From SINAI to CALVARY: The Jurisdictional Shift of the New Covenant! by Ptr. Zaldie Ybanez

Statement: The Council of Trent teaches that the TEN COMMANDMENTS are OBLIGATORY for CHRISTIANS and that the justified man is still bound to keep them...

The transition away from the Council of Trent’s view (and the Seventh-day Adventist view) isn't about promoting lawlessness; it’s about a fundamental shift in jurisdiction. The Ten Commandments were the heart of the Mosaic Covenant (the Old Covenant), which has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ. Here are the truths:

1. The Jurisdiction of the Law—The Law (including the Decalogue) was a "tutor" or "guardian" intended for a specific period in redemptive history. Once faith in Christ arrives, the believer is no longer under that guardian.

Galatians 3:24-25: "So the LAW was our guardian UNTIL Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this FAITH has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A GUARDIAN."

LOGIC: If you are no longer under the guardian (613 LAWS INCLUDED THE 10 COMMANDMENTS), you cannot be "obligated" to the guardian's specific code in the same way.

2. The "Ministry of Death" is Faded

Paul specifically mentions the laws "engraved in letters on stone," which can only refer to the Ten Commandments, and calls it a ministry that was "brought to an end."

2 Corinthians 3:7-11: "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory... will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? ... For if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

LOGIC: One cannot be "bound" to a ministry that is described as transitory and fading in comparison to the Spirit.

3. Dead to the Law, Alive in Christ

The Council of Trent suggests the justified man is still bound to the law. However, Romans 7 teaches that justification involves a death to the Law so that the believer can be joined to another (Jesus).

Romans 7:4, 6: "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ... But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

LOGIC: A person who has died to a legal code is no longer "obligated" to it. You don't tell a widow she is still "bound" to the rules of her deceased husband.

4. The Law is an Indivisible Unit

James 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

LOGIC: If you are "obligated" to the Ten Commandments as a legal code, you are logically obligated to the entire Mosaic system (Galatians 5:3). Since Christ fulfilled the Law, the believer is moved to a higher law—the Law of Christ—which fulfills the moral intent of the old without being bound by its specific letter.

The Council of Trent (and SDA theology) fails to recognize that the Law is a unit. When the Covenant changed at the Cross, the entire legal system of Sinai was fulfilled and replaced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

GOD BLESS US ALL! 🙏

Tara Bible Study Tayo! Matthew 9:14-17: "Bagong Alak sa Bagong Sisidlan"

Bible Student: 

Pastor Ronald, medyo nakakalito po itong Matthew 9:14-17. Bakit po biglang sumingit itong usapan tungkol sa tinagpiang tela at sisidlang balat pagkatapos tanungin si Jesus tungkol sa pag-aayuno (fasting)? Ano po ba ang context nito?

Pastor Ronald: 

Magandang tanong 'yan! Alam mo, kailangan muna nating tingnan kung sino ang nagtatanong. Ang mga alagad ni Juan Bautista ang lumapit kay Jesus. Sabi nila, "Bakit kami at ang mga Pariseo ay madalas mag-fasting, pero ang mga alagad Mo hindi?"

Dito pumasok si Jesus gamit ang dalawang illustration: ang bagong tela at ang bagong alak. Ang "mind of the author" dito ay malinaw na sinasabi ni Jesus na ang pagdating Niya ay naghuhudyat ng isang bagong panahon.

1. Ang Historical Background: Anong uri ng tela at sisidlan ito?

Bible Student: 

Opo, nabanggit nga po 'yung tela. Ano po ba 'yung "unshrunk cloth" na sinasabi Niya?

Pastor Ronald: 

Noong panahon ni Jesus, ang mga damit ay gawa sa wool (lana). Kapag ang isang bagong tela ay hindi pa dumaan sa proseso ng pagpapa-shrink at itinagpi mo ito sa lumang damit na ilang beses na nalabhan, magkakaproblema ka. Kapag nabasa ang damit, hihitit 'yung bagong tela (it will shrink) at lalong mapupunit 'yung lumang tela.

Bible Student: 

Ah, gets ko po! Eh 'yung sa alak naman po? Bakit balat ng hayop ang gamit?

Pastor Ronald: 

Ang tawag diyan ay wineskins (mga bottles na gawa sa balat ng kambing).

Old Wineskins: Ang lumang balat ay tuyo na, matigas, at hindi na nababanat.

New Wineskins: Ang bagong balat ay malambot at flexible.

Kapag ang "bagong alak" (juice na nagfe-ferment pa) ay inilagay mo sa lumang balat, ang carbon dioxide na na-release ng fermentation ay magpapa-expand sa balat. Dahil matigas na ang lumang balat, puputok ito! Sayang ang alak, sira pa ang sisidlan.

2. Ang Kahulugan: Old Covenant vs. New Covenant

Bible Student: 

So, Pastor, ano po ang gustong iparating ni Jesus sa atin ngayon?

Pastor Ronald: 

Ito ang "meat" ng study natin: Hindi puwedeng ipag-mix ang sistema ng Old Covenant (ang Kautusan) at ang New Covenant (ang Biyaya).

Ang mga Pariseo at mga alagad ni Juan ay nakatali pa sa mga "rituals" at "regulations" ng lumang tipan (tulad ng mandatory fasting para maging banal). Pero si Jesus ay nagdala ng "bagong alak", ang kagalakan ng New Covenant, at ang kaligtasan sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya.

Kung pipilitin nating ipasok ang kalayaan ng New Covenant sa loob ng mga "legalistic rules" ng Old Covenant, masisira lang pareho. Ang New Covenant ay hindi "update" lang sa Old Covenant; ito ay totally new system na nangangailangan ng bagong puso (new wineskin).

Bible Student: 

Grabe, ang linaw po! Ibig sabihin, hindi tayo puwedeng "half-grace, half-law"?

Pastor Ronald: 

Tumpak! Kapag New Covenant tayo, kay Cristo na tayo nakatingin, hindi na sa mga anino ng lumang ritwal. Ang pagsunod natin ngayon ay bunga ng pag-ibig, hindi ng takot sa parusa ng kautusan.

Real Talk Reflection

"Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved." Matthew 9:17

Minsan, ang daling bumalik sa pagiging "legalistic"yung pakiramdam na kailangan nating "mag-perform" para mahalin tayo ng Diyos. Pero tandaan mo: ang biyaya ni Jesus ay bagong alak. Huwag mong piliting pagkasyahin ang kalayaan mo kay Cristo sa loob ng iyong mga lumang listahan ng "do's and don'ts" para maligtas. Tanggapin mo ang pagbabagong ginagawa ng Banal na Espiritu sa iyong puso.

Call to Action: Ngayong araw, suriin ang iyong puso. May mga "old wineskins" ka pa ba ng legalismo o maling paniniwala na humahadlang sa kagalakan mo sa Panginoon? Isuko mo 'yan sa Kanya at hayaang punuin Niya ang iyong "bagong sisidlan" ng Kanyang biyaya.

"Can You Be a Disciple of Jesus While Following Moses with Equal Authority? A Question That Will Not Go Away" by Pastor Ely Sembrano

Many sincere Christians say, “I follow Jesus, but I also follow Moses.” They claim loyalty to Christ while placing the Law of Moses beside Him as an equal authority for faith and life. At first glance, this sounds balanced, even reverent. Moses gave us God’s law. Jesus affirmed Scripture. Why not hold both together? But the real question is sharper and unavoidable: Can you truly be a disciple of Jesus if Moses stands beside Him as an equal lawgiver?

This article argues, carefully and biblically, that the answer is no. Not because Moses was wrong, but because Jesus is greater. And to put Moses alongside Jesus is to misunderstand both. This is not a minor theological disagreement. It strikes at the heart of discipleship, authority, covenant, and the meaning of obedience.

What It Means to Be a Disciple

Jesus did not call people to admire Him, supplement Him, or balance Him with other authorities. He called them to follow Him.

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother… yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Discipleship is exclusive allegiance. Jesus demands supreme authority over every other voice, religious, cultural, traditional, or historical.

So the question becomes: Who defines obedience for the disciple, Moses or Jesus? You cannot answer “both” without creating a divided authority.

Moses was a servant. Jesus Is the Son

Scripture itself draws a clear line between Moses and Christ.

“Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house… but Christ is faithful as a Son over God’s house.” (Hebrews 3:5–6)

This distinction is crucial.

• Moses served within God’s house
• Jesus owns the house

A servant delivers instructions. A Son establishes the household order. To follow Moses alongside Jesus is to treat the servant as equal to the Son. Scripture never allows this.

The Mountain Where Authority Was Settled

At the Transfiguration, Jesus appears in glory. Moses and Elijah stand with Him, representing the Law and the Prophets. Peter proposes equality: three tents, three figures, three authorities. But God interrupts. “This is My beloved Son… listen to Him.” (Matthew 17:5) Then Moses and Elijah disappear. The message is unmistakable:

• The Law and the Prophets step aside when the Son speaks.
• God did not say, “Listen to them all.”
• He said, “Listen to Him.”
  
  

Jesus Did Not Co-Teach Moses; He Fulfilled Him

Jesus never positioned Himself as Moses’ partner.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

Fulfillment is not continuation. It is completion. When a promise is fulfilled, you don’t keep waiting for it. When a shadow gives way to substance, you don’t cling to the shadow. Jesus did not say: “I will enforce Moses forever.” - “My disciples must live under Sinai.”

Instead, He repeatedly said: “You have heard that it was said… but I say to you.”

That is not commentary. That is authority.

Two Covenants, Two Legal Authorities

Moses did not merely give moral advice. He mediated a covenant with laws, blessings, curses, priesthood, sacrifices, and national boundaries. Jesus did not repair that covenant. He established a new one. “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:20)

A covenant is a legal framework. You cannot live under two covenants with equal authority at the same time. To attempt it is spiritual confusion.

“When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law.” (Hebrews 7:12)

New priesthood. New law. New authority.

The Apostles Settled This Question

When Gentiles began following Jesus, the critical question arose: Must they also submit to the Law of Moses?

The apostles answered decisively.

“Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10).

The conclusion? Moses is not the governing authority for followers of Jesus. If the apostles refused to place Moses over Gentile believers, how can anyone today insist on Moses alongside Christ?

Law from Sinai vs. Law from Christ

Scripture speaks of “the law of Christ.”

“Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2)

This law is not Sinai repackaged.

• It flows from Christ’s teaching
• It is empowered by the Spirit
• It is shaped by love
• It is written on the heart

“The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Moses wrote on stone. Christ writes on hearts.

The Real Problem with Equal Authority

Putting Moses beside Jesus does not honor the law. It diminishes Christ. If Moses defines sin where Jesus is silent, Christ is no longer Lord. If Moses commands where Jesus does not, Christ is no longer sufficient. If Moses binds conscience where Jesus has set free, Christ’s cross is no longer enough.

You cannot say “Jesus is Lord” while allowing Moses to overrule Him. “You are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

This is not lawlessness; it is lordship.

Jesus Is Not Moses’ Equal, He Is Moses’ Goal

Moses himself pointed forward.

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me… you shall listen to Him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15)

Moses knew his role was temporary. Jesus is not the continuation of Moses. He is the destination.


Final Verdict: One Master, One Authority

Jesus did not say: “Follow Me and keep Moses as My equal.” He said, “Follow Me.”

A disciple cannot serve two lawgivers. A covenant cannot share authority. A throne cannot be shared. Moses was faithful. The Law was holy. But Jesus is Lord. To follow Jesus fully is not to reject Moses, it is to recognize that Moses has finished his work.

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)

Not partial. Not shared.

Final One Last Question for the Reader

If Jesus and Moses disagree, whose voice do you obey?

Your answer reveals not your theology alone, but your Master.

A “Traffic Ticket” Theology? A Reaction to Doug Batchelor

The Analogy:

In this short, Pastor Doug Batchelor uses a classic illustration often heard in our former circles: he compares God’s Law to a speed limit. When you break it, you are "under the law" (under its penalty). When the officer gives you a warning instead of a ticket, you are "under grace" (forgiven).

The Former Adventist Philippines Perspective:

While this analogy sounds logical on the surface, many of us who have studied the transition from the Old to the New Covenant find it theologically incomplete. It relies on a specific definition of "Under the Law" that misses the Apostle Paul’s deeper point in Romans and Galatians.

1. "Under the Law" is a Jurisdiction, Not Just a Guilt Trip

Pastor Doug defines "Under the Law" strictly as being under the condemnation of the Law. However, in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul describes being "under the law" as being under a guardian or a schoolmaster. It refers to a time period and a covenantal administration of the Old Covenant.

To be "under grace" (Romans 6:14) doesn't just mean we were forgiven for speeding; it means we have changed jurisdictions entirely. We are no longer under the supervision of the Mosaic Covenant (the schoolmaster); we are now sons and daughters led by the Spirit.

2. The Flaw in the Speed Limit Comparison

The problem with the traffic analogy is the implication: The officer forgives you so you can go back to driving under the same traffic code.

In Seventh-day Adventist theology, grace is often presented as a pardon that equips you to finally keep the Ten Commandments perfectly. But the New Testament teaching is more radical. We didn't just get a warning ticket; we died to the law (Romans 7:4) so that we could be married to another Jesus Christ.

We are not drivers trying to keep the speed limit better; we are new creations operating under the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), where love, not the letter of the Decalogue, is the fulfilling of the law.

3. The Danger of Galatianism

By keeping believers focused on the "speed limit" (the Ten Commandments) as their primary rule of life, this teaching risks placing Filipino believers back under a yoke that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear (Acts 15:10). True grace isn't just "mercy for past sins"; it is the new reality of living in the Spirit, where the fruit of the Spirit comes naturally from abiding in the Vine, not from fear of the blue and red lights in the rearview mirror.

Conclusion:

We respect Pastor Doug’s zeal, but we encourage our kababayans (countrymen) to read Galatians without the lens of the "traffic ticket." You will find that you are not just a forgiven speeder, you are a child of God, free from the schoolmaster, and alive in Christ.

Video Referenced:

Under the Law or Under Grace?

"Jesus vs. Moses: 25 Bagay na Dapat Mong Malaman Para Hindi Ka 'Confused' Christian"

Mga kapatid, narito ang 25 importanteng theological points na dapat maintindihan ng bawat born again Christian, pastor man o hindi, tungkol sa Ten Commandments. Sulat ito from a New Covenant Theology perspective para matulungan tayong i-distinguish kung ano ang pagkakaiba ng Old Covenant ministry of condemnation sa New Covenant ministry of the Spirit.

The Historical & Covenantal Context

1. Covenant Document Sila

Ang Ten Commandments (o Decalogue) ay summary terms ng Old Covenant na specifically ginawa sa pagitan ni God at ng nation of Israel sa Mount Sinai (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13). Kontrata ito between them.

2. Para sa Israel, Hindi sa Gentiles

Malinaw sa Psalm 147:19-20 at Deuteronomy 5:2-3 na ang specific law code na ito ay binigay sa mga Israelites, hindi sa mga pagan nations sa paligid nila.

3. "Package Deal" Ito

Hindi pwedeng i-separate ang Ten Commandments sa iba pang 613 laws ni Moses. Sabi sa James 2:10, kapag nag-fail ka sa isang point, guilty ka na sa lahat. Isang buong legal system 'yan bawal ang chop-chop.

4. Ito ay "Ministry of Death."

Mabigat ito, pero sa 2 Corinthians 3:7, explicitly tinawag ni Paul ang law na "naka-ukit sa bato" (Ten Commandments) bilang isang "ministry of death."

5. Ito ay "Ministry of Condemnation."

Sa 2 Corinthians 3:9 naman, tinawag itong ministry na nagdadala ng condemnation. Ikinumpara ito sa New Covenant na ministry naman ng righteousness.

6. Artificial lang ang "Moral vs. Ceremonial" distinction

Wala tayong mababasa sa Bible na hinati ang Law of Moses into "moral" (Ten Commandments) at "ceremonial" (ordinances). Man-made theological construct lang 'yan at wala sa text mismo.

7. Ang Law ay isang "Tutor" (Guardian)

Dinescribe sa Galatians 3:24 ang law bilang guardian o tutor para akayin tayo kay Christ. Pero once na dumating na ang faith, wala na tayo sa ilalim ng tutor (Galatians 3:25).

The Fulfillment in Christ

8. Finulfill ni Jesus ang Law

Sa Matthew 5:17, hindi naparito si Jesus para i-destroy ang law kundi para i-fulfill ito. Ang ibig sabihin ng "fulfill" ay kumpletuhin ang purpose nito at dalhin sa kanyang intended goal o telos.

9. Christ is the End of the Law

Dineclare sa Romans 10:4 na si Christ ang "end" (telos) ng law para sa righteousness ng bawat sumasampalataya. Siya ang dulo.

10. Pag Nagbago ang Priesthood, Bago na rin ang Law

Fundamental NCT principle ito sa Hebrews 7:12: "For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." Wala na tayo sa priesthood ni Aaron (Levi); nasa ilalim na tayo ng Priesthood ni Melchizedek (Christ).

11. Obsolete na ang Old Covenant

Sabi sa Hebrews 8:13, nang tinawag ni God na "bago" ang covenant, ginawa na niyang obsolete ang una (kasama na ang tablets of stone).

12. Tanggal na ang Tabing kay Christ

Ine-explain sa 2 Corinthians 3:14 na ang "old covenant" ay nananatiling may tabing (veiled) para sa mga hindi pa lumalapit kay Christ. Kay Lord lang naaalis ang belong ito.

The Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) Distinction

13. Ang Sabbath ay "Shadow" lang

Sa Colossians 2:16-17, explicitly nilista ang Sabbath kasama ng pagkain, inumin, at festivals bilang "anino ng mga bagay na darating," pero ang substance o katawan ay kay Christ.

14. Sabbath lang ang hindi inulit

Sa New Testament, inulit at pinalalim ang nine out of Ten Commandments. Pero yung command na mangilin ng seventh-day Sabbath? Missing in action 'yan sa mga sulat sa churches.

15. Si Jesus ang ating Sabbath Rest

Turo ng Hebrews 4 na ang physical Sabbath rest ng Old Testament ay tumuturo sa spiritual rest na nahanap natin sa finished work ni Christ.

16. Pantay-pantay na ang turing sa araw

Sa Romans 14:5-6, may freedom na ang Christians pagdating sa araw. May nagpapahalaga sa isang araw, meron namang tumitingin na pare-pareho lang ang bawat araw.

The Christian's Relationship to the Law

17. "Dead to the Law" na tayo

Sabi sa Romans 7:4, ang believers ay "namatay na sa law through the body of Christ" para maging pag-aari na tayo ng iba. Hindi pwedeng kasal ka sa Law at kay Christ nang sabay.

18. "Not under Law but under Grace."

Ito ang banner ng Christian walk natin sa Romans 6:14. Hindi tayo madodominahan ng kasalanan precisely because wala na tayo sa ilalim ng law.

19. Nasa ilalim tayo ng "Law of Christ"

Ang pagiging malaya kay Moses ay hindi ibig sabihin lawless na tayo. Clarified sa 1 Corinthians 9:21 na tayo ay nasa ilalim ng "law of Christ" (Ennomos Christos).

20. Mas Superior ang Law of Christ

Sabi ng Law of Moses: "Mahalin mo ang kapwa gaya ng sarili." Sabi ng Law of Christ: "Mahalin niyo ang isa't isa gaya ng pagmamahal ko sa inyo" (John 13:34). Tinaasan na ang standard from self-love to sacrificial love.

21. Spirit ang pumalit sa Tablets of Stone

Sabi sa 2 Corinthians 3:3, tayo ay mga sulat ni Christ, hindi isinulat ng tinta kundi ng Spirit, hindi sa tablets of stone kundi sa tablets of human hearts.

22. Love fulfills the Law

Turo ng Romans 13:8-10 na kung sino ang nagmamahal ay na-fulfill na ang law. Love is the fulfillment of the law.

Practical Application

23. Mabuti ang Law kung gagamitin nang tama

Paalala ng 1 Timothy 1:8-9, mabuti ang law kung lawfully gagamitin understanding na hindi ito ginawa para sa righteous person kundi para sa mga lawless at rebellious.

24. Historical Mirror lang ang Ten Commandments

Pinapakita nito ang holiness ng Diyos at ang kasalanan ng tao (Romans 3:20). Pinapakita nito na need natin ng Savior, pero wala itong power para iligtas o baguhin tayo.

25. Ang motivation natin ay Grace, hindi Takot

Hindi tayo umiiwas sa murder, adultery, o pagnanakaw dahil takot tayo sa curse ng Law of Moses. Umiiwas tayo dahil buhay sa atin si Christ at tinuturuan tayo ng Grace na humindi sa ungodliness (Titus 2:11-12).

Real Talk Reflection

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

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.

Deeds of the Law vs. Righteousness of Christ: Exposing SDA Confusion on Righteousness by Faith!

This is a beautiful, pastoral chance to sharpen doctrine with charity and careful exegesis. I’ll answer point by point how the Seventh-day Adventist apologists twist the gospel, using historico-grammatical hermeneutics, a bit of Greek exegesis, and conclude with three sharp (but loving) cross-examinations.

Short answer up front

Brothers and sisters, Romans 3:20 is Paul’s blunt point: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified before God” (διὰ γὰρ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ). Paul is not arguing that good deeds are useless; he is saying they cannot serve as the basis or means of our justification. Justification is forensic — God’s verdict — and that verdict comes through faith in Christ, not through any human attempt to earn God’s favor. Now, let’s walk through the SDA common claims about salvation and gently correct or sharpen where needed.

Point-by-point response & correction

SDA claim#1 — “The deeds of the law… are efforts which man puts forth to save himself.”

Agree — with a crucial qualification.

Paul’s phrase ἔργων νόμου (ergōn nomou) literally “works of the law” refers to works undertaken as a way of meeting the law’s demands to be justified before God. Grammatically and contextually (cf. Galatians), Paul is attacking works as a means of justification, not the value of obedience per se. The law shows what righteousness looks like, but it cannot impute righteousness (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). The law diagnoses sin (ἐπιγνώσεται ἁμαρτία — “through the law comes the knowledge of sin”), it does not deliver sinners.

Hermeneutical note: Read Romans 1–4 as a unit: Paul indicts Jew and Gentile (3:9–19) and then shows God’s remedy — righteousness by faith (3:21–31; ch.4). To detach the “works” language from that flow is to miss Paul’s argument.

SDA claim#2 — “Therefore, no deeds will meet the requirements of the law; man cannot be justified by his imperfect deeds.”

Agree — with emphasis.

Paul actually goes further: no deeds of the law at all can justify (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ). The Greek future passive δικαιωθήσεται points to the courtroom: no human being will be declared righteous on that basis. That truth sets us free to look for a righteousness outside ourselves — God’s righteousness given in Christ (Rom. 3:22–24; 4:5–8). This destroys any gospel that mixes human earning with divine gift.

SDA claim#3 — “He can only be justified by One who has wrought out for him perfect righteousness… the Lord places His righteousness upon us for all the sins of the past, and His righteousness within us to change us…”

Mostly biblical — but be careful with how it’s used.

Two truths must be kept together (and Paul keeps them together):

1. Imputation (forensic righteousness) — God credits Christ’s righteousness to the believer (Romans 4:3, 4:5; δικαιοσύνη λογίζεται). This is the basis of our justification and our standing before God.
   
   
2. Sanctification (transformative righteousness) — God also renews us by the Spirit so that we increasingly live in accord with the law’s righteous requirement (Rom. 8:4). This is the fruit and evidence of justification, not its ground.

SDA writers sometimes blur these and make the “righteousness within” into a new ground of justification (i.e., you must produce inner righteousness to be finally saved). Paul would strongly resist that. The inner change is the result and the proof of grace, not a second way to earn heaven.

The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ’s one sacrifice truly and finally deals with sin, not only with past sins, as the SDA claim, but with the whole debt that sin creates (so there is no further offering needed). Below, I’ll show the Greek, the context (historico-grammatical reading):

1) The plain Greek and context (what Hebrews actually say)

• Hebrews affirms that believers were sanctified “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ἐφάπαξ — once for all.” The Greek word ἐφάπαξ (ephapax) is emphatic: an act that happens only once and requires no repetition.

• The author continues: “For by one offering he has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). The verbal form used (τετέλειωκεν / teteleiōken, “has perfected/completed”) describes a completed, effective action with continuing results. 

• Then, Hebrews draws the inescapable conclusion: “Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer any offering for sin” — οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. In other words, if sins are forgiven in this way, the sacrificial system has nothing left to do.

• Earlier (Heb. 9:12, 9:26), the writer had already said Christ “entered once for all into the holy places… and obtained eternal redemption” and that He “appeared once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” The language is courtroom / cultic: one decisive act that abolishes the old repeatable system.

• Finally, Hebrews 10:17 quotes Jeremiah’s new-covenant promise: “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” That is God’s covenantal, present-tense promise applied to New Covenant people. 

---

2) Hermeneutic & exegesis (how to read these words soundly)

• Historico-grammatical: Hebrews is arguing to Jewish Christians that the temple sacrifices are shadows and that Christ’s one sacrifice is the reality (Heb. 8–10). The recurring sacrifices proved they could not finish sin’s problem; Christ’s single, once-for-all offering does. Reading Hebrews as if it were silent about scope or finality is to miss its whole point. 

• Greek detail: the technical terms matter. ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”), τετέλειωκεν (“has perfected/completed”), οὐκέτι προσφορὰ (“no more offering”), and οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι (“I will remember no more”) — these are not ambiguous or tentative phrases. They describe a completed, decisive, covenantal act with ongoing effect.

• What “forgiveness” here includes: The text ties the once-for-all sacrifice to God’s promise to not remember sins. If God truly does not remember them, then we cannot say those sins remain on record as needing later forensic disposal. Hebrews places the believer inside a forgiveness that is legally decisive and practically effectual (both the forensic imputation and the cleansing of conscience are in view — Heb. 9:14; 10:22). 

---

3) So, does Hebrews teach that only “past” sins were forgiven?

No. To say “Christ forgave only past sins” conflicts with the force of Hebrews’ language:

• If only past sins were forgiven, then the sacrificial system would still be necessary (because future sins would remain unatoned). But Hebrews says there is no longer any offering for sin — i.e., the sacrificial system now has no place. That is incompatible with the claim “we still need a later heavenly ritual to clear future sins.” 

• If later sins still required an atoning work in heaven, the author could not say Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified (Heb. 10:14); nor could God truthfully promise “I will remember their sins no more.” The grammar and context make the atonement decisive and final. 

---

4) Three mic-drop cross-examinations (use these as rhetorical questions)

1. If Christ’s one sacrifice only deleted past sins, why does Hebrews say “there is no longer any offering for sin” (οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας)?
   
   
   If future sins remained, wouldn’t there still be a need for offerings? 

2. Why use the emphatic Greek ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”) and the perfect verb τετέλειωκεν (“has perfected/completed”) unless the author intends to teach a finished, sufficient work, not a partial, provisional one?
   
   
   Does “once for all” sound like an incomplete transaction?

3. On what basis can God say “I will remember their sins no more” (Heb. 10:17, quoting Jer. 31:34) if He still keeps a ledger of believers’ sins to be judged later?
   
   
   Would God’s promise be true if He later “looks back” and opens the book again? 

---

5) Pastoral application (short)

• Hebrews does not deny ongoing holiness, discipline, or the need for repentance when we sin (Heb. 12; 1 John 1:9). But it does insist that the believer’s legal standing is secured by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and that the old system of repeatable offerings is permanently superseded.

• The gospel gives assurance: your sin-debt has been paid; God’s covenant promise is that He does not remember those sins — so stand in the freedom and power of that finished work, and let the Spirit do the sanctifying work in you. 

Hebrews 9–10 uses decisive, technical Greek (ἐφάπαξ; τετέλειωκεν; «no more offering»; «I will remember… no more») and a clear historical argument to teach that Christ’s single sacrifice fully and finally deals with sin — not only the past sins but the legal problem of sin itself — so there is no later heavenly ritual required to “finish” what Christ completed.

SDA claim#4 — “Sin has dominion over us when we are transgressing God’s law and committing sin, and so only.”

This needs correction and nuance.

Paul’s theology makes sin deeper than mere outward acts. In Romans 6–7, he describes a principle — “the law of sin and death” — that enslaves the believer’s fleshly members (Rom. 7:23). Sin’s dominion expresses itself in acts, but its root is a ruling power in the fallen nature. That’s why Paul says, “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). In other words, being “under the law” means being under the law’s condemning authority; being “under grace” means the Spirit breaks sin’s reign and empowers a different obedience.

So: sin’s dominion is both inward and outward — and grace addresses both by giving a new status (justification) and new power (sanctification).

SDA claim #5 — “God desires that His grace fills our hearts… that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:4).”

Agree wholeheartedly — and this is Paul’s point.

Rom 8:4 is exactly how Paul redefines “fulfilling the law”: not by self-effort, but by living in the Spirit. That is the New Covenant ethic. The law’s righteous requirement is met in us when we are empowered by the Spirit to love (cf. Gal. 5:22–25). But note the order: justification by faith (the gift) → life in the Spirit → fulfillment of law’s righteous requirement as fruit. Never reverse the order.

Greek look (short & weighty)

1. ἔργων νόμου (ergōn nomou) — “works of the law.” Paul uses this idiom repeatedly (Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10). It signifies works as a means of justification / covenant-membership, not merely ‘good deeds’ in general.
   
   
2. οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ — “no flesh shall be justified.” This is a forensic statement: no human being will be declared righteous by that method.
   
   
3. ἐπιγνώσεται ἁμαρτία — “through the law comes knowledge of sin.” The law’s primary function in this context is to reveal, not to remedy.
   
   

Questions for Seventh-day Adventists:

1. If ‘works of the law’ could justify, why did Paul boast only in Christ and not in Abraham’s obedience?
   
   
2. Paul appeals to Abraham: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3 — λογίσθη ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνην). If works could justify, why credit faith rather than deeds? If justification depends on human deeds, where is the gospel?
   
   
3. If the law’s works are sufficient, why does Paul say the law actually increases wrath and brings knowledge of sin?
   
   
4. Paul’s point: the law exposes the problem; it does not provide the solution (Rom. 3:19–20; 4:15; Gal. 3:21–22). So do we give people the law to save them, or to show them their need for a Savior?
   
   
5. If sin’s dominion only exists when you outwardly transgress, why did Paul say “I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25)?
   
   
6. Is sin merely a list of bad acts? Or is it a reigning power that corrupts the will and produces acts? If it’s only acts, why the anguished theology of Romans 7? If it’s deeper, then God’s remedy must be both forensic (imputation of Christ’s righteousness) and experimental (Spirit’s renewing power).

If someone answers those three in a way that still makes work the ground of final acceptance, then they have not followed Paul’s logic in Romans.

What to say to a friend who hears the SDA framing

1. Affirm what is true in the SDA text you quoted: we cannot justify ourselves; Christ’s righteousness is the only basis; grace must change us. Those are biblical and good.
   
   
2. But correct what is dangerous in some SDA uses: don’t blend the ground (Christ’s imputed righteousness) with the fruit (Spirit-empowered obedience). Paul insists they are related but distinct. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–9); sanctification is the Spirit’s work producing obedient fruit (Phil. 2:12–13).
   
   
3. Encourage: if you feel pulled toward legalism, return to the gospel — there you find both forgiveness and the power to live a new life.

Why Former Adventists Philippines Chose "New Covenant Theology" Over "Covenant Theology"?

When Former Adventists Philippines (FAP) was just beginning, one of the big questions we had to wrestle with was: Which theological framework best fits our journey out of Adventism and into a Christ-centered understanding of Scripture? Many former Adventists, after leaving the legalism of the old system, instinctively leaned toward Reformed theology. And naturally, that included exploring Covenant Theology (CT).

But as our team dug deeper into Scripture and compared both Covenant Theology (CT) and New Covenant Theology (NCT), we found that NCT was a better fit—biblically, pastorally, and theologically—for who we are and what God is doing through our ministry.

Let’s explain why.

---

The Shadow vs. Substance Principle

One of the biggest things that drew us to New Covenant Theology is its strong emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of all the shadows of the Old Covenant. In NCT, the Law (including the Ten Commandments) is not seen as eternally binding, but as something pointing forward to Christ.

Take Hebrews 8:13 — “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

This verse alone creates a massive theological shift for former Adventists. In Covenant Theology, there’s often the idea that the Moral Law (Ten Commandments) is still binding, even under grace, just not for salvation. But NCT teaches that the whole Old Covenant—including the Ten Commandments—was a temporary covenant made with Israel, and it has now been fulfilled and set aside by Christ.

That means the Sabbath (a core issue for Adventists) is no longer a moral obligation because it was a shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), and the substance belongs to Christ.

---

Jesus Is the Final Lawgiver, Not Moses

In Adventism, Moses was central. But NCT re-centers us on Christ as the final and ultimate Lawgiver. This resonates deeply with ex-Adventists who are learning to look to Jesus, not the Law of Moses, for how to live.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”

Covenant Theology still keeps believers under the “Moral Law of Moses,” using the Ten Commandments as the guide. But NCT teaches that we’re under the “Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2)—which includes all that Jesus and the apostles taught for New Covenant living, not the old Sinai code.

---

Clarity in Biblical Interpretation

New Covenant Theology gave us clear biblical categories. We weren’t left trying to figure out which parts of the Law to keep and which to drop (as CT often does with civil, ceremonial, and moral divisions). NCT takes Scripture at its word: The Old Covenant is gone; the New has come.

2 Corinthians 3:6-11 makes this crystal clear. Paul contrasts the ministry of death (engraved in letters on stone—the Ten Commandments!) with the ministry of the Spirit. One is fading, the other is permanent and glorious.

This framework helped us make peace with verses like Romans 6:14:

“You are not under law but under grace.”

For those of us coming out of a rigid system, NCT gave us the freedom to read the Bible with Christ as the center, not a grid of legal categories.

---

Christ-Focused Discipleship, Not Law-Based Morality

Let’s be real: Former Adventists often go through an identity crisis. We ask: If I’m not under the Law, what keeps me holy?

NCT answers that beautifully: Grace trains us.

Titus 2:11-12 says,

“For the grace of God has appeared… training us to renounce ungodliness…”

We don’t go back to Moses for morality—we go forward to Jesus and the apostles, who teach us how to live in the power of the Spirit. In contrast, Covenant Theology sometimes pulls us back to Sinai, using the Decalogue as a rulebook. But NCT helps us walk in joyful obedience through the Spirit, not duty-bound obligation under a stone tablet.

---

Gospel Simplicity and Evangelistic Power

Lastly, NCT simplifies the gospel message. There’s no confusion about whether we’re still under parts of the Old Covenant. The message is simple: Jesus has fulfilled the Law. We are free in Him. Come to Christ and live under the law of love.

This gives clarity and boldness in evangelism. We don’t have to qualify our message by explaining which covenant applies or which laws still count. The message is: Come to Jesus. He is the New Covenant.

---

Conclusion: Why NCT Matters for Former Adventists

New Covenant Theology isn’t just a theological preference for FAP. It’s a pastoral lifeline for those recovering from spiritual legalism. It honors Christ as the fulfillment of all things, liberates us from confusion about the Law, and gives us a clear path of gospel-centered discipleship.

In short, NCT gave us back the gospel—pure, simple, and centered on Jesus. And that’s why Former Adventists Philippines stands firmly on the New Covenant Theology position.

---

Sample Bible Passages that Support NCT:

• Hebrews 8:6-13 – The Old Covenant is obsolete.

• Colossians 2:16-17 – The Sabbath and other shadows are fulfilled in Christ.

• Galatians 3:24-25 – The Law was a guardian, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer under it.

• Romans 7:4-6 – We have died to the Law through the body of Christ.

• 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 – The Law written on stone was a ministry of death that has now faded away.

---

Let’s keep our eyes on Christ, the Mediator of a Better Covenant (Hebrews 8:6).

For former Adventists, that’s not just theology—it’s healing.

Understanding the Bible: Definition of the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic

Definition of the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic

The law-gospel hermeneutic is the interpretive principle that properly distinguishes between God’s commands (law) and God’s promises (gospel) in Scripture.

This distinction is foundational to biblical theology and central to the right proclamation of the gospel. The law reveals God's holy, unchanging standards and exposes sin; the gospel proclaims God's free and gracious salvation through Jesus Christ, received by faith alone apart from works.

Why It Matters for Ex-Adventists

Seventh-day Adventism blurs the biblical distinction between law and gospel by:

• Mixing moral law observance (including Sabbath-keeping) into the conditions for salvation.

• Teaching a sanctification-based assurance, where one’s standing before God partly depends on personal obedience.

• Proposing investigative judgment theology, effectively tying salvation security to law-keeping performance.

Former Adventists Philippines teaches that this confusion undermines both the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work and the believer’s assurance. Recovering a biblical law-gospel hermeneutic is thus essential for former Adventists to rest in Christ alone and rightly understand the purpose of God's law for the redeemed.

---

How FAP Understands the Role of the Law

In FAP’s teaching, the law functions in three ways:

• As a mirror (usus elenchticus): to reveal sin and drive people to Christ (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24).

• As a civil guide (usus politicos): to restrain evil in society.

• As a rule of life for believers (usus didacticus): not for justification, but as a grateful response to grace (Rom. 6:14; 13:8-10).

We teach that the Decalogue, including the Sabbath command, is no longer a binding covenant obligation under the New Covenant (Heb. 8:13; Gal. 4:21-31), though the moral principles behind it continue in the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2).

---

The Gospel: Christ’s Finished Work, Not Law Plus Grace

FAP holds that the gospel is not an offer conditioned upon law-keeping or Sabbath observance. It is the finished, objective work of Christ in his sinless life, atoning death, and resurrection, freely offered to all and received by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1).

Assurance comes from Christ's perfect righteousness imputed to the believer, not from one’s performance or perseverance in law observance.

---

Biblical Hermeneutic Framework

FAP hermeneutics distinguishes Old Covenant typology and ceremonial laws, fulfilled and abrogated in Christ (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8:13). The law is interpreted in light of its covenantal context and fulfillment in Jesus.

• The Mosaic law was a temporary administration added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19) and was always meant to point to Christ (Rom. 10:4).

• The New Covenant law of Christ is the believer’s rule of life, summarized in loving God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40), empowered by the Spirit.

No law observance contributes to justification, but good works naturally follow salvation as evidence, not a condition.

---

Summary Statement (for FAP doctrinal document)

“We affirm that Scripture must be rightly divided between law and gospel. The law reveals God’s perfect standards and our sin; the gospel announces salvation accomplished by Christ, received by faith alone. In the New Covenant, believers are not under the Mosaic law as a covenant of works, but under the law of Christ as a rule of life. This hermeneutic frees former Adventists from legalistic bondage and secures assurance in Christ’s finished work alone.”

---

Recommended FAP Pastoral Teaching Emphasis

• Expose the misuse of the law in Adventism (Gal. 3:10-14).

• Proclaim the sufficiency of the gospel (Rom. 3:21-26).

• Teach New Covenant theology and the abrogation of ceremonial law (Heb. 8:6-13; Col. 2:16-17).

• Explain the proper place of good works as fruit, not root, of salvation (Eph. 2:8-10).

• Highlight the pastoral dangers of law-gospel confusion (Gal. 1:6-9; 5:1-4).