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

Question: "Pastor Ronald, kung wala na tayo sa sumpa ng kautusan, kailangan pa rin ba sundin ang Sampung Utos?"

Answer:

Ayos ‘tong tanong mo, kasi ito talaga yung pinakapuso ng usapin ng Law and the Gospel. Maraming nalilito dito akala ng iba, “under the law” means curse lang, pero hindi ganun kasimple. So tara, himay-himayin natin. 

Una, ano ba talaga ibig sabihin ng “under the law”?

Sabi ni Paul sa Romans 6:14, “You are not under the law but under grace.” Yung phrase na “under the law” (Greek: hupo nomon) hindi lang ibig sabihin under curse. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay nasa ilalim ka ng buong sistema ng Kautusan ni Moses kasama na yung demands, penalties, at covenant relationship na “do this and live.”

So yes, kasama dun yung curse kapag di mo nasunod ng tuloy-tuloy (Gal. 3:10), pero higit pa dun ibig sabihin nasa ilalim ka ng lumang tipan, kung saan ang favor ni God ay nakabase sa performance mo.

Pangalawa, nung tinubos tayo ni Cristo, hindi lang Niya tinanggal yung sumpa, tinanggal Niya tayo sa buong sistema ng Kautusan.

Sabi sa Galatians 4:4–5:

“God sent His Son, born under the law, to redeem those under the law…”

So hindi lang tayo pinalaya mula sa parusa, kundi inalis tayo sa jurisdiction ng law at inilipat sa bagong relasyon bilang mga anak ng Diyos sa ilalim ng biyaya.

Hindi na tayo mga alipin ng Ten Commandments bilang covenant code, kundi mga anak ng Diyos na sumusunod hindi dahil takot tayo sa parusa, kundi dahil nagmahal tayo sa Tagapagligtas.

Pangatlo, ang Sampung Utos ay puso ng Lumang Tipan, hindi ito ang eternal moral law mismo.

Klaruhin natin:

Ang moral truths ng Ten Commandments (like “Do not kill,” “Do not steal”) ay eternal, kasi base ito sa karakter ni God. Pero ang form ng Ten Commandments bilang covenant document na nakasulat sa bato ay Old Covenant law para sa Israel, hindi para sa church (Exodus 34:28; Deut. 4:13).

Sabi nga ni Paul sa 2 Cor. 3:7, “the ministry of death written on tablets of stone.” Ibig sabihin, natapos na ang covenant na ‘yon nang dumating si Cristo at itinatag ang New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Rom. 10:4).

Pang-apat, paano na ngayon?

Hindi ibig sabihin wala na tayong sinusunod ang ibig sabihin, iba na ang basehan ng pagsunod. Hindi na tayo sumusunod “under the law of Moses,” kundi “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). At ang law of Christ ay summarized sa love (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 6:2). Ang motivation natin ngayon ay hindi fear, kundi grace. Ang obedience natin ay bunga ng pagbabagong ginawa ng Holy Spirit sa puso natin (Rom. 8:4).

Simplified Comparison

View	Meaning	Covenant
Under the Law	Nabubuhay ka sa ilalim ng Mosaic Law	Old Covenant
Under Grace	Nabubuhay ka sa ilalim ng biyaya, led by the Spirit	New Covenant
Curse of the Law	Parusa ng hindi pagsunod sa Law ng tuloy-tuloy	Part ng Old Covenant

Kaya kapag sinabing “you are not under the law,”hindi ibig sabihin free ka magkasala ang ibig sabihin, di ka na bound sa Mosaic system. Ang standard mo na ngayon ay si Cristo mismo.

Panghuling punto

Kung ikaw ay nasa kay Cristo, wala ka na sa ilalim ng sumpa at ng sistema ng Kautusan. Hindi mo na kailangang “bantayan” ang Ten Commandments para maligtas; ang righteousness mo ay si Cristo mismo (Phil. 3:9).

Sabi ni Paul sa Galatians 5:18,

“If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”

Ang ibig sabihin: hindi mo kailangan ng external law para turuan kang gumawa ng tama kasi nandiyan na ang Holy Spirit sa puso mo na nagtuturo at nagbabago sa’yo araw-araw.

Summary ng Buong Sagot:

🔸 “Under the law” = under the whole covenant system of Moses.

🔸 Christ didn’t just free us from the curse — He freed us from the covenant itself.

🔸 We now live under grace, by the Spirit, fulfilling the law of Christ through love.

Kaya sa madaling sabi: hindi mo kailangang bumalik sa Sinai para maging banal dahil ang kabanalan mo ay nasa Kristo na namatay, nabuhay, at nananahan sa’yo.

“Bakit Ko Iniwan ang SDA: Hindi Dahil sa Sama ng Loob, Kundi Dahil sa Katotohanan”

Hindi Ako Tumalikod — Bumalik Ako kay Cristo."

Every now and then, may maririnig akong parehong linya sa social media:

 “Si Pastor Ronald, nagtampo lang.”
“Siya kasi, na-offend sa mga kapatid.”
“O baka naman gusto lang sumikat.”

Kung tutuusin, hindi na ako nagugulat. Kasi ganyan talaga kapag may isang umaalis sa loob ng isang sistema na matagal mong pinaniwalaan na siya lang ang “tunay na iglesia.” Parang may gustong magpaliwanag sa kanila na imposibleng mali tayo, kaya dapat may mali sa kanya.

Pero kung ganyan ang pamantayan ng katotohanan na kung sino ang umaalis, siya agad ang traydor eh di sana si Martin Luther, si John Wycliffe, si Tyndale, si Calvin, at lahat ng Reformers ay mga traydor din, ‘di ba? Kung iyan ang sukatan, si Abraham na tumalikod sa Ur of the Chaldees ay “lumalaban sa relihiyon ng kanyang pamilya.” Pero hindi! He was leaving error to follow truth.

“Tampuhan lang daw?”

Kung pagtatampo lang ang dahilan ng pag-alis ko, dapat matagal na akong umalis kasi sa loob ng 24 years ko bilang Adventist evangelist at debater, ilang beses na rin akong nasaktan, tinrato ng mali, o hindi pinansin ng mga pinuno. Pero bakit ako nanatili noon? Kasi noon, akala ko, truth was still with the system. Ang “pagtatampo” ay para sa mga baguhan, hindi sa mga taong sinubok na ng panahon. Hindi ka umaalis sa isang bangka dahil naiinis ka sa kapitan umaalis ka kapag alam mong may butas na ito at lulubog na.

“Babalik pa ba ako sa SDA?”

Let’s be real. Kung ang SDA church ay tunay na church ni Cristo bakit napakaraming dating pastor, theologian, at layperson ang unti-unting umaalis? Bakit sila mismo, na mas matagal pa kaysa sa akin, ay natuklasang hindi pala umaayon sa Biblia ang mga aral ni Ellen White at ng SDA distinctive doctrines?

Nabasa ko ang Pasugo ng INC, pero nabasa ko rin ang Spirit of Prophecy ng SDA at alam mo ba ang pinagkaiba? Parehong may “extra-biblical authority.” Kung si Felix Manalo ay “sugo,” si Ellen White naman ay “propeta.” Pero tanungin natin: kailan pa nagkaroon ng karapatan ang sinumang tao na dagdagan o baguhin ang Salita ng Diyos? Kung ang “light” na sinasabi mo ay taliwas sa liwanag ng Kasulatan, anong tawag doon revelation o deception?

“Hindi Personal, Doctrinal Lang.”

Walang personal vendetta dito. Walang tampuhan. Walang selosan. Ito ay tungkol sa truth vs tradition. Kasi paano ka mananatili sa loob ng isang simbahan na itinuturo na ang kasalanan mo ay “forgiven” pero hindi pa “blotted out” hanggang matapos ang “Investigative Judgment” na nagsimula daw noong October 22, 1844 isang petsang kinuha mula sa maling kalkulasyon ng offshoot Jewish religion na Karaite calendar?

Kung si Cristo ay nagsabi na “It is finished” (John 19:30), bakit itinuturo pa rin ng SDA na “hindi pa tapos”? Ibig bang sabihin, mali si Jesus? O baka mali ang inyong propeta? At kung “ang dugo ni Cristo ay sapat,” bakit kailangang dumaan pa sa “heavenly investigative review” bago mapatawad ng buo? Is that grace or probationary legalism?

“Kung Totoo ang SDA, Handang Mamatay Ako Diyan.”

Sinabi ni Jesus sa Mateo 10:28,

“Huwag kayong matakot sa mga pumapatay ng katawan, kundi sa Diyos na may kakayahang puksain pati kaluluwa sa impiyerno.”

Kung tunay na chuech ni Cristo ang SDA, kayang-kaya kong ipaglaban ito hanggang kamatayan. Pero kapag nakita mong ang pundasyon ay gawa sa buhangin ng maling propesiya at self-righteousness, mananatili ka pa ba? Mananatili ka ba sa bahay na alam mong guguho na? Ang SDA ay nagtuturo ng faith plus Sabbath, grace plus obedience, Christ plus Ellen White. Pero sinabi ni Pablo,

“Kung ang katuwiran ay sa pamamagitan ng kautusan, walang kabuluhan ang kamatayan ni Cristo.” – Galacia 2:21

“Hindi Denomination ang Nagliligtas — Si Cristo Lang.”

Kung identity mo ay nakatali sa denominasyon, hindi sa Diyos, tanungin mo sarili mo:

“Kung mawala ang denominasyon mo, mananatili pa ba si Cristo sa’yo?”

Sabi ni Jesus,

“Ang sinumang nagmamahal sa ama, ina, anak, o buhay higit sa Akin ay hindi karapat-dapat sa Akin.” – Mateo 10:37-38

Hindi mo kailangang manatili sa maling simbahan para lang makuntento ang pamilya mo. Hindi mo kailangang ipagpalit ang katotohanan sa tahimik na konsensya. Kasi sa dulo, hindi titignan ni Cristo kung anong pangalan ng iglesia mo kundi kung sino ang Panginoon ng puso mo.

A Call to Courage

Kapatid, kung nararamdaman mo na parang may mali, huwag mong takasan ang konsensya mo. Kung alam mong may butas na sa doktrina, huwag mong takpan ng denominational loyalty. Huwag kang matakot sa sasabihin ng tao. Mas nakakatakot ang manahimik sa harap ng katotohanan.

Sabi ni Cristo,

“Ang sinumang magbigay ng kanyang buhay alang-alang sa Akin ay makakamit ang buhay na walang hanggan.” – Juan 12:25

Kaya kung tinatawag ka ng Diyos na lumabas sa dilim, wag mong hintayin na may lumapit sa’yo at hilahin ka. Lumakad ka. Kasi minsan, ang tunay na paglabas ay hindi rebelyon kundi pagsunod.

Final Thoughts

Ang pag-alis ko sa SDA ay hindi pagtataksil ito ay pagbabalik sa sentro ng Ebanghelyo. Hindi ito pagtatampo ito ay pagtindig para sa katotohanan. Hindi ito paglayo kay Cristo ito ay paglapit sa Kanya nang walang hadlang ng denominasyonal na doktrina. At sa lahat ng nagtatanggol pa rin sa mga aral ng SDA mahal ko kayo, pero mas mahal ko ang katotohanan.

Sapagkat sabi ni Cristo:

“Makikilala ninyo ang katotohanan, at ang katotohanan ang magpapalaya sa inyo.” – Juan 8:32

---

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 Commentary on SDA Sabbath School Lesson (October 25–31, 2025) Title: “God Fights for You”

Text: Joshua 10:42

“And Joshua captured all these kings and their land at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.”

Overview:

This week’s SDA Sabbath School lesson explores “holy war” in Joshua and how “God fights for His people.” The tone attempts to defend divine warfare, present God as Judge, and end with the so-called “Prince of Peace” motif. However, beneath the devotional surface lies a consistent legalistic and theocratic framing that subtly promotes the Investigative Judgment worldview where God’s justice is seen as conditional and covenantal only for those who “pass the test.”

FAP Response:

1. A Misplaced Emphasis: God as “Warrior-Judge” Without the Cross

The SDA lesson speaks lengthily about divine warfare, Yahweh’s justice, and judgment, but almost no Christ-centered gospel hermeneutic. The key verse, Joshua 10:42, is interpreted through the lens of God’s conditional favor toward Israel, rather than through typology fulfilled in Christ, who is the true “Captain of the Lord’s army” (Josh. 5:14–15; cf. Heb. 2:10).

The lesson treats the conquest narratives as moral justification for judgment on sin, but misses the Covenantal fulfillment motif, that Israel’s wars were temporary types pointing to Christ’s victory over sin and Satan (Col. 2:15). Instead of leading to the gospel, it defaults to a moralistic framework: “Obey like Israel or suffer like Canaan.”

Hermeneutical Correction:

Using the historico-grammatical method, the warfare passages in Joshua are redemptive-historical shadows, not prescriptive blueprints. The Hebrew term ḥerem (“devoted to destruction”) prefigures Christ’s substitutionary atonement, where the curse of destruction fell on Him instead of us (Gal. 3:13). The lesson never makes this connection.

2. The Canaanite Conquest and Misapplied Morality

The SDA commentary explains that the Canaanites’ annihilation was a moral act of justice, justified by their sins. While that’s partly true, it fails to apply progressive revelation that divine justice in the Old Covenant was temporal, while under Christ, it became spiritual and universal (John 18:36).

Instead of showing how God’s justice was satisfied at the Cross, the SDA lesson portrays God’s judgment as ongoing, reflecting their Investigative Judgment theology, a doctrine that implies Christ’s atonement remains incomplete until examined in heaven.

Problem: If “God is still judging to decide who’s worthy,” then Christ’s cry, “It is finished” (John 19:30), becomes meaningless.

3. “Dispossession or Annihilation” – Misreading the Theocracy

The lesson tries to soften divine warfare by distinguishing “dispossession” from “annihilation,” but this reveals its inconsistent hermeneutic. It moralizes a historical judgment rather than reading it through Christ’s fulfillment.

📖 Hebrew Insight:

The word “yarash” (יָרַשׁ), meaning to possess or inherit, is covenantal—not ethnic or military. It points forward to Christ giving His people a new inheritance—not by war, but by grace (Eph. 1:11; Heb. 9:15).

The SDA narrative misses this because it still views divine conquest as a pattern for remnant victory through obedience, not redemption through Christ.

4. The “Prince of Peace” – Inconsistent Application

By the end of the lesson (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 4:3), the authors pivot to peace but fail to integrate it theologically. It becomes a sentimental contrast “from war to peace" instead of a gospel proclamation. The biblical logic is this: Christ, the Prince of Peace, conquered not by sword but by sacrifice (Phil. 2:8–10). His kingdom is not “holy war,” but “holy rest” (Heb. 4:9–10).

SDA theology, however, blurs this peace by teaching an unfinished heavenly war in the Investigative Judgment, where Jesus still “fights” in a celestial sanctuary. Thus, they replace gospel peace with apocalyptic anxiety.

5. Ellen White’s Commentary – The Problem of Probationary Justice

The Ellen White quote from Patriarchs and Prophets (pp. 491–493) reinforces this conditional theme: that nations “fill up their cup of iniquity” before God’s vengeance falls. While biblically echoing Genesis 15:16, her interpretation universalizes this into every era, suggesting a probationary system even for believers.

But in the New Covenant, probation ended at the Cross, where the final judgment of sin was executed once for all (Rom. 8:1; Heb. 9:26–28). To keep believers under “probation” contradicts the finished work of Christ.

FAP Theological Conclusion:

1. Divine warfare in Joshua points not to Israel’s moral superiority, but to Christ’s redemptive supremacy.

2. The “Judge” of Israel became the Savior of the world; judgment fell on Him (John 5:22–24).

3. Canaan’s destruction prefigured sin’s destruction in Christ, not human destruction through moral law-keeping.

4. Peace is not achieved through “obedience to the commandments,” but through faith in the finished work of Jesus (Eph. 2:14–16).

Reflection for Former Adventists:

When the lesson says, “God fights for you,” ask: Which God is fighting for me, the one who already finished the battle at the Cross, or the one still investigating my sins in heaven? If the battle is finished, then you are at peace. If not, you’re still at war with your conscience.

Christ’s words settle it:

“It is finished.” (John 19:30)

“Having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” (Col. 2:15)

That’s the true “holy war” not in Canaan, but at Calvary.

---

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

Sola Scriptura Daw? Pero Bakit Tinanggihan ang Sulat ni Moses? The 1905 heresy trial ni Albion F. Ballenger

Maraming Adventists ang naniniwala na si Ellen G. White ay tagapagtanggol ng prinsipyo ng “Bible alone.” Sa dami ng quotes niya tungkol sa “The Bible, and the Bible alone, is our rule of faith,” parang malinaw na ang Biblia ang final authority. Pero kapag binusisi natin ang nangyari sa 1905 heresy trial ni Albion F. Ballenger, may tanong tayong hindi pwedeng iwasan: Bakit tinanggihan ni Ellen White ang mismong mga talata mula sa Biblia lalo na mula kay Moses?

Ballenger vs. The System

Si Ballenger, isang Adventist minister, ay nagpresenta ng labindalawang talata mula sa Exodus, Leviticus, at Numbers para ipakita na may inner veil at outer veil sa earthly sanctuary. Ang punto niya: si Cristo ay pumasok sa Most Holy Place agad pagkatapos ng ascension, hindi noong 1844 lang gaya ng turo ng SDA. Malinaw ang textual evidence niya mula kay Moses mismo.

Pero sa halip na sagutin ang mga talatang iyon, si Ellen White ay naglabas ng sulat (Selected Messages Book 3, pp. 161–162) na nagsasabing:

“When God testifies of what is truth, that truth stands forever. No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given me, should be entertained.”

Ang dating ng mensahe? Huwag nang kuwestyunin ang “light” na binigay sa kanya even if may bagong Bible evidence.

Saan Napunta ang “Bible Alone”?

Kung talagang “Bible alone” ang rule of faith, bakit hindi pinakinggan ang mga talata ni Ballenger? Bakit mas pinahalagahan ang “light” ng propeta kaysa sa inspired writings ni Moses?

Ang nangyari sa trial ay hindi simpleng theological debate. Isa itong clash ng authority: Biblia vs. Prophetic claim. At sa kaso ni Ballenger, natalo ang Biblia.

Pastoral Reflection

Hindi ito simpleng academic issue. Para sa mga Adventists na nagsisimulang magtanong, ito ay wake-up call. Kung ang isang propeta ay nagsasabing “Bible alone,” pero sa practice ay inuuna ang sariling visions kaysa sa Scripture, may dapat tayong suriin.

Ang tunay na messenger ng Diyos ay hindi natatakot sa Bible-based scrutiny. Hindi siya nagtatago sa likod ng “light” para iwasan ang accountability. At higit sa lahat, hindi niya tinatawag na “heresy” ang pagtindig sa Salita ng Diyos.

Final Thought

Sa panahon ngayon, kung saan maraming naghahanap ng authentic faith, kailangan nating bumalik sa simpleng prinsipyo: Ang Biblia ang final authority. Hindi visions. Hindi tradition. Hindi personality. At kung may conflict, Scripture must win.

Investigating Ellen G. White #12: “Alterations, Revisions, Changes” (Ang Katotohanang Ayaw Nilang Ipakita sa’yo)

Kung matagal ka nang sumusubaybay sa Investigating Ellen G. White series, alam mo na hindi naging madali para sa Adventist Church ang mga isinulat ni Ellen White. Pero sa episode na ‘to? Humanda ka. Kasi papasok tayo sa isa sa pinaka-awkward, pinaka-inedit, at pinaka-tahimik na tinanggal na bahagi ng tinatawag niyang “inspired” writings ang amalgamation statements.

Oo, ‘yung time na sinabi raw ni Ellen White na nagtalik ang tao at mga hayop bago at pagkatapos ng Baha… at dahil daw sa kasalanang ‘yun, winasak ng Diyos ang mundo. Balikan natin ‘yan.

Ang “Amalgamation” Controversy

Noong 1864, isinulat ni Ellen White sa Spiritual Gifts Vol. 3 na isa raw sa mga kasalanang nagdulot ng Baha ay ang “amalgamation of man and beast.” Sabi pa niya, “it defaced the image of God” at nagdulot ng “confusion everywhere.”

Grabe, ‘di ba? Kasi totoo naman grabe talaga. At hindi ito tungkol sa interracial marriage gaya ng pilit na paliwanag ng mga SDA apologists kalaunan. Literal niyang sinabing naghalo raw ang mga tao at mga hayop.

Ang problema? Myth lang ‘yan noong 19th century — kwentong kumalat sa mga walang masyadong kaalaman, at lumabas pa sa pekeng Book of Jasher (1844 edition). Matagal nang pinatunayan ng agham na imposibleng magkaanak ang tao at hayop.

So bakit isang “propeta ng Diyos” ang magpo-promote ng kwentong galing sa isang fake na aklat?

 “Certain Races of Men”

Dito na pumapasok ang mas madilim na parte. Sinulat ni Ellen White na makikita raw ang resulta ng amalgamation “in certain races of men.”

Anong mga lahi ‘yun? Hindi niya sinabi. Pero sinabi ng mga unang SDA leaders.

Sina B.F. Snook at W.H. Brinkerhoff parehong inorden ni James White  naglabas ng rebelasyon na sinabi raw ni Ellen na “God never made the Darkey.” Oo, tama ang basa mo. Ginamit pa ang kanyang mga “vision” para bigyang-katwiran ang rasistang paniniwala na may mga tao raw na hindi ganap na tao.

Si Uriah Smith, isa sa mga unang SDA leaders, dinepensahan pa siya! Sinabi niya na ‘yung mga “Bushmen of Africa” at “Digger Indians” daw ay bunga ng paghahalo ng tao at hayop. At si James White mismo oo, asawa ni Ellen na-review at inaprubahan pa ang librong ‘yun, at tinulongang ibenta sa mga SDA camp meetings!

Pahinga muna. Lakasan mo loob mo.

The Great Delete

Habang lumilipas ang panahon, naging sobrang nakakahiya na ang doktrinang ito para ipagtanggol. Kaya noong 1890, nung lumabas ang librong Patriarchs and Prophets, tahimik nilang tinanggal ang mga “amalgamation” passages.

Walang abiso. Walang paliwanag. Walang errata. Basta nawala.

Nung napansin ng mga tao at nagtanong, sumagot si W.C. White (anak ni Ellen). Sabi niya, si Ellen daw mismo ang nagbura ng mga iyon sa utos daw ng isang anghel.

Wait lang.

Ang anghel daw ang nag-utos na burahin ‘yung dating isinulat niya “under inspiration”?

So ‘yung anghel hindi siya pinigilan nung una, pero dumating para maglinis ng kalat?

Hindi ‘yun revelation. ‘Yun ay revision.

The Herod Blunder

At hindi ito ‘yung unang beses na nagkamali siya. Sa Spiritual Gifts Vol. 1 (1858), nagkamali siya ng Herod. Sinulat niya na yung parehong Herod na nanlait kay Jesus ay siya ring pumatay kay James.

Mali ‘yun. Magkaibang Herod ‘yun.

Ayun, inayos niya ‘to sa Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 3 (1878).

So much for “God showed me in vision.”

Mukhang mas copy-and-paste fail kaysa inspiration.

Ghostwriters, Editors, at mga “Heavenly” Helpers

Pagkatapos mamatay ni James White, naging parang publishing company na ang operasyon ni Ellen. Dinala niya sina Marian Davis at Fannie Bolton parehong magagaling na writers para “tumulong” daw sa mga libro niya.

Ang problema: umamin si Fannie Bolton na siya mismo ang sumulat ng ilang buong bahagi ng mga librong lumabas sa pangalan ni Ellen bilang “inspired.”

Sabi niya pa nga, “the people are being deceived about the inspiration for what I write.”

So ngayon, may “propeta” tayo na may ghostwriters tapos ‘yung edits daw ay “approved by angels”?

Hindi ‘yan prophecy. ‘Yan ay publishing.

The 1883 Editing Resolution

Noong 1883, sawang-sawa na ang SDA General Conference sa gulo. Kaya naglabas sila ng resolusyon para i-edit at i-correct ang mga isinulat ni Ellen bago i-republish.

Ang dahilan daw nila? Na si Ellen ay “inspired in thought, not in words.”

Pero teka lang may catch.

Noong 1905, sinabi naman ni Ellen White:

“The Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out.”

So alin ba talaga?

Sumuway ba ang church sa propeta?

O nagkakontra lang si Ellen sa sarili niya?

Revisions and Contradictions

Eto pa, ilang halimbawa ng mga binago sa mga “inspired” writings niya:

• Original: “The church of Christ... has grown feeble and inefficient through selfishness.”

• Revised: “The church of Christ, enfeebled and defective as it may be, is the only object on earth on which He bestows His supreme regard.”

• Original: “The pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity.”

• Revised: “The pope has been given the very titles of Deity.”

Kita mo ‘yung tono?

Mas soft, mas maayos pakinggan, at syempre mas hindi nakaka-offend.

Behind the Curtain

Pati mga SDA historians at editors, umamin na sa nangyayari.

Noong 1919, sinabi ni W.W. Prescott:

“If we correct it here and correct it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other places?”

Exactly. Kasi kapag nag-umpisa ka nang mag-ayos ng “inspired” writings, saan ka hihinto?

Sa likod ng mga libro, sina Prescott at C.C. Crisler ay inutusan daw na burahin o alisin ang mga bahagi na baka “makasira.”

So sila na ngayon ang nagdedesisyon kung alin ang “mensahe ng Diyos” na puwedeng iprint o hindi.

What the Evidence Shows

Tawagin natin sa tunay na pangalan:

Mula sa amalgamation myth, hanggang sa Herod blunder, hanggang sa ghostwritten inspired books, malinaw na pattern ‘yan hindi ng divine revelation, kundi ng human editing, revision, at damage control.

Dekada-dekadang inayos, pinakintab, at tinakpan ng White Estate at SDA leaders ang mga pagkakamali ni Ellen White para mapanatili ang imahe niya bilang “propeta.”

Hanggang ngayon, karamihan sa mga Adventist, walang ideya kung gaano karami sa mga binabasa nila kay Ellen White ang na-edit, nabago, o tuluyang tinanggal.

Ang resulta?

Isang malinis at maayos na bersyon ng mga sinulat niya na tinago ang totoong kwento ang kwento ng mga pagkakamali, pagtatakip, at puting kasinungalingan.

Final Thought:

Kung si Ellen White talaga ay nagsasalita para sa Diyos, bakit kailangan pa ng paulit-ulit na correction at revision ang mga isinulat niya?

Kung inspired talaga ang mga salita niya, bakit may mga tinanggal nang walang paliwanag?

At kung ang mga editor ay puwedeng baguhin ang “inspired” text nang walang parusa sino ngayon ang tunay na propeta?

Baka ang totoong “revelation” ay hindi kung ano ang isinulat ni Ellen White…

kundi kung ano ang pilit na binura ng SDA Church.

Should Christians Say “Happy Sabbath”? A Biblical Look at a Popular Greeting

“Happy Sabbath!” — You’ve probably heard this cheerful greeting from your Seventh-day Adventist friends or other sabbath-keeping groups. But have you ever stopped to ask: is this greeting actually biblical? Does it glorify God in the light of the New Covenant? And do those who say it truly understand what they’re proclaiming?

---

Where Did “Happy Sabbath” Come From?

“Happy Sabbath” is a common greeting used from Friday evening to Saturday afternoon among sabbath-keeping groups, particularly Seventh-day Adventists. It’s often said with warmth and celebration, much like saying “Happy Birthday” or “Happy New Year.”

But here’s the key question:

Is there a biblical precedent for this greeting? Did Jesus or the apostles ever use it?

The answer is no.

There is no record in the New Testament of Jesus, the apostles, or any early Christians greeting one another with “Happy Sabbath.” In fact, after Christ’s resurrection, the focus of Christian worship shifted from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (see Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).

---

What Was the Sabbath Under the Old Covenant?

The Sabbath was a central part of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 20:8–11), given as a sign between God and Israel (Exodus 31:13–17). It was a ceremonial law designed to teach rest and dependence on God.

But it wasn’t a festive, lighthearted day. The Sabbath was a solemn day of ceasing from work, reflection, and regulated worship. Breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (Exodus 31:14–15). It was never meant to be a casual celebration or a “happy-happy” moment.

---

Fulfilled in Christ: The New Covenant Reality

Colossians 2:16–17 makes it clear:

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Sabbath was a shadow, pointing forward to the ultimate rest found in Christ. In the New Covenant, Jesus Himself is our true Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:9–10). Christians are not commanded to observe the Sabbath, nor is it required for salvation or sanctification (Romans 14:5–6).

---

So What Are We Really Celebrating?

When sabbath-keepers say “Happy Sabbath,” it often comes with a sense of spiritual pride or legalistic undertone — a subtle reminder that they are the ones “keeping the right day.” But ironically, if they haven’t yet rested in Christ by faith for salvation, they’re missing the real Sabbath altogether.

So the question is:

Is it really a “happy” Sabbath if the person saying it misunderstands the true meaning of Sabbath rest?

Does it glorify Christ when we return our focus to the shadows of the Old Covenant rather than the reality of the New?

---

Gospel-Centered Application: Celebrate Christ, Not the Shadow

Instead of saying “Happy Sabbath,” Christians should proclaim “Happy in Christ!” — because He is our eternal rest and joy.

Under the New Covenant, there is no longer a special “holy day” that defines our devotion. As Paul says:

“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5)

The focus isn’t on observing days — it’s on living a life set apart for Christ, every day.

So rather than saying “Happy Sabbath,” let the joy of the gospel flow from our lips with greetings like:

“Rejoice in the Lord always!” (Philippians 4:4)

---

Conclusion: A Tradition Without a Gospel Foundation

“Happy Sabbath” is not a biblical greeting in the New Covenant context. It’s a cultural phrase rooted in Old Covenant legalism and misunderstood theology. True joy is not found in one particular day of the week, but in a living relationship with Jesus Christ, who provides rest for our weary souls.

The uncomfortable truth is this: even if someone says “Happy Sabbath” all day long, if their understanding of Sabbath is unbiblical and disconnected from the gospel, God is not pleased with their Sabbath.

Because happiness doesn’t come from keeping a day.

It comes from knowing the One who fulfilled it.

---

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

Phone: 09695143944

Question: "Pastor Ronald, kailangan po ba talagang sumali sa 'true church' para maligtas, o sapat na ang pananampalataya kahit hindi nagsisimba buong buhay?"

Question:

"Pastor Ronald, dami pong relihiyon at Christian denominations ngayon lahat sinasabi sila ang 'one true church' at kailangan daw sumali para maligtas. Totoo po ba 'yun? At kung may isang tao sa bundok na naniwala kay Jesus pero ayaw nang magsimba o magpamiyembro sapat na po ba ang pananampalataya n'ya kahit mag-isa lang siya sa bahay habang buhay?"

Answer:

Ganda ng tanong mo bro legit yan, and madalas din ‘yan itanong ng mga sincere seekers. So let’s answer it real talk style, pero grounded sa Bible ha.

Question 1: Totoo ba yung claim ng bawat denomination na sila lang ang “One and Only True Church”?

Straight talk: Hindi lahat ng nagsasabing sila ang “true church” ay talaga namang sila. Bakit? Kasi maraming grupo ang gumagamit ng salitang “church” pero ang sentro nila ay organization, hindi si Cristo. Sa Bible, hindi denominasyon ang tinawag na “body of Christ,” kundi mga tao na tunay na nananampalataya sa Kanya.

Sabi sa Ephesians 4:4–5:

“There is one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

So yes may isang tunay na Church, pero hindi ito nangangahulugang isang rehistradong religious corporation. Ang tunay na Church ay binubuo ng lahat ng ligtas mga taong born again by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), regardless kung saan denomination sila kasalukuyang nag-aaral o sumasamba.

Think of it like this: Kung si Jesus ang Head, at tayo ang Body (1 Cor. 12:12–13), then the true Church is composed of everyone truly connected to the Head, not everyone listed in a human registry. So kung may nagsasabi, “Kami lang ang maliligtas kasi kami lang ang tunay na Church,” tanongin mo sila:

“Kayo ba ang namatay sa krus? O si Cristo?”

“Kayo ba ang Tagapagligtas, o si Jesus?”

Kasi kung ang kaligtasan ay depende sa membership, hindi sa relationship kay Cristo, then the thief on the cross wouldn’t have made it to paradise but Jesus Himself said, “Today, you will be with Me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

Bottom line:

The true Church isn’t defined by its name or registration, but by its union with Christ.

Question 2: Paano yung taong nasa bundok na naniwala pero hindi sumama sa simbahan?

Ito naman, solid question din. Kung may isang taong nasa malayong lugar at narinig ang Ebanghelyo mula sa isang missionary tapos tinanggap si Cristo by faith, Yes, ligtas siya kung tunay ang pananampalataya niya kay Jesus. Sabi nga sa Romans 10:9:

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Walang nakasulat diyan na “and join our denomination.”

Pero and here’s the key point ang tunay na pananampalataya ay hindi natatapos sa “I believe.” Ang totoong believer, kahit mag-isa siya, ay hahanapin ang fellowship ng ibang mananampalataya, kasi ito ay likas na bunga ng faith.

Sabi sa Hebrews 10:25:

“Do not neglect meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing...”

Bakit? Kasi ang simbahan ay hindi lang gathering ito ay family. Kung anak ka ng Diyos, natural na gusto mong makasama ang mga kapatid mo sa pananampalataya.

Analogy time: Kung may sanggol na ipinanganak, di mo siya iiwan sa bundok mag-isa. Kailangan niya ng pamilya para lumago. Ganoon din sa spiritual life ang simbahan ay hindi requirement para maligtas, pero ito ay environment para lumago at magbunga.

So, yes kung tunay ang faith niya, ligtas siya. Pero kung may pagkakataon siyang makasama sa local church at pinili pa rin niyang iwasan ito, may problema na sa puso. Faith saves us alone, pero ang faith na tunay ay hindi nananatiling mag-isa.

Summary:

• There is one true Church — the body of Christ, not a human denomination.

• Salvation is by faith in Jesus alone, not by church membership.

• But a true believer will always desire fellowship with God’s people, because we are saved into a community, not just out of the world.

Kung tutuusin, ang tanong mo ay parang ganito:

“Kung totoo ang pag-ibig ko kay Jesus, kailangan pa bang sumama sa pamilya Niya?” 

At ang sagot: 

“Kung totoo ang pag-ibig, oo kasi ang nagmamahal, hindi lumalayo sa tahanan.” 

Question: “Pastor Ronald, paano po naiiba ang postmillennial view sa ibang interpretasyon ng Millennialism?”

Ang ganda ng tanong na ‘yan kasi dito nagkakatalo ang mga Christian views pagdating sa eschatology (end times). Kaya sagutin natin nang malinaw pero hindi nerdy. 

Una, ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng “Millennium”?

Ang “Millennium” ay tumutukoy sa 1,000 years na binanggit sa Revelation 20, kung saan si Cristo ay “maghahari.” Ang tanong ngayon: kailan at paano nangyayari ang paghaharing ito? Diyan na papasok ang apat na major views:

1. Premillennialism

• Sinasabi nito na darating muna si Jesus bago magsimula ang literal na 1,000-year reign sa lupa.

• Kumbaga: Second Coming → 1,000-year kingdom → Final Judgment.

• Ito ang popular sa mga dispensational churches (e.g., “Left Behind” kind of theology).

• Problema: ginagawa nitong dalawa ang Second Coming (isa “secret rapture,” isa “final return”), na hindi consistent sa Bible.

2. Amillennialism

• Ang “A-” ay ibig sabihin “no literal millennium.”

• Ang view na ito ay nagsasabing ang Millennium ay simboliko, at nangyayari na ngayon habang si Cristo ay naghahari sa langit at sa puso ng mga mananampalataya.

• Common ito sa mga Reformed at Augustinian traditions.

• Tama sa maraming aspeto pero kadalasan, masyadong pessimistic sa future ng world (parang “palala nang palala lang lahat until Jesus returns”).

3. Postmillennialism

• Ito ang position ng Former Adventists Philippines (FAP).

• “Post” = pagkatapos.

• Ibig sabihin: darating si Jesus pagkatapos ng Millennium hindi ito literal na 1,000 years kundi isang mahabang panahon ng tagumpay ng Ebanghelyo sa mundo.

• Hindi ito “literal 1,000 years” kundi isang symbolic era kung saan ang Ebanghelyo ay unti-unting magtatagumpay sa lahat ng bansa bago bumalik si Cristo.

• Ang focus: Christ conquers the world through the Gospel, not by force, but by grace and truth.

Biblical foundation

• Matthew 28:18–20 — “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me… make disciples of all nations.”

• Psalm 22:27 — “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the LORD.”

• Habakkuk 2:14 — “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”

Ito ang vision ng Postmillennialism:

The Gospel will not fail. The Church will grow, reform, and influence cultures until Christ returns in final victory.

4. Historic Premillennialism

• Medyo katulad ng first one pero mas simplified.

• Naniniwala sa tribulation at literal na millennium, pero walang “secret rapture.”

• Still, naghihintay ng physical reign ni Jesus bago ang final judgment.

Bakit Postmillennialism ang position ng FAP?

1. Because it fits New Covenant Theology — Christ has already conquered sin, death, and Satan (Colossians 2:15). Hindi Siya talunan na kailangan pang bumalik para magtagumpay.

2. Because it fuels Gospel optimism — hindi tayo naghihintay lang ng pagwasak ng mundo, kundi nagtatrabaho para sa renewal ng mundo sa ilalim ng lordship ni Christ.

3. Because it aligns with Scripture’s flow — mula Genesis to Revelation, lagi nating nakikita ang progressive victory of God’s Kingdom (Daniel 2:35, Matthew 13:31–33).

4. Because it honors the Great Commission — Hindi “escape plan” ang Christian life; it’s kingdom expansion.

Conclusion

So, simple lang:

Postmillennialism sees the future not as doom, but as destiny, the triumph of Christ through His Church.

Hindi ito utopia ng tao.

Ito ay kaluwalhatian ni Cristo na unti-unting sumasaklaw sa mundo, hanggang Siya’y bumalik bilang Hari ng mga hari.

---

Download this infographic and share:

"Before and After Grace": SDA church lang daw ang mapupuntahang tunay?

“Yes, that was the old me, and that proves grace works.

From blindness to boldness, from deception to redemption.

This is not a scandal, it’s salvation.”

Once upon a time, yes ako ‘yung Ronald sa video na yan na patuloy na pinapakalat ng mga kaibigan nating mga Sabadista. ‘Yung minsan ay nagsabing, “Wala nang mas tunay pa sa SDA, at malas ang lalabas.” Pero gaya ni Apostle Paul, ang dating “defender” ng sistema ay binago ng biyaya ng Diyos (1 Tim. 1:13-16). Noong panahong iyon na Sabadista pa ako, sincere ako, pero sincerely wrong. Akala ko loyalty sa organization equals loyalty kay Christ. Pero kalaunan, ipinakita ng Diyos sa Kanyang Salita na ang katotohanan ay hindi nakatali sa denominasyon kundi sa persona ni Jesus mismo.

Let’s Be Real: Logical Check

May mga nagre-repost ng lumang video ko para patunayan daw na “nagbago” ako sa pamamagitan ng paglabas ko sa Seventh-day Adventist church noong 2019. Tama nagbago nga ako dahil binago ako ni Lord. At dapat lang, kasi kung hindi ako nagbago, ibig sabihin "napakamalas" ko dahil hindi ako naabot ng biyaya ng Diyos. Pero pansinin natin hindi ba ito Ad Hominem fallacy (personal attack)?

Imbes na sagutin ang ebanghelyo na ipinapangaral ko ngayon, inuungkat nila ang nakaraan ko. Hindi ba ganun ang ugali ni Satanas na ipapaalala sa iyo mga nakaraang pagkakamali mo? Eh kung ganon din pala, dapat tawagin din nilang “hipokrito” si apostol Pablo, kasi dati rin siyang persecutor ng mga Kristiyano at nag-aakalang nasa tunay na religion siya na mga Sabadista din? (Galatians 1:13–16).

At kung sinasabi nilang “mamalasin” ang lalabas sa SDA, tanong ko lang:

• May Bible verse ba na nagsasabing malas ang lalabas sa isang denominasyon?
• O baka naman mas malas yung manatili sa error kahit binigyan na ng liwanag ng katotohanan?

Si Saul of Tarsus

Naalala mo si Saul of Tarsus? Dating tapat sa relihiyon na mga Sabadista din o Sabbath keeper, masigasig, masipag, at kampante na nasa “tunay” siya. Pero nang makaharap niya si Cristo sa daan papuntang Damascus, bumagsak lahat ng akala niyang tama. At nung tumayo siya, hindi na siya si Saul kundi si Paul na, apostol ng biyaya. Kaya kung ang lumang video ko na pinapaulit lang ng mga Sabadista ngayon para ipanglaban sa akin sa social media ay patunay ito ng dati kong mala-“Saul” na buhay, salamat kung gayon. Kasi ‘yan mismo ang ebidensya na may bago nang mala-“Paul” na buhay kong ngayon binago ng grasya, hindi ng galit.

Kung ang tunay na church ay ang mga tinubos ni Cristo sa Kanyang dugo (Acts 20:28), bakit may mga nagsasabing “kami lang ang tunay”? At kung kaligtasan ay nasa denominasyon, bakit hindi kailangang maging SDA si Abraham, Moses, o si Paul para maligtas?

Kaya’t huwag nating ikulong ang katotohanan sa pangalan ng organisasyon. Christ alone saves not a church name, not a prophetess, not a Sabbath law.

Pastoral Heart

Hindi ko kayo kaaway. Hindi ko gustong manira, kundi manghila palabas sa delusyon na minsan ding bumihag sa akin. Kung tinutuligsa ako dahil doon, ayos lang kasi una na si Cristo na siniraan ng Kanyang mga kababayan na mga Sabadista din(John 8:48). Pero tandaan mo: Ang sugatang binago ng Diyos ay mas mabigat magpatotoo kaysa sa taong natatakot sa pagbabago.

Final Line:

“Oo, ako ‘yung Ronald Obidos sa lumang video na patuloy na ginagamit ng mga kalaban ng katotohanan. Pero ‘yung Ronald Obidos na ‘yun ay patay na at ang buhay ko ngayon ay kay Cristo na. Hindi na ako tagapagtanggol ng relihiyong Sabadista, kundi tagapagdala ng katotohanan.” (Galatians 2:20)

---

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

Question: "Pastor Ronald, paano po nagsimula ang kasaysayan ng doktrinang “7 years tribulation” sa eschatology?"

Good question and honestly, napaka-importante niyan kasi karamihan ng mga Christians ngayon, lalo na sa mga evangelical circles, ay parang automatic na iniisip na “7-year Tribulation” ay laging nasa Bible pero hindi talaga ‘yan tinuro ng early church.

Let’s break it down:

1. Ang “7 years tribulation” ay produkto ng dispensationalist theology hindi ng apostolic or reformation teaching.

Walang sinuman kina Augustine, Luther, Calvin, o kahit mga Puritans na nagturo ng ganitong “7-year end-times timeline.” Ang konseptong ito ay lumitaw lang noong 1800s sa pamamagitan ng John Nelson Darby, isang British preacher na founder ng Plymouth Brethren movement. Siya ang unang nag-combine ng pre-trib rapture + literal 7-year tribulation + millennial reign sa isang eschatological system na tinawag niyang dispensationalism.

2. Ang basis nila ay Daniel 9:24–27, yung “seventy weeks” prophecy.

Ginawa ng mga dispensationalist ang last week (ang ika-70th week) na hiwalay sa unang 69 weeks at tinawag itong “The Tribulation Period.” Ang problema? Sa context ng Daniel 9, hindi hiwalay ang 70th week tuloy-tuloy siya. Ang “one who confirms the covenant for one week” ay tumutukoy kay Christ, hindi kay Antichrist. Si Cristo ang nagpatibay ng bagong tipan at “caused sacrifice and offering to cease” sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang kamatayan (Heb. 10:10–14).

3. Ang “Left Behind theology” na alam ng karamihan ay modern invention.

After Darby, dinala ni C.I. Scofield ang dispensationalist view sa Amerika sa pamamagitan ng Scofield Reference Bible (1909). Doon nagsimulang maniwala ang maraming Christians na may pre-trib rapture at 7-year tribulation bago ang millennium. Pero historically, ang mga early Christians sina Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, at kahit mga Reformers ay naniniwala sa one return of Christ, hindi multiple phases (rapture + tribulation + second coming).

4. Ang 7-year Tribulation ay narrative, hindi apostolic doctrine.

Walang explicit na verse sa New Testament na nagsasabing may literal na “seven-year global tribulation.” Ang tinatawag ng Bible na “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21) ay already fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), isang event na nag-end ng Old Covenant age.

In short:

The 7-year tribulation theory originated around the 1830s–1840s, not in the 1st century. It’s a Darby-era innovation, later popularized by Scofield and modern prophecy teachers.

Biblical takeaway:

Ang tunay na focus ng eschatology ay hindi “when will the tribulation start?” kundi “are you living faithfully in the Kingdom now?” Kasi sabi ni Jesus sa John 16:33:

“In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

So technically, lahat tayo ay nasa tribulation age pero tayo rin ang people of victory, dahil si Cristo na ang nagtagumpay. 

Question: "Pastor Ronald, paano po ang salvation ng mga baby na maagang namatay?"

Answer:

To be honest, isa ito sa mga pinaka-heartbreaking pero theologically rich questions sa buong Christian faith. Let’s talk about it nang malinaw at may puso. 

1. Ang Diyos ang tunay na may-ari ng buhay.

Una sa lahat, tandaan natin: walang namamatay “accidentally” sa paningin ng Diyos. Sabi sa Psalm 139:16,

“All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Ibig sabihin ang Diyos ang may hawak ng bawat hininga, kahit ng sanggol. Hindi Siya nagkakamali. At oo, masakit, pero hindi ito labag sa Kanyang kabutihan. Kasi ang Diyos, hindi lang basta nagbibigay ng buhay alam din Niya kung kailan Niya ito kukunin sa tamang oras.

2. Ang mga sanggol ay ipinanganak na may makasalanang kalikasan pero hindi sila nagkakasala ng sinasadya.

Tama ang sabi ng Romans 5:12 lahat tayo ay ipinanganak sa ilalim ng kasalanan dahil kay Adam. Pero tandaan din: hindi lahat ay may personal sin na tulad ng ginagawa ng mga adult. Ang mga baby ay may fallen nature, oo pero wala silang kapasidad para tumanggi kay Cristo o magrebelde sa Kanya. At alam natin na ang Diyos ay makatarungan at mahabagin. Hindi Niya ipapahamak ang isang bata na walang kakayahang manampalataya o tumanggi sa Kanya.

3. Biblical clues tell us God receives infants into His mercy.

Tandaan si Haring David. Nang mamatay ang anak niya kay Bathsheba, sinabi niya sa 2 Samuel 12:23:

“Now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Ang ibig sabihin ni David: hindi ko na siya mababalik, pero darating ang araw na ako ang pupunta kung nasaan siya. At saan pupunta si David? Sa presensya ng Diyos. Kaya malinaw, David believed his infant was with the Lord.

4. Ang kaligtasan ay sa pamamagitan ni Cristo at si Cristo ay sapat na para sa mga walang kakayahang manampalataya.

Ang cross ni Jesus ay sapat para sa lahat ng uri ng tao kahit sa mga hindi pa kayang marinig o maunawaan ang Ebanghelyo. Hindi nangangailangan si Cristo ng mental awareness para magligtas kailangan lang Niya ng grace. Sabi ni Jesus sa Mark 10:14:

“Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

Walang sinabi si Jesus na “Hintayin niyo muna silang magkaisip bago ko tanggapin.” Nope. Ang Kanyang puso ay bukas sa mga bata. 

5. Ang mga baby na namatay ay nasa kamay ng Diyos, hindi sa limbo, hindi sa impyerno.

Hindi tinuturo ng Biblia ang “limbo.” Ang turo ng Ebanghelyo: lahat ng kaligtasan ay sa pamamagitan ng biyaya ni Cristo. At kung ang Diyos ay makatarungan, maawain, at mapagmahal makakasiguro tayong ang mga sanggol na namatay ay nakatagpo ng habag sa presensya ni Cristo.

Real Talk:

Hindi natin kailangang ipilit na alam natin ang bawat detalye pero alam natin kung sino ang Diyos. At kung kilala natin ang Diyos ng Biblia makatarungan Siya, mapagmahal, at hindi Siya nagkakamali sa Kanyang mga anak, kahit sa mga sanggol.

Comfort Verse:

“He will tend His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs in His arms and carry them close to His heart.” – Isaiah 40:11

Bottom Line:

Ang mga baby na maagang namatay ay hindi naligtas dahil inosente sila naligtas sila dahil mabuti at maawain ang Diyos na kumilos para sa kanila. At kung Siya ay tapat sa mga sanggol, lalo pa Siyang tapat sa atin na may kamalayang manampalataya kay Cristo.