“Former Adventists Philippines: It’s Rescue, Not Retaliation — An Open Letter to Our SDA Brethren”

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16

It’s easy for honest theological conversations to get misread as personal attacks.

Recently, Brother Eligene Tayco, an Adventist from Ibajay, Aklan reached out to us at Former Adventists Philippines. In his letter, he shared a sincere concern: from where he sits, our posts, videos, and discussions seem like they are driven by hurt feelings, bitterness over disfellowship, or a desire to get back at the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We genuinely appreciate Brother Eligene taking the time to write. His letter comes from a real love for his local church community, and we respect that. But his message also brings to light a huge misconception about why Former Adventists Philippines exists.

Here is our direct, brother-to-brother open letter to Brother Eligene to set the record straight and point back to the real peace we have in Christ.

Dear Brother Eligene,

I read your letter to the Former Adventists Philippines. I know you wrote it out of genuine concern for the church, so I want to reply to you directly, brother to brother, without any sugarcoating. We just need to clear a few things up because there is a massive misunderstanding about where we are coming from.

You mentioned that we’re speaking out because we have hurt feelings from being disfellowshipped, and you advised us to choose peace over revenge.

Honestly, the vast majority of us didn't leave because we were offended, and we certainly aren't out for revenge. We speak up because our eyes were finally opened to the true gospel. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was a hardcore Pharisee, highly respected in Judaism. When he met Christ on the road to Damascus, did he just quietly move on with his life to keep the peace? No. He immediately started preaching the truth to his former associates. Was he attacking them out of anger? Not at all. Read Romans 9, he was agonizing over his former brethren. He loved them so much he was willing to be cursed himself if it meant they could be saved. When we post about our new faith, it’s not payback. It’s a rescue mission.

You also quoted Galatians 5:22, saying that if we are truly at peace, we should just stay quiet and not "drag down" the newly baptized members in Ibajay, Aklan.

Think about it this way. What if you found out the daily vitamins your family has been taking for years actually contain ingredients that keep them weak, and then you found the actual cure? Would you just quietly take the cure yourself and say nothing so you don't "disturb their peace"? Of course not. True peace in Christ actually pushes us to speak up. Pointing people to the New Covenant isn't dragging them down; it’s pulling them out of a heavy, performance-based system so they can finally rest in the finished work of Jesus.

Regarding Ellen G. White, you asked us to stop attacking her, pointing out she isn't the Saviour and that her books used to help us.

We agree, only Christ saves. But holding a prophet's writings up to the light of the Bible isn't an "attack." It’s basic biblical discernment. First Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to test everything. Just because something felt inspiring in the past doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to theological errors now. If a teaching drags a believer back under the Old Covenant, we have an obligation to call it out. We aren't attacking a person; we are protecting the gospel.

You also mentioned that if we want to correct the church, we should talk to the pastor privately based on Matthew 18.

Brother, Matthew 18 is about personal, private sins, like if a brother cheats you or insults you. It doesn't apply to public doctrines, published books, or church-wide teachings. When Peter started compromising the gospel in public, Paul didn’t pull him into a private room. He corrected him right there in front of everyone (Galatians 2). Public theological errors require public biblical correction.

Finally, you said you are praying for us and that the door is always open if we repent and come back.

I want you to really think about this question: If Paul’s former Pharisee friends invited him to come back to Judaism, to the old shadows of the law and the heavy yoke of his past, would he accept the invitation?

Never. Paul found the substance, which is Christ. Under the New Covenant, we aren't bound by the shadows or the Old Testament yokes that Jesus already fulfilled. Going back would mean trading the reality for a shadow. We have finally found rest in grace, and we simply cannot go backward.

Since we are having some real talk, I want to leave you with three friendly questions to chew on:

1. If sharing a different theological belief on Facebook is automatically considered "hate," "anger," or "attacking," then how can SDA evangelists hold public Revelation seminars proving Catholics and Evangelicals wrong without being guilty of the exact same thing?

2. Are former members actually attacking the people inside the church, or are we just critically examining the doctrines using the Bible alone?

3. If you were in our shoes, and you genuinely believed with all your heart that you had finally discovered the absolute freedom of the New Covenant, wouldn’t you do everything you could to share it with the people you care about most?

We love you, brother. We don't post out of hate. We post because we want you to experience the exact same freedom and absolute assurance we now have in Christ alone.

Rethinking the Millennium

If you grew up Adventist, you know the drill: endless end‑time charts, warnings about the “time of trouble,” and the teaching that the earth will lie desolate for a thousand years while the saints wait it out in heaven. That framework shaped how we saw the future: bleak, fearful, and disconnected from the broader Christian world.

But once you step outside that system, you start noticing something: the Bible’s picture of the end times is far richer than the narrow lens we were handed. Revelation 20, in particular, has been read in very different ways across church history. Two views worth exploring are Postmillennialism and a newer proposal called New Creation Millennialism.

• Postmillennialism: This view sees Christ reigning now through the advance of the Gospel. The “millennium” isn’t a future pause button on history; it’s the ongoing age of Christ’s victory, where nations are gradually discipled and transformed. Historically, this perspective fueled missionary movements, social reform, and cultural optimism. Think Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, and modern Reformed theologians who argue that the Great Commission will succeed before Christ’s return.
  
  
• New Creation Millennialism: A more recent idea, this view emphasizes continuity between the present creation and the renewed creation. Instead of imagining a desolate earth or a purely symbolic millennium, it highlights how God’s plan is to restore creation itself. The millennium becomes a picture of renewal, not abandonment, a theology that resonates with ecological concerns and the biblical theme of resurrection life breaking into the world.

Now, just to be clear: I personally hold the Postmillennial view. But here in the Former Adventists Philippines fellowship, eschatology isn’t a test of fellowship. We’ve got members who lean amillennial, premillennial, or who are still figuring it out, and that’s perfectly fine. The point isn’t to enforce one timeline but to encourage honest re‑examination of Scripture after leaving a fear‑based system.

By putting these options on the table, my goal is simple: to help you think critically, weigh the evidence, and land on what actually makes sense biblically and spiritually. Whether you end up Postmillennial, New Creation Millennial, or somewhere else, the bigger win is moving from fear to hope, from paranoia to confidence in Christ’s reign.

What Is New Creation Millennialism?

New Creation Millennialism is a fresh take on end‑times theology, developed by scholars like J. Webb Mealy, who wanted to refine the rough edges of traditional premillennialism. Instead of imagining a long pause between Christ’s return and the final renewal of creation, this view sees the millennium as the opening chapter of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Here’s the core idea: When Christ returns, the old world doesn’t just limp along, it’s transformed. The New Creation begins immediately. Revelation 20’s “thousand years” isn’t a waiting room before eternity; it’s the first era of that renewed world. During this time:

• Believers reign with Christ on a restored earth, not in a distant heaven.
  
  
• Satan is bound, unable to deceive the nations.
  
  
• The unrepentant dead remain in Hades until the thousand years end. Then, after that period, Satan is released for one last rebellion, the wicked are resurrected for judgment, and evil is finally destroyed forever.

This model bridges the gap between premillennial realism (Christ’s visible reign) and new‑creation theology (the continuity of creation). It avoids the awkward “temporary kingdom” problem of classic premillennialism and the overly symbolic approach of amillennialism.

For former Adventists, parts of this sound familiar, the idea that the wicked remain dead during the millennium echoes what we were taught. But here’s the key difference: instead of the saints spending a thousand years in heaven while the earth lies desolate, New Creation Millennialism places believers on a renewed, vibrant earth from day one. It’s not a wasteland; it’s the beginning of restoration.

This perspective also connects with broader biblical themes:

• Romans 8: creation itself longs for redemption, not annihilation.
  
  
• Isaiah 65–66: the promise of a new heavens and new earth where life flourishes.

• Revelation 21: heaven comes down, not believers escaping up.

In short, New Creation Millennialism reframes the millennium as the dawn of renewal, not a cosmic timeout. It paints a hopeful picture of Christ’s reign, one that starts with resurrection, restoration, and the flourishing of creation itself.

What Is Postmillennialism?

Postmillennialism flips the usual end‑times script. It doesn’t see the “millennium” in Revelation 20 as a literal countdown after Jesus returns. Instead, it’s a long, unfolding era of Gospel triumph before His Second Coming.

In this view, the “thousand years” is symbolic, a picture of completeness, not a stopwatch. It represents the fullness of Christ’s present reign from heaven. The Holy Spirit is active, the Gospel is powerful, and the nations are gradually being discipled. As biblical truth reshapes cultures, societies improve, and justice and mercy expand. When this global transformation reaches its fullness, Jesus returns after (post) the victory, to resurrect the dead, judge evil, and usher in the eternal state.

Historically, this view fueled optimism and mission. Think of theologians like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, and B.B. Warfield, who saw the Great Commission as something destined to succeed, not fail. Postmillennialism inspired social reform, education, and evangelism movements that believed Christ’s kingdom was advancing tangibly in history.

When Combined with Partial Preterism

Now, pair that with Partial Preterism, which recognizes that many of Revelation’s terrifying prophecies, like the Great Tribulation, were fulfilled in the first century when Jerusalem fell in AD 70. Suddenly, the whole tone of eschatology changes. Instead of waiting for chaos, you’re living in the age of Christ’s victory.

This combination turns Postmillennialism into a theology of massive hope, not escapism, but engagement.

Why It Makes Sense for Former Adventists

New Creation Millennialism keeps a futuristic reading of Revelation 20, but Postmillennialism feels more biblical, and far more liberating for anyone stepping out of fear‑based religion.

1) It Cures “Time of Trouble” Trauma

Adventism trained us to fear the future, to watch for Sunday Laws, stockpile supplies, and prepare for persecution. Postmillennialism says the Great Tribulation already happened. That unplugged fear rewires your spiritual life from anxiety to confidence.

2) It Takes the Cross Seriously

If Jesus is King right now, His kingdom should be winning. The idea that the world will only decay until He rescues a tiny remnant minimizes the power of the New Covenant. Postmillennialism insists the Gospel is effective, not fragile.

3) It Fits What Jesus Taught

Look at the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven. The kingdom starts small but eventually fills the whole dough. That’s exactly what 1 Corinthians 15:25 says: “He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet.”

Postmillennialism tells us the victory is unfolding now, not postponed to a future era. The work we do today actually matters in God’s plan.

Questions to Ponder

• If the Great Tribulation is already past, how does that reshape your reading of Revelation?
  
  
• How did the old “world is only getting worse” mindset hold you back when you were still Adventist?
  
  
• If Christ’s kingdom is meant to grow and shape nations before He returns, how does that change how you see your job, your family, and your life ?

Application: Stop Waiting for the Sky to Fall

When we were Adventist, we spent years scanning headlines for signs of the end, and forgot how to actually live. Postmillennialism calls us to drop the escapism and start building.

Plant roots. Build a business. Pursue that degree. Invest deeply in your family. Share the Gospel in your barangay. We’re not waiting to be evacuated from a doomed planet, we’re working for a King whose kingdom is expanding right now.

“Don’t fear the future, build it. Christ reigns now, and His kingdom is winning.”

MATTHEW 5:17-20: Did Jesus Really Make the Ten Commandments Eternal?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20(NIV)

For twenty-four years, I defended the Seventh-day Adventist movement. I was a trained apologist and a traveling evangelist, arguing its doctrines in public debates that you can still find archived on my YouTube channel today. But on September 12, 2019, the Lord Jesus Christ interrupted my path. I did not just meet a new theological argument; I encountered a Person. That single encounter completely dismantled the convictions I had spent over two decades building.

This work is a direct fruit of that shift. I have two goals here. First, I want to equip fellow believers who have never been inside the SDA system, so you can answer its claims with real biblical precision instead of just a vague sense of unease. Second, and this is very close to my heart, I am writing this for my Adventist friends who are honestly wrestling with how they read Scripture. I want to challenge you to test the usual proof-texting methods against the actual text itself: its grammar, its historical setting, and its place in the unfolding story of the whole Bible.

Sabbatarians lean on Matthew 5:17–20 more than any other passage. It is the ultimate anchor text, usually the first one quoted, because on the surface, it seems to settle the debate immediately: Did Christ abolish or preserve the Law?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished..." (Matthew 5:17-18, ESV)

The usual objection goes like this: "Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the Law, and that not one jot or tittle would pass away. If the Ten Commandments were meant to be set aside, why would He say this? Doesn’t this prove the seventh-day Sabbath remains binding?" It sounds airtight, until you look closely at the Greek grammar, Matthew’s consistent vocabulary, and the actual timeline Jesus is talking about. When we do that, this passage stops being Sabbatarian ammunition and becomes a massive monument to the supremacy of Christ.

Reading Matthew 5 on Its Own Terms

If we want to understand the text, we have to read it the way a first-century Jew would have understood it, completely dropping the 19th-century American Sabbatarian habit of splitting the law into "moral" and "ceremonial" categories, a division the original Jewish audience knew nothing about.

Here is what the text actually reveals when we let Matthew speak for himself:

• "The Law or the Prophets" means the entire Old Testament: This phrase (ho nomos ē hoi prophētai) is a fixed Jewish idiom for the whole Hebrew canon (the Tanakh). Jesus uses it this way everywhere else (Matt. 7:12; 22:40; Luke 24:44).
  
  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12(NIV)
  
  "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:40(NIV)
  
  "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44(NIV)
  
  You cannot carve out just the Ten Commandments from this phrase. If Jesus didn't abolish "the Law," He is talking about the whole Old Covenant system.

• Jesus chose "Fulfill" (plēroō), not "Observe" (tēreō): Matthew uses the word plēroō sixteen times in his Gospel. Every single time, it is a technical term meaning a prophetic shadow or type has reached its ultimate goal in Jesus Christ (e.g., the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt). If Jesus just meant "I came to keep the law perpetually," He would have used the Greek word tēreō (to keep/observe). Instead, He says He is the destination the Old Testament was pointing toward. You cannot suddenly change the definition of plēroō in chapter 5 just to protect a Sabbath doctrine.
  
  
• The "Until" clauses point to a covenantal shift, not the end of the universe: Jesus says the Law stands until "all is accomplished" (ginōmai - taking place/happening). He uses this exact phrase in Matthew 24:34 regarding the fall of Jerusalem.
  
  "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matthew 24:34(NIV)
  
  In Jewish prophetic language (Isaiah 13, Haggai 2), "heaven and earth" shaking or passing away describes the collapse of a nation or a covenant order. Jesus is saying the Old Covenant system would not lose a single stroke until He accomplished His redemptive work, a work vindicated visibly in AD 70 when the physical Temple was destroyed, permanently ending the Old Covenant sacrificial system.
  
  
• "These Commandments" refer to His own teachings: In verse 19, Jesus warns against relaxing "these commandments." In Greek narrative, the word "these" (toutōn) points to what is immediately at hand. He is pointing forward to His own six antitheses in the very next verses (Matt 5:21–48), where He takes the Law and upgrades it into the New Covenant Law of Christ. Noticeably, the Sabbath is the one commandment Jesus completely leaves out of His kingdom ethic here.

Dismantling the Common Defenses

When faced with this textual reality, Adventist apologetics usually rely on a few predictable fallacies. We need to address them head-on.

First, there is the issue of selective obedience. The Greek word nomos in the first century meant all 613 laws of Moses, civil, dietary, and sacrificial. If Matthew 5:18 guarantees the perpetual obligation of the Law, then consistency demands keeping all 613 commands. To claim that "not one stroke" applies to the Sabbath but quietly ignore the Levitical priesthood and civil penalties is textbook special pleading. Even the SDA-published Andrews Study Bible admits that in verse 17, Jesus is not making a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, but is "affirming all of God’s will as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures."

"5:17 Law … Prophets. The first five books of the OT and all the rest of the ancient Scripture. Jesus is not here making a distinction between ceremonial, civil, or moral laws. He is affirming all of God’s will as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, and showing its continuity. Though the will of God as defined in the OT Scriptures continues, Jesus takes it a step further: He fulfills it; i.e., He “fills it up.” He gives the Scriptures their fuller meaning." (Andrews Study Bible Notes. Andrews University Press, 2010, p. 1254)

Then comes the classic fear-based objection: "If we don't have the Ten Commandments, does that mean we can just kill, steal, and commit adultery?" This is a false dichotomy that completely ignores the reality of the New Covenant. We do not avoid murder because a stone tablet tells us not to; we avoid it because the Holy Spirit writes the Law of Christ on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, 1 Cor 9:21). Paul explicitly calls the law "chiseled in letters on stones," a "ministry of death," and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7-9). God retired the Sinai covenant for our benefit, replacing an external code with the internal, life-giving presence of the Spirit.

Finally, Adventists often argue, "But Jesus kept the Sabbath, so we must too." Jesus also kept the Passover, was circumcised, and paid the temple tax. He kept the entire Old Covenant perfectly because He was "born under the law, to redeem those under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5). He fulfilled Israel's broken obligations as our substitute. He was not establishing a permanent template for the Church; He was finishing the work so the New Covenant could begin.

Three Questions to Move the Conversation Forward

The Law and the Prophets were never meant to be the final destination; they were signposts pointing to Christ. If you are still holding onto Matthew 5 as a proof text for Sabbath keeping, I ask you to sincerely consider these three questions:

1. The Context Test: Matthew uses the word plēroō (fulfill) around sixteen times, always to show that an Old Testament prophecy or shadow has become a reality in Christ. On what biblical basis do you insist that this one time in Matthew 5:17, the word suddenly changes its meaning to "ongoing legal obedience"?

2. The Consistency Test: If you agree that "the Law" in verse 17 means the whole Old Testament, and that not one dot will pass away, why do you not also keep the Passover and practice circumcision? Why extract the Sabbath while ignoring the rest of the identical nomos?

3. The Missing Command Test: If Jesus is issuing His new Kingdom ethic in the following verses (His six antitheses on anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and enemy-love), why is the Sabbath the one commandment He completely leaves behind?

Where to read more: Consider D.A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew's fulfillment formulas, and R.T. France's analysis of "heaven and earth" as a covenantal idiom for a deeper dive into the Greek syntax.