“DAHIL HINDI NAKASAGOT, SINISI PA ANG AI TECHNOLOGY!”

Johnson Amican:

"May kumakalat na video ngayon na gumagamit ng AI (Artificial Intelligence) para atakihin ang ating pananampalataya at personality. Ito ay ang grupo ng mga Former Adventist sa pangunguna ng ating dating kasamang si Ronald Obidos." Hinahanap ko ang rebuttal nya daw na hindi ko masagot, yon pala kaya di ko makita ay hindi niya boses kundi Ai."

Ronald Obidos:

Dito pa lang sa klase ng sagot ni bro Johnson Amican, obvious na agad yung kakulangan niya sa pag-intindi ng paggamit ng AI technology. Kahit sino naman legit na gumagamit nito sa tamang paraan. Ayon pa nga sa mga IT experts, walang masama sa paggamit ng AI at halata rin na ChatGPT ang ginamit niya para buuin yung mga pangungusap na ’yon. Madalas ko ring sinasabi sa social media na ang tamang paggamit ng AI, lalo na yung mga LLM (Large Language Models) gaya ng ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, at Claude, ay hindi masama basta gamitin mo lang siya bilang “slave” ibig sabihin, utusan mo lang siya na tulungan kang i-organize yung ideas na galing sa sarili mong isip at isinulat mo. Si AI na bahala mag-correct ng grammar at syntax ng sentences para pumili ng best words or expression. Ang mali ay kapag ginawa mong “Master” ang AI ibig sabihin, siya na mismo ang nag-iisip para sa’yo at ikaw na lang ang nagtatanong.

Since wala siyang IT background, pinoproject niya yung sarili niya sa akin at nakalimutan ata niya na Microsoft Certified Professional ako since 2000 at naging IT manager din. So sino kaya ang mas may authority magsalita tungkol sa AI technology at makaunawa kung paano ito gumagana? Malamang siya, ginagawa niyang “Master” ang AI tapos copy-paste na lang kaya chill lang ang buhay.

Isa pa, bago lang nauso ang AI pero matagal na akong sumusulat ng articles at ng mga topics namin sa podcast kahit wala pang AI. Kaya kahit wala nito, kaya ko pa ring magsulat. Ang nakakapagtaka lang talaga sa sinabi ni bro Johnson ay ito…

"Hinahanap ko ang rebuttal nya daw na hindi ko masagot, yon pala kaya di ko makita ay hindi niya boses kundi Ai."

Nakakaduda talaga yung pahayag ni bro Johnson. Kahit siguro sinong professional lalo na sa IT field, mapapailing na lang sa ganitong klase ng pangangatwiran. Para sa akin, tunog “palusot” lang ito para ma-justify kung bakit hindi siya nakasagot sa online debate namin tungkol sa Righteousness by Faith.  

Nagkausap pa nga kami sa isang FB post at sinabi niya na hindi daw niya alam na nakasagot na ako sa refutation niya. Tinanggap ko naman yun at inunawa. Pero nung mas binusisi ko, napagtanto ko na alibi lang talaga yun. Kasi paano niya nasabi na hinahanap daw niya yung rebuttal ko, tapos bigla niyang idadahilan na AI daw ang ginamit ko kaya hindi niya “makita” dahil hindi raw boses ko? Anong klaseng pangangatwiran yun?  

Mga kaibigan, obvious naman kahit kayo na matatalinong nagmamasid sa diskusyon namin na napakababaw ng dahilan na yun. Bakit boses lang ang basehan niya? Hindi ba niya nakita yung thumbnail image, yung picture ko, at pati picture niya na nakalagay pa sa title: “Pro-Catholic na ba si Johnson Amican?”

Kumbinsido ba kayo sa alibi niya kaya hindi siya nakasagot sa challenge ko? Para sa akin, nawawala na naman ang tiwala ko sa sincerity niya. Isa lang ang malinaw: hindi talaga niya kayang tutulan yung rebuttal ko sa video. Nagulantang siya sa mga expose ko, kaya napilitan siyang magpalusot kesa mapahiya.

Johnson Amican:

"Madaling mag-generate ng script, pero mahirap mag-generate ng KATOTOHANAN. Bakit AI ang pinagsasalita? Dahil ba hindi kayang ipaliwanag ng personal ang malalim na teolohiya? O dahil 'sablay' ang logic kaya idinadaan na lang sa computer-generated voice? Nagtatanong lang po."

Ronald Obidos: 

Very common na maririnig natin yung mga ganyang negative thoughts tungkol sa paggamit ng AI, lalo na sa mga senior citizens gaya ng friend natin na si Johnson Amican. Pero honestly, it only reflects yung ignorance ng mga taong ganun mag-isip. Kaya suggestion ko, mag-training ka sa AI technology hindi mo dapat pandirian yan kasi we’re living in a technology age.

Thankful nga ako kay Lord kasi at my age (58), may knowledge ako sa technology, updated pa, at higit sa lahat mas napapabilis nito ang pag-preach ng gospel truth worldwide through social media. Kaya payo ko lang bilang kaibigan, bro, wag kang masyadong makinig sa mga coaches mo na most likely senior citizens din na ignorante sa AI technology. I believe God is also using AI technology for His glory at yun mismo ang ginagawa ko

Totoo naman na hindi AI ang magtuturo sa atin ng katotohanan kundi ang Biblia. Hindi kailangan ng AI para maunawaan ang Bible. In fact, 40 years ago wala pang AI technology pero may gift na ako to write and organize my thoughts. Kaya wag mong pagalitan ang AI technology kahit SDA church, kahit General Conference, ginagamit na rin yan.

At gaya ng nabanggit ko sa itaas, kahit AI technology ang ginamit ko, ako pa rin ang nagmamaniobra kung paano niya i-express yung sarili kong thought at original idea. Ang role ng AI ay tulungan lang akong gawing mas madaling maunawaan ng mga tao, mas conversational, at less formal. Ganun lang yun bro Johnson, FYI.

Baka hindi pa updated si bro Johnson, kaya share ko lang itong info: ginagamit na ng SDA church worldwide ang AI technology sa kanilang evangelism.

SDA Adventist Review on AI Technology Key Articles & Themes

1. "The Possibilities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence for Mission" (Nov. 2024) This article, originally from the ASi newsletter and republished in the Adventist Review, acknowledges AI's remarkable ministry potential rapid research, instant multilingual translation, sermon graphics, AI-generated avatars preaching sermons. It notably cites Ellen White's own Review and Herald quote: "New methods must be introduced... let no one block the way by criticism." However, it raises serious pastoral concerns: AI becoming a shortcut that replaces prayerful Bible study, and ethical questions around claiming AI-generated content as original.

2. "Christians in the Age of Artificial Intelligence" (April 2025) This piece discusses the SDA church's proposal to build AI databases populated with Adventist literature, Ellen White's writings, sermons, and doctrinal materials — so that AI-generated answers align with denominational theology. It also mentions evangelism chatbots like Esperança (already conducting Bible studies in Portuguese and Spanish), and AI tools helping pastors analyze congregation data to guide pastoral care. It raises worries about individualistic, app-based faith disconnected from local church community, and the danger of AI spreading theological errors.

3. "Adventist Lay Organization Goes Full Throttle on AI" (Nov. 2024) Adventist-Laymen's Services and Industries (ASi) formed a formal AI committee pulling together major ministries — 3ABN, Amazing Facts, It Is Written, Voice of Prophecy, Adventist World Radio, Hope Channel, and the Ellen G. White Estate. The stated goal is pooling resources (e.g., bulk purchasing of translation AI) and coordinating AI strategies for global evangelism. One leader stated they believe "AI has the potential to have a more significant impact for the future than even the internet itself." Adventist Review

4. "Does AI Have the Capacity to Pray?" (Jan. 2025) Prompted by a non-SDA megachurch pastor creating an AI clone of himself that prays on request (for $49.99/month), the article explores whether AI can genuinely intercede. The SDA author raises deep theological and pastoral questions about whether such a tool constitutes genuine spiritual ministry or something closer to a digital idol.

5. "Preaching the Gospel in Times of AI" (2024) Reports from the GAiN (Global Adventist Internet Network) conference, where SDA communicators from across the Americas gathered to discuss making AI an evangelistic ally. A chatbot called Hope, built six years ago with 6,000 Adventist articles and 63 Ellen White books, has reportedly assisted over 278,000 students and led to thousands of baptisms.

Kung susundin natin yung mindset ni bro Johnson Amican, baka pati mga programs ng SDA church hindi na rin niya pakikinggan dahil hindi naman “totoong” boses ng tao ang nagsasalita. Wala pa siyang pake na obvious naman sa photos kung sino ang nag-narrate gamit ang AI avatar, pati yung malinaw na title ng topic. Ang problema lang niya ay dahil AI ang nagsasalita, ayaw na niyang pakinggan.

Hindi ba OA na yung ganung klaseng reasoning? At sa totoo lang, ganun lang talaga ang mga taong ignorante sa AI technology.

Johnson Amican

Abangan ang aming LIVE REBUTTAL.

Sasagutin natin ang maling akusasyon na ang Righteousness by Faith daw ng SDA particular ako Johnson Amican ay sa 'Katoliko.'

Ipakikita namin ang tunay na kasaysayan at ang malinaw na turo ng Bibliya at ni EGW—na hindi kayang makuha ng isang AI prompt.

​Huwag magpalinlang sa 'high-tech' na paninira. Sa totoong pag-aaral tayo.


Ronald Obidos

Na-debunk ko na sa itaas yung mga patutsada ni bro Johnson Amican at na-demonstrate natin kung gaano siya ka-ignorant pagdating sa AI technology kaya diring-diri siya dito. Abangan natin mga kaibigan kung ano ang isasagot niya bukas (Sunday, March 1, 2026) sa kanyang programa. Pag-pray natin na hindi niya i-skip yung mga challenge ko sa kanya tungkol sa mga misrepresentations niya sa naging kasunduan sa Palmdale Conference 1976.

Ayon kasi kay bro Johnson, ang napagkasunduan daw doon ay na ang Righteousness by Faith at Justification by Faith ay iisa. Kaya abangan natin bukas kung paano niya haharapin ang issue na ito. Maraming salamat po.

Pastor Ronald Obidos
FAP Founder/Apologist

Investigating Adventism Q&A: "Who Fulfills the Little Horn? A Critical Response!"

Q: Is this comparison chart a fair and exegetically honest treatment of Daniel 7 and 8?

A: No. The chart conflates two distinct little horn prophecies, Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, as if they describe the same entity, which is a fundamental exegetical error. Daniel 7's little horn arises from the fourth beast (Rome), while Daniel 8's little horn arises from the third beast (Greece). Even within classic SDA interpretation, these require careful distinction. Blending them to build a cumulative case against the Papacy is rhetorically convenient but hermeneutically sloppy.

Q: What about Daniel 8 specifically? Doesn't the context point to a Greek-era figure?

A: Yes, overwhelmingly so. Daniel 8:20-21 explicitly identifies the ram as Medo-Persia and the goat as Greece. The little horn of Daniel 8 "grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land" (8:9), geographic language that fits the Seleucid expansion under Antiochus IV Epiphanes precisely. He desecrated the Temple (168 BC), abolished Jewish worship, and persecuted covenant-faithful Jews for roughly 2,300 evenings and mornings, a specific, literal period. The angel Gabriel explicitly tells Daniel this vision concerns "the time of the end" of that specific indignation (8:19), referring to the Maccabean crisis, not medieval church history.

Q: But the chart says Antiochus only gets "NO" across the board. Isn't that dishonest?

A: Quite. Antiochus IV did persecute the saints (1 Maccabees 1; Daniel 8:24-25), did change laws and times (abolishing the Torah observances), did claim divine authority (calling himself Epiphanes, "God Manifest"), and his power lasted the exact prophesied duration. The chart's "NO" answers misrepresent Antiochus dramatically and depend entirely on redefining each category to only fit a medieval institution. This is the fallacy of rigged criteria.

Q: What about the "1260 years" and "times, time, and half a time" in Daniel 7:25?

A: The SDA year-day principle applied here (538–1798 AD) is an interpretive tradition, not an exegetically demanded reading. The phrase "time, times, and half a time" appears in Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 12:14 and parallels the 42 months and 1,260 days of Revelation, all of which, in a partial-preterist, New Covenant framework, point to the period of tribulation surrounding the first-century Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The "saints" being worn down fits the early church under Neronian and Domitianic persecution far more naturally than a 1,260-year calculation that requires a symbolic leap the text itself never demands.

Q: Is the Daniel 7 little horn Rome at all?

A: The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is widely understood as Rome and within a partial-preterist hermeneutic, the little horn can refer to Nero Caesar or the Flavian dynasty, whose persecution of the church and blasphemous claims (Nero as divine, Domitian demanding "Lord and God") fit the textual markers well. The "three horns uprooted" correspond to the Year of the Four Emperors (AD 68-69). The "wearing out of the saints" reflects the Neronian persecution. This reading requires no year-day speculation; it takes the text more literally, not less.

Q: Doesn't the Papacy still fit some of the criteria, though?

A: Some historical features are genuinely notable and deserve honest theological critique the Papacy has exercised enormous institutional authority, has persecuted dissenters, and has claimed spiritual jurisdiction that many Protestants rightly challenge. But fitting some criteria does not make a prophetic identification exegetically valid. The methodology here works backward from a desired conclusion. If you define "changed times and laws" as the liturgical calendar and canon law, the Papacy fits. If you define it as Antiochus abolishing the Torah and Sabbath observances as the text's own context demands, Antiochus fits far better.

Q: What's the core methodological problem with this chart?

A: Three things:

First, the conflation of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 is treated as one prophecy when they are distinct visions with different beasts, different symbolism, and different scopes.

Second, rigged criteria: each category is defined post hoc to exclude Nero and Antiochus and include the Papacy, rather than letting Daniel's own context define the terms.

Third, anachronistic hermeneutics: the chart assumes a futurist or historicist framework without defending it, while dismissing the preterist reading that has strong exegetical and historical support from the early church fathers (e.g., Eusebius, Chrysostom on Daniel 8).

Q: What's the bottom line for a Reformed Christian evaluating this?

A: Approach Daniel with grammatical-historical exegesis first. Let the text's own contextual clues and the explicit angelic interpretations in Daniel 8:20-21 guide identification before imposing a prophetic grid. The SDA historicist framework has a particular denominational interest in identifying the Papacy as the little horn because it anchors their distinctive Sabbatarian and investigative judgment doctrines. That's a significant theological motivation to account for when evaluating their apologetic. Honest exegesis should follow the evidence where it leads, and in Daniel 8, Gabriel himself points us toward the Hellenistic period, not medieval Rome.

The Three Unanswered Challenges: SDA's Fatal Silence on the Sabbath Change Claim

Q: SDAs claim the Papacy "changed the Sabbath to Sunday" as proof of fulfilling Daniel 7:25's "change times and laws." Have SDAs ever been able to substantiate this claim with historical specifics?

A: No, and this is one of the most devastating unresolved problems in the entire SDA prophetic framework. Despite decades of debate, SDAs have been unable to answer three direct historical challenges that strike at the very heart of their "Papacy changed the Sabbath" argument:

Challenge #1: Who is the Pope responsible for?

Name the specific Pope who officially changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday within the alleged 1,260-year period of 538 AD to 1798 AD.

SDAs cannot answer this because no such Pope exists in the historical record. There is no papal bull, no encyclical, and no decree from any identifiable pope within that window that formally changed the day of Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday. Sunday worship predates 538 AD by centuries; it is attested in Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD), Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), and the Didache, long before any papal supremacy was established. If the change happened before the SDA's own proposed prophetic window, their entire timeline collapses.

Challenge #2: When did the change happen?

Give a specific date or year within 538 AD–1798 AD when this official change was enacted.

Again, silence. SDAs typically point to vague references like the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), which is outside their own 1,260-year window, or quote Catholic catechisms boasting about the change, which are apologetic claims, not historical documentation of a specific papal act. A claim this central to SDA theology and prophetic identity demands a specific, verifiable date. None has ever been produced.

Challenge #3: Which Ecumenical Council ratified this change?

Identify the Ecumenical Council that formally supported the Pope in changing the Sabbath to Sunday between 538 AD and 1798 AD.

No such council existed within that period. The seven Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea I through Nicaea II, 325–787 AD) did not convene to legislate a Sabbath-to-Sunday change, and none falls neatly within the SDA window in a way that addresses this claim. The Council of Laodicea predates it. The later medieval councils (Lateran, Trent) dealt with other controversies entirely. SDAs cannot produce a council, a canon, or a decree that formally enacted this alleged change within their own prophetic timeframe.

Q: Why does the inability to answer these three challenges matter so much?

A: Because the entire SDA identification of the Papacy as the little horn of Daniel 7 pivots on the "changed times and laws" criterion. Remove that, and the prophetic identification loses its most distinctive and historically specific plank. If SDAs cannot demonstrate who, when, and by what conciliar authority the Sabbath was changed within their own 1,260-year framework, then they are making a prophetic claim without historical substance. This is not a peripheral issue; it is load-bearing to their entire eschatological and ecclesiological system, including the Investigative Judgment, the Three Angels' Messages, and their identity as the remnant church.

The honest conclusion is that Sunday worship was an organic, early church development rooted in the Resurrection (John 20:1, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10), not a medieval papal conspiracy. And if there was no papal change, then the "changed times and laws" marker as SDAs apply it simply does not point to the Papacy.

“THE REAL “TEST OF LOYALTY” By Pastor Zaldie Ybanez

Jesus Himself redefined the "work" or "test" of the believer. When asked what works God requires, Jesus did not point to the Decalogue or Ten Commandments; He pointed to Himself. "Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent'" (John 6:29).

Our loyalty does not lie in a legal code engraved in stone or in dietary laws. As Romans 14:17 (KJ21) says, the Kingdom of God is not about 'meat and drink,' but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. This highlights that spiritual life is about inner change, not just following external rules. Instead, to the Person of Jesus Christ. To focus on the Law as the primary test is to miss the One to whom the Law was pointing. "The real 'Test of Loyalty' is faith in Christ, rather than being under the jurisdiction of law-keeping."

"Obedience to every specification of the law" as the way to reveal God’s character. This creates a "probationary" atmosphere of fear.

The New Covenant teaches that our standing before God is based on Christ’s perfect obedience, not our own. Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The "Test of Loyalty" was passed by Jesus on our behalf. Our "loyalty" is evidenced by resting in His finished work at the cross, not by trying to achieve "perfect obedience to the written code or dietary laws" to prove we are "loyal children."

“Christ died so man might have another probation." Salvation is not a "second chance" to try and keep the Law better this time. It is a total rescue from the system of Law. "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24).

"A person on 'probation' is essentially still on trial. This logic underpins the belief in the Investigative Judgment—a doctrine that finds no support in the Bible. Consequently, many adherents lack assurance of salvation, believing they must achieve perfect obedience to the Ten Commandments before their destiny is secured.".

A person in Christ is "justified" (declared righteous) in Romans 3:24. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. These two states are legally incompatible.

"Blessed is the one who listens to the truth. True obedience is not the forced climb up Mount Sinai to reach perfect adherence to the Law, but rather the acceptance of and abiding in the finished work of Jesus at Calvary.