bema—rewarding of faithfulness, not determining salvation.

Ang Bema Judgment sa context ng NT ay hindi lang future, kundi may immediate relevance din sa unang siglo. The destruction of Jerusalem AD 70 ay isang covenantal judgment. Pero, for the believer, ang final “appearing before Christ” ay eschatological at personal. Kaya hindi ito takot na parang mawawala ka, kundi accountability na parang anak sa ama.

---

So kapatid, isipin mo ito:

• Eternal life is about your relationship with God secured in Christ.

• Bema Judgment is about your responsibility bilang anak ng Diyos na may pananagutan sa ginawa mo sa katawan mo.

Kung magulang ka, tanong ko: kapag minahal mo ang anak mo, conditional ba ang pagmamahal mo? Kapag nagkamali siya, anak pa rin ba siya? Oo. Pero bilang tatay o nanay, may discipline at may reward base sa kanyang pagsunod. Ganoon din ang Diyos.

Kaya kapatid, huwag nating ikalito ang gift ng salvation sa reward ng faithfulness. Eternal life is secured. The Bema seat is serious, pero hindi ito nakakatakot—ito ay opportunity para marinig: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

“Three Beings or One God? The Truth About the Trinity vs. the Adventist Heavenly Trio!”

Let’s walk through this carefully, both biblically and theologically, because what we see here looks close to the truth but actually bends away from the historic Christian confession.

1. The Language Problem: “Three Beings”

The graphic says: 3 Persons, 3 Beings.

But biblically and historically, the doctrine of the Trinity is: One Being, Three Persons.

• The Greek word ousia means “essence” or “being.”

• The word hypostasis refers to “person” or “subsistence.”
  The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325, 381) was very careful to say God is “homoousios” (of the same essence), not three separate beings.

So, let me ask: If you have three beings, what do you really have? That’s not one God—that’s tritheism (belief in three gods). Isn’t this the very thing Israel was warned against in Deuteronomy 6:4? “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one (Hebrew: echad).”

2. The Historical Context

Ellen White in 1907 talked about the “heavenly trio.” But note: she never clarified her terms with the precision of the church fathers. That’s why this graphic reflects more of an Adventist re-interpretation of the Trinity rather than the historic Christian doctrine.

• The early church fought heresies like Arianism (Jesus as a created being) and Tritheism (three gods).

• What’s happening here? Adventists avoid Arianism but fall into Tritheism by calling God “three beings.”

It’s like fixing a flat tire on one side of your bike, but puncturing the other wheel in the process—you’re still not going to ride straight.

3. Greek & Hebrew Witness

• In John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
  
  
  The Greek says: kai theos ēn ho logos. It does not say “a god,” nor “one of three beings.” It declares the Word as fully God, yet distinct in personhood.

• In Isaiah 44:6, Yahweh says: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”
  If there are “three beings,” how does that square with Yahweh declaring He alone is God?

4. Logical Fallacy in the Diagram

Notice the logic in the chart:

• Father, Son, Spirit = “One in Mission.”
  
  
  But wait—does unity of mission equal unity of essence? That’s a fallacy.
  
  
  For example, three basketball players can have one mission—to win the championship—but they’re still three separate beings, not one being.
  
  
  If God is only “one in purpose,” then He is no different than a committee working in agreement. But Scripture does not present a committee God—it presents one eternal, indivisible Being who exists as three coequal Persons.

5. Pastoral Appeal

Here’s the heart of the matter: The Adventist “Heavenly Trio” sounds safe, but it subtly shifts God from being the One eternal essence in three persons, into three gods working together. And that changes the gospel itself.

If the Father, Son, and Spirit are not of one Being, how can the Son fully reveal the Father (John 14:9)? How can the Spirit truly be “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9)? And how can salvation be fully secured if our Redeemer is anything less than the one true God?

The Christian confession has always been: One God, Three Persons—Father, Son, and Spirit. Anything else either divides God into three or collapses Him into one (modalism). But Scripture preserves the tension perfectly: unity of essence, distinction of persons.

If Adventism’s “Heavenly Trio” is the truth, why does it look so different from what the early church fought, bled, and died to confess about the Trinity? Shouldn’t truth be the same yesterday, today, and forever?

The Rapture vs. The Second Coming: Untangling the Myth with Scripture

Every now and then, charts like the one above circulate online claiming there’s a big difference between the “rapture” and the “second coming” of Christ. They usually say things like: the rapture is secret, sudden, invisible, before the tribulation, while the second coming is visible, after the tribulation, and final. Sounds neat and tidy, right? But here’s the real question: is that what the Bible actually teaches—or is it a system forced onto the text?

Let’s walk through this together with open Bibles, historico-grammatical hermeneutics (reading the text in its original context), a little Greek and Hebrew help, and a lot of pastoral honesty.

---

1. The “Rapture” Text: Misreading 1 Thessalonians 4

The rapture chart begins with 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where believers are said to “meet the Lord in the air.” Many have been taught this means Jesus secretly “whisks away” the church before the tribulation. But hold up—let’s look closer.

The Greek word for “meet” here is apantēsis—a technical word used in the ancient world when citizens would go out to welcome a royal visitor and then escort him back into the city (see its use in Acts 28:15). In other words, Paul isn’t describing a secret escape plan, but a public royal welcome of the returning King!

Notice also, Paul says this happens with:

• “a loud command” (Greek: keleusma)

• “the voice of the archangel”

• “the trumpet of God” (1 Thess. 4:16)

Does that sound secret to you? Trumpets, shouts, angelic voices—if that’s “secret,” then my neighbor’s karaoke machine is stealth warfare.

---

2. Timing: Before or After Tribulation?

Rapture charts claim the church is removed “before the tribulation” (using 1 Thess. 5:9 and Rev. 3:10). But again, context is king.

• 1 Thess. 5:9 doesn’t say believers escape tribulation; it says we are not “destined for wrath.” God’s wrath and earthly suffering are not the same thing. Christians in every century have suffered (Acts 14:22). Paul himself said tribulation is normal in this age.

• Rev. 3:10 is a promise to the church at Philadelphia, not a universal blueprint for a pre-trib rapture. The Greek phrase tērēsai ek (“keep from”) more accurately means preserve through, not remove out of. Think Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—kept safe in the fire, not taken away from it.

Jesus Himself prayed: “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15).

So—why assume escape when Jesus promises endurance?

---

3. The Visibility of Christ’s Coming

Charts like this say the rapture is invisible, but the second coming is visible. But Scripture makes no such split.

• Matthew 24:30-31 says all the tribes of the earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.

• Revelation 1:7 says, “Every eye will see him.”

• 2 Thess. 1:7-10 describes His coming as blazing fire, dealing justice on unbelievers, while bringing relief to the saints.

If Paul and John describe Christ’s return as noisy, fiery, visible, cosmic—where exactly does the “invisible phase one” come from? Not from the Bible.

---

4. Judgment and Resurrection—One Event, Not Two

Think about this: when does the resurrection happen?

• John 6:39-40—Jesus repeats it four times: resurrection happens “on the last day.”

• 1 Corinthians 15:52—resurrection happens “at the last trumpet.” Not “at a trumpet before tribulation” but the last one.

• Matthew 13:39-43—Jesus says the harvest (gathering of believers and judgment of the wicked) happens at the “end of the age,” not two separate times.

If the righteous are raised “on the last day,” then how can there still be seven more years of history left for Antichrist drama? Either Jesus was exaggerating—or the rapture system is adding something the Bible never taught.

---

5. The Greek and Hebrew Patterns of Deliverance

In the Old Testament, deliverance rarely means escape from trials—it usually means God preserving His people through them.

• Noah was saved through the flood (1 Peter 3:20).

• Israel was preserved through Egypt and the wilderness.

• Daniel was protected in the lion’s den, not snatched away from Babylon.

The Hebrew pattern is clear: God’s presence in tribulation is His people’s hope, not an escape hatch.

---

6. The Partial Preterist Angle

A lot of the verses used for the "rapture" actually fit the first-century context of Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70.

• Matthew 24:34—“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus wasn’t lying. The tribulation He spoke of was real, and His coming in judgment against Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D.

• The language of cosmic signs (sun darkened, stars falling) is Hebrew apocalyptic imagery for God’s judgment (Isa.13:10; Ezek. 32:7). It doesn’t mean literal stars falling.

This doesn’t erase the final return of Christ still to come, but it does show us that much of what dispensational rapture teachers assign to the future already happened in history.

---

7. So, What Is Our Hope?

Not a two-phase coming of Jesus. Not a secret escape from trouble. Our blessed hope is what Paul actually said in Titus 2:13—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. One return. One resurrection. One final judgment.

The myth of the rapture is like waiting for a bus that never shows up, while ignoring the train schedule already printed in Scripture. Why cling to a system built on charts when the plain Word of God is clearer than any infographic?

---

Final Word

Friends, instead of fearing a secret rapture, let’s prepare for the real hope: Christ’s visible, triumphant, world-shaking return. As Hebrews 9:28 says, “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

That’s not a secret. That’s not split in two. That’s the one great day God’s people have longed for.

So, let’s not get caught up in charts and theories. Let’s get caught up in Christ.

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

Prayer Meeting: "A Nation Called by His Name" 2 Chron. 7:14 | Ptr. Ellery Sembrano

A response to SDA’s weak apologetics that dismisses all churches as “equally corrupt.” [Taglish]

SDA palusot:

"Parang sinasabi niyo na walang corruption sa evangelical churches. Pero kung may nagpapaka-ipokrito, ikaw 'yon, Pastor Ronald V. Obidos. May alam ka bang church na totally walang corruption? Kahit yung early church, may issues na. Si Judas mismo, nakasama si Jesus pero tumanggap ng suhol. Alam mo na 'yan. Sina Ananias at Sapphira, familiar ka rin siguro sa kwento nila. Ang church, binubuo ng mga taong makasalanan na tinubos—so ano bang inaasahan mo? Ang dami kong pwedeng ilista na corruption sa evangelicalism, sa Calvinist man o Arminian side, pati mga kilalang theologians. Pero gamitin ang flaws ng isang church para i-discredit ito? Mahina 'yan na klase ng apologetics. Kaya mo pa 'yan i-level up."

Sagot:

Oo, may corruption sa bawat church—walang nagde-deny niyan. Kahit sa New Testament, klaro 'yan. Si Judas, ipinagkanulo si Cristo para sa pera. Sina Ananias at Sapphira, nagsinungaling sa Espiritu. Yung Corinthian church, punong-puno ng pride, immorality, at division. So yes, corruption is real kasi ang church ay binubuo ng mga taong tinubos pero makasalanan pa rin. Diyan tayo nagkakasundo.

Pero ito ang kaibahan: sa biblical at evangelical churches, ang corruption ay nilalabanan, nire-rebuke, at dinidisiplina. Pwedeng pumasok ang hypocrisy, pero hindi ito ang nagde-define ng sistema. Si Peter, nung nag-compromise sa Galatians 2, diretsong nirebuke ni Paul. Sa Corinth, nung lumabas ang immorality, inutos ni Paul ang church discipline. Ipinapakita ng Scripture na ang corruption ay kinakalaban, hindi tinatanggap bilang normal hindi tulad sa Seventh-day Adventist church na normal lang yun at pikit-matang nilulunok at maingat na inililihim pa.

Ngayon, ikumpara mo sa SDA system: paano kung ang corruption ay hindi lang nasa pew level, kundi nasa pulpito at headquarters na? Paano kung ang false prophecies at financial manipulations ay hindi pinagsisihan, kundi pinoprotektahan pa? May mababasa ka ba sa New Testament na ang kasinungalingan ng mga leaders ay naging doktrina—gaya ng mga sablay na vision ni Ellen White? Hindi lang ito “human weakness”—ito ay systemic deception.

Tanungin natin ang mga mahihirap na tanong:

• May corruption ba sa evangelicalism? Oo. 
  
  
• Pero may evangelical denomination ba na ang founder ay nagsinungaling, nangopya, at paulit-ulit na pumalpak, pero tinataas pa rin bilang “inspired voice of God”? 
  
  
• May evangelical church ba na nagpapatupad ng Old Covenant laws habang sinasabing sila ay under grace, tapos ginagamit ang takot sa judgment para ikulong ang mga miyembro?

Kapatid, hindi na ito simpleng corruption. Ito ay corruption sa pinaka-ulo—kung saan ang mismong source ng teaching ay lason. Kung bulok ang ugat, ano mangyayari sa bunga (Matt. 7:18)?

Kaya hindi sapat na ituro ang flaws ng evangelicalism para i-excuse ang maling pundasyon ng Adventism. Mahinang apologetics ang sabihing “pare-pareho lang corrupt ang lahat.” Malakas na apologetics ang nagtatanong: Aling church ang humaharap sa corruption ayon sa Biblia, at aling church ang tinatago ito para protektahan ang false prophet at maling sistema?

‘Yan ang totoong issue.

Totoong issue: bulok na ugat, bulok na bunga.

Sabi ni Jesus: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Kung ang corruption ay galing sa kahinaan ng tao, pwede itong putulin at itama. Pero kung ang corruption ay nasa mismong pundasyon—gaya ng mga maling propesiya ni Ellen White—then compromised ang buong sistema.

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

What's the take of Former Adventists Philippines on the 'Rapture'?

The Former Adventists Philippines (FAP) perspective on the rapture is shaped by Reformed theology, New Covenant theology, and a partial preterist eschatology, which altogether emphasize a biblically grounded and historically contextual view of end-times. Here's how FAP would typically respond:

---

What Does FAP Believe About the “Rapture”?

1. The Word “Rapture” Isn’t in the Bible — But the Concept Comes from 1 Thessalonians 4

The idea of a rapture—where believers are "caught up" to meet Christ—comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven... and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive... will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..."

FAP affirms this literal return of Christ and the gathering of His people, but we do not teach the popular pre-tribulational secret rapture promoted by dispensationalist groups like Left Behind.

---

2. We Reject the “Secret Rapture” Theory of Dispensationalism

The “pre-tribulation rapture” theory—where Christians are secretly taken away before a seven-year tribulation—is not found in the Bible. It’s a relatively new doctrine, made popular in the 1800s by John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Bible.

FAP believes:

• Christ’s return will be public, glorious, and final (Matthew 24:27-31).

• The “rapture” and the “resurrection” of the dead are part of the same event—the Second Coming.

• There is no biblical basis for a split between the rapture and Christ’s final return.

---

3. Christ’s Second Coming Is One Event—Not Two Phases

Scripture does not separate the “rapture” and the Second Coming into two different events. Instead, they happen at the same time:

• Christ returns visibly (Revelation 1:7).

• The dead in Christ are raised (1 Thess. 4:16).

• Living believers are transformed (1 Cor. 15:51–52).

• All meet the Lord “in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17)—a welcoming party, not a disappearing act.

This is similar to how citizens would go out to meet a victorious king and escort Him back into the city—a first-century image of public triumph, not secret escape.

---

4. We Focus on Being Ready, Not Escaping Tribulation

Instead of teaching escape from suffering, FAP teaches faithfulness in tribulation. Jesus said:

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

We are not promised escape—we are promised victory through suffering, not from it.

---

5. Partial Preterist Eschatology Grounds Our View

FAP leans toward partial preterism—the view that many prophecies in Matthew 24, Revelation, and Daniel were already fulfilled in the first century, especially in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

This means:

• The “great tribulation” already happened (Matthew 24:21, 34).

• We are now living in the gospel age, awaiting the final return of Christ.

• When Jesus returns, it will be the end of history—not the beginning of a 1,000-year earthly kingdom.

---

In Summary: FAP’s Position on the Rapture

Aspect	FAP Belief
Rapture	Yes, believers will be caught up to meet Christ at His final return.
Secret rapture	Rejected as unbiblical and recent.
Tribulation	Believers go through tribulation, not escape it.
Second Coming	One public, glorious return of Christ.
Eschatology	Partial Preterist; many prophecies fulfilled in A.D. 70.
Hope	Not in escaping, but in Christ’s victory and return.

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

The Three Angels’ Messages: An SDA Distortion of Revelation 14

Introduction

Few things are more central to Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) identity than the Three Angels’ Messages of Revelation 14. In fact, the denomination’s official mission statement explicitly ties its purpose to proclaiming these messages worldwide:

“Make disciples of Jesus Christ who live as His loving witnesses and proclaim to all people the everlasting gospel of the Three Angels’ Messages in preparation for His soon return” (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; Rev. 14:6–12).¹

Fundamental Belief #13 makes the same claim:

“This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14.”²

But what do these messages actually mean in context? And do the SDA claims about their fulfillment hold up to biblical and historical scrutiny? Let’s examine the evidence step by step.

---

Why Are the Three Angels’ Messages Significant to SDA Identity?

For Adventists, the messages are not just theological curiosities—they are the church’s very mission.

Ellen White herself declared:

“In a special sense, Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light-bearers… There is no other work of so great importance.”³

But here’s the question: did God really design a message in Revelation to be fulfilled only by one small sect that arose in the 19th century? Or is Revelation’s vision pointing to something far greater—the gospel itself going to the nations in the apostolic age?

---

When Did Adventists Apply Their Fulfillment?

SDA historians claim the messages began their fulfillment with the Millerite preaching of the 1830s–40s.⁴ But was the “mid-19th-century New England revival” really what John saw in Revelation? Can a failed prediction in upstate New York really be equated with an angel flying in mid-heaven with the everlasting gospel?

---

The First Angel’s Message: The Everlasting Gospel

Revelation 14:6–7 announces the gospel to every nation, declaring the hour of judgment and a call to worship the Creator. Adventists, however, tie this directly to William Miller’s failed date-setting of 1843/1844.⁵

But let’s be honest: did Miller and his colleagues even preach the gospel? Swedish Adventist scholar Kai Arasola concluded after a deep study of their writings:

“They make no mention of Christ, of salvation, or of the gospel. This matches the near-total lack of devotional writing in Millerite periodicals.”⁶

How could the “everlasting gospel” be fulfilled by a movement that largely ignored Christ’s saving work?

---

Did Miller’s Message Reach “Every Nation”?

Joshua Himes, Miller’s right-hand man, admitted after 1844:

“…the cry of the seventh month was a local and partial one. It was confined to this country.”⁷

If even its own leaders admitted it never reached beyond America, how can this possibly match the worldwide angel of Revelation 14?

---

Did Miller Preach the Judgment of Revelation 14?

Not at all. Revelation 14 clearly depicts the wrath of God poured out on the wicked (vv. 10–11, 19–20). Miller expected such judgment in 1844, but when it failed, Adventists retrofitted the text to mean an “investigative judgment” in heaven. But where does Revelation 14 speak of God conducting a heavenly audit? Nowhere. This was a theological invention, created to save face after the Great Disappointment.

---

Ellen White’s Contradictions

Early on, Ellen White declared that Miller’s 1844 preaching was the fulfillment of the First Angel’s Message.⁸ But later in life, she revised her position, teaching in The Great Controversy that it referred to Christ’s heavenly ministry in 1844.⁹

So which is it? Either her early visions were false, or her later reinterpretations were. If her “prophetic gift” cannot provide a consistent explanation, why should Christians trust it at all?

---

Biblical Fulfillment of the First Angel’s Message

In reality, the New Testament itself tells us the gospel was already preached to all nations in the apostolic era. Paul declared:

• “The gospel… was preached to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23).

• “Now is the judgment of this world” (John 12:31).

• “The time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17).

Even Paul’s sermon to the idolaters in Lystra (Acts 14:13–16) almost directly echoes Revelation 14:7—calling pagans to worship the Creator of heaven, earth, and sea. Doesn’t this fit far better than a failed movement in 1844?

---

The Second Angel’s Message: Babylon Is Fallen

SDA teaching links this message to churches that rejected Millerism.¹⁰ In other words, Babylon = “any church that didn’t join the Millerites.” But Revelation says Babylon fell because of her immorality and spiritual corruption—not because she refused a false date for Christ’s return.

Historically, Protestants long identified Babylon with Rome. Martin Luther himself called the Papacy “Babylon the Great” in 1520, centuries before Miller.¹¹ Can the Millerites really claim credit for a message the Reformers thundered to the nations three hundred years earlier?

---

The Third Angel’s Message: The Mark of the Beast

SDA theology insists this message is about Sunday-keeping churches receiving the mark of the beast, while Adventists alone bear the “seal of God” by keeping Saturday. Ellen White even described non-Adventist churches as being filled with “unclean and hateful birds.”¹²

But is the Sabbath ever called the “seal of God” in the New Testament? No. Instead, Paul says believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30). The Lord’s Supper, not the Sabbath, is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20). So why exchange the Spirit of God for a calendar day?

---

Conclusion

Seventh-day Adventists have taken an obscure passage from Revelation and twisted it into their denominational identity badge. By doing so, they have painted other Christians as “Babylon” and themselves as God’s only remnant. But the biblical and historical evidence points elsewhere:

• The First Angel’s Message was fulfilled in the apostolic age, when the everlasting gospel was proclaimed “to every nation under heaven” (Col. 1:23; Acts 17:30–31). This angel represents the gospel’s worldwide announcement before the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, calling both Jew and Gentile to turn to the Creator through Christ.
  
  
• The Second Angel’s Message was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem—Babylon the Great—in AD 70. This was the covenantal judgment on apostate Israel, which had rejected her Messiah and shed the blood of the prophets and saints (Matt. 23:35–36; Rev. 18:24). Her “fall” was announced before it happened, and her destruction confirmed that the Old Covenant order had passed away.
  
  
• The Third Angel’s Message warned of judgment upon those who aligned themselves with the beastly power of Rome and participated in idolatrous worship rather than remaining faithful to Christ. In a Partial Preterist reading, this applied to first-century Jews and Gentiles who compromised with Caesar worship or clung to the corrupt temple system rather than following the Lamb. Their “torment” was realized in the fiery destruction of Jerusalem and the exposure of Rome’s tyranny.

So instead of stretching fulfillment across centuries (Reformers, Protestants, Adventists), Partial Preterism sees all three messages tied to the first-century context of Revelation, pointing to gospel proclamation, the fall of Jerusalem, and judgment on those who clung to the beast system rather than Christ.

Rather than dividing the body of Christ, we should remember Jesus’ prayer in John 17: “that they may be one.” Sectarian exclusivism may be good for building a movement—but it is not faithful to the gospel of grace.

---

Notes

1. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Mission Statement, Annual Council Session, Silver Spring, MD, October 13, 2014.

2. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 28 Fundamental Beliefs, Belief #13.

3. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, eds., Ellen White Encyclopedia (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 1219.

4. Ibid., 1219.

5. Ibid., 1219.

6. Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism (Sigtuna: Datem Publishing, 1990), 59.

7. Joshua V. Himes, The Morning Watch, February 20, 1845.

8. Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1882), 232.

9. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 424.

10. Fortin and Moon, Ellen White Encyclopedia, 1219.

11. J.H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation, vol. 2 (New York: American Tract Society, 1845), 130–40.

12. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 (Battle Creek: James White, 1858), 190–91.

---

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/formeradventist

Bakit itinuturing na “haligi at saligan ng katotohanan” ang Iglesia sa 1 Timoteo 3:15, at hindi ang mismong Biblia?

Kapatid, isang napakagandang tanong ang iyong itinataas. Madalas itong gamitin ng Romano Katoliko bilang batayan upang sabihing ang Iglesia mismo ang may kapangyarihang magdikta ng katotohanan, kaya’t nagiging mas mataas pa raw ang Tradisyon kaysa sa Kasulatan. Ngunit kung titignan natin nang mas malalim gamit ang historico-grammatical na pamamaraan at ang mismong Griyegong teksto ng 1 Timoteo 3:15, makikita natin na ang pahayag na ito ay hindi nagbibigay ng ganitong awtoridad sa institusyon, kundi nagpapakita ng tungkulin ng Iglesia sa kaugnayan sa katotohanang nakapaloob sa Salita ng Diyos.

Sabi ni Pablo kay Timoteo:

“...upang kung ako’y magluwat, ay iyong maalaman kung paano ang nararapat na pagkilos sa bahay ng Diyos, na siyang iglesia ng Diyos na buhay, haligi at saligan ng katotohanan” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Ang salitang Griyego para sa “haligi” ay στῦλος (stulos) at para sa “saligan” ay ἑδραίωμα (hedraiōma). Ang parehong salita ay ginamit upang ipakita ang suporta o pagdadala ng bigat, hindi ang pinagmulan. Ang haligi ay hindi ang mismong plano ng gusali, kundi ang tagapagdala at tagapagtaguyod nito.

Hindi ba’t malinaw dito na ang Iglesia ay hindi tagabuo ng katotohanan, kundi tagasuporta at tagapangalaga nito?

Ano ang pakay ni Pablo?

Sa kabuuan ng pastoral epistles, inuulit-ulit ni Pablo kay Timoteo na ang doktrina ay dapat panatilihin ayon sa mga Kasulatan. Sa 2 Timoteo 3:16–17, malinaw na sinabi ni Pablo:

“Ang lahat ng Kasulatan ay kinasihan ng Diyos, at mapapakinabangan sa pagtuturo, sa pagsaway, sa pagtutuwid, sa pagsasanay sa katuwiran; upang ang tao ng Diyos ay maging sakdal, tinuruang lubos sa lahat ng mabubuting gawa.”

Kung ang Iglesia ang pinagmumulan ng katotohanan, bakit sasabihin ni Pablo na ang Kasulatan ang nagbibigay ng kasakdalan at hindi ang Tradisyon ng Iglesia?

Si Athanasius, sa kanyang 39th Festal Letter (AD 367), ay malinaw na itinuro kung alin ang tunay na mga aklat ng Kasulatan, at doon niya binigyang diin na ang Biblia ang pamantayan ng katotohanan para sa Iglesia. Hindi niya sinabing “ang Iglesia ang batayan ng Biblia,” kundi “ang Iglesia ay kumikilala at tumatayo sa itinuturo ng Kasulatan.”

Si Augustine naman, bagama’t binabanggit ng Katoliko na nagsabi siyang naniwala sa Ebanghelyo dahil sa awtoridad ng Iglesia, ay maliwanag ding nagturo sa iba’t ibang sulatin na ang Kasulatan ay ang suprema auctoritas—ang sukdulang awtoridad na higit pa sa konsilyo o obispo.

Hindi ba’t ito ang malinaw na tradisyon ng unang Iglesia—na sila’y tumatayo bilang haligi, ngunit ang pundasyon ng kanilang pagtindig ay ang mismong Salita ng Diyos?

Isipin natin: kung ang Iglesia ang mismong pinagmulan ng katotohanan, paano ipaliliwanag ng Katoliko ang mga pagkakamali at maling turo na lumabas sa kasaysayan ng kanilang institusyon? Mula sa pagbebenta ng indulgences hanggang sa maling pagpapatahimik sa mga tagapagtanggol ng Kasulatan (tulad nina John Hus at Martin Luther), hindi ba’t malinaw na kapag ang Iglesia ang itinuring na pinagmumulan ng katotohanan, nagiging bulag ito sa sariling kahinaan?

Ngunit kung ang Biblia ang hindi nagkakamaling pamantayan, at ang Iglesia ay tapat na nagiging “haligi at saligan” sa pamamagitan ng pagtatanggol, pagpapahayag, at pagsasabuhay nito, hindi ba’t ito ang tunay na anyo ng Iglesia na nais ni Pablo?

Samakatuwid, ang 1 Timoteo 3:15 ay hindi nagtuturo na ang Iglesia ang pinagmumulan ng katotohanan, kundi siya ang tagapagdala at tagasuporta nito. Ang katotohanan ay nakaugat sa Salita ng Diyos—ang Kasulatan na kinasihan ng Espiritu Santo. Ang Iglesia ay tinawag upang maging haligi na nagtataguyod, hindi arkitekto na lumikha.

Kaya’t kapatid, hindi ba’t mas nakahihinga ng kapayapaan at katiyakan na ang ating pananampalataya ay hindi nakasalalay sa kamalian ng tao, kundi sa hindi nagkakamaling Salita ng Diyos?

---

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/formeradventist

A Pastoral Response to Concerns about Partial Preterism (Part 2)

Dear Brother in Christ,

Thank you again for sharing your concerns about Partial Preterism. Your zeal for the truth and your caution in interpreting prophecy are commendable. Let me walk with you through the three key points you raised, in a spirit of love, humility, and shared pursuit of biblical faithfulness.

---

1. “Kings of the Earth” = Rulers of the Land

You mentioned Revelation 1:5, where Jesus is declared “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” Since Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18), should we not always take “kings of the earth” (hoi basileis tēs gēs) universally? That’s a fair question. But how does the historico-grammatical context guide us?

The Greek word gē can mean either “land” or “earth,” with the precise meaning determined by the context. In Matthew 2:6, quoting Micah 5:2, Bethlehem is called “not the least among the rulers of the land of Judah” (tēs gēs). Clearly, gē refers not to the globe but to the covenant land of Israel. Should the book of Revelation, written within the same Jewish apocalyptic tradition, be read in the same way?

Furthermore, Revelation often addresses events “soon” (ἐν τάχει, Rev. 1:1) and “near” (ὁ καιρὸς ἐγγύς, Rev. 1:3). If these texts describe primarily global rulers across millennia, would this not conflict with the immediate temporal markers? Could “kings of the land” be a contextual limitation, especially in visions concerning Jerusalem and its covenantal crisis?¹

---

2. Jerusalem’s “Fornication” and the Harlot of Revelation 17

You raise a profound objection: how could Jerusalem commit fornication after the inauguration of the New Covenant? If the Old Covenant had passed away (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:13), would she not already be disqualified from covenantal unfaithfulness?

But let us ask: does covenant-breaking cease to matter once a covenant is nullified, or does the breaking itself seal the judgment? The prophets call Jerusalem a harlot precisely because she forsook her covenant. Ezekiel 16 portrays her adultery with Assyria and Babylon as historical facts of betrayal, not as a commentary on covenant continuity. Could Revelation be using the same imagery—Jerusalem’s harlotry reaching its climax in rejecting the Messiah and allying with Rome (John 19:15)?²

You also suggest that the harlot represents apostate Christianity, culminating in Rome. Certainly, church history bears witness to apostasy, and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 warns of falling away. But must we collapse every prophetic harlot into one image? If Paul speaks of future church corruption, does this nullify John’s immediate indictment of Jerusalem? Might Revelation’s harlot be Jerusalem in A.D. 70, while later history also manifests the same pattern of harlotry in other contexts?

And what of Revelation 11:8—“the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified”? Can we easily dismiss this as symbolic of Rome, when the syntax so clearly ties the reference to the crucifixion site? Would not the historico-grammatical approach insist that the plain referent—Jerusalem—takes priority before symbolic extensions?³

---

3. Jerusalem’s International Influence

You note that Jews were often despised and persecuted, not celebrated. That is true. But does notoriety diminish influence? Could not Jerusalem be infamous and influential at the same time?

Acts 2:5-11 tells us that “devout men from every nation under heaven” were in Jerusalem. The city’s fame was not based on imperial power but on religious centrality. Even Roman historians such as Tacitus recognized the peculiar weight of Jewish customs and their impact on the empire.⁴

Moreover, Revelation 17 describes the harlot as sitting on “many waters”—interpreted as “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” (Rev. 17:15). Does this necessarily describe popularity, or does it describe influence, whether loved or hated? Could not Jerusalem’s diaspora communities and her central role in rejecting Christ explain why she is portrayed as having an international reach?⁵

And finally, Revelation 18:24 says: “In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth.” Which city killed the prophets (Matt. 23:37)? Which city stoned those sent to her? Does this not clearly point to Jerusalem?⁶

---

A Closing Word

Brother, eschatology is no small matter, but it is not the foundation of our fellowship—Christ is. Still, we are called to wrestle with Scripture carefully. So let us ask together:

• Does gē in Revelation always mean “earth,” or sometimes “land”?

• Does harlot imagery require covenant continuity, or does it highlight covenantal betrayal?

• Does influence require popularity, or can it also include infamy?

Let us “reason together” (Isa. 1:18) in humility, remembering that prophecy always drives us toward holiness, watchfulness, and longing for the blessed hope of Christ’s return (Titus 2:13).

With love and respect,

Your brother in Christ

---

Notes

1. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 202–12.

2. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 217–21.

3. J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 224–26.

4. Cornelius Tacitus, Histories, 5.2–5, trans. Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925).

5. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–52.

6. D.A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 507–9.

---

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/formeradventist