Religious organizations exert profound influence over the beliefs, moral decisions, and personal lives of their members. For this reason alone, their teachings warrant careful and objective scrutiny—particularly when such groups claim exclusive fidelity to sacred texts. As a blogger and concerned citizen, I undertook a personal and systematic examination of the doctrines of Ang Dating Daan (ADD), comparing its official teachings with the biblical passages it claims as its sole authority.
This editorial does not aim to disparage individuals, nor does it seek to undermine the sincerity of faith held by members of Ang Dating Daan. Rather, its purpose is investigative: to assess whether the group’s doctrinal claims are consistently supported by Scripture when examined in full biblical context.
Background: The Rise and Influence of Ang Dating Daan
Ang Dating Daan emerged in the Philippines in 1980, initially as a radio broadcast led by Eliseo “Bro. Eli” Soriano. Over the decades, the program expanded across television, satellite networks, and digital platforms, eventually developing into a transnational religious organization with more than a thousand local congregations worldwide.
Central to ADD’s identity is its assertion that the Bible alone serves as the foundation of its faith and practice. The movement explicitly rejects church traditions, creeds, and theological formulations it considers unbiblical. This position has attracted followers seeking clarity, certainty, and a perceived return to “original Christianity.”
Given these claims, it is both reasonable and necessary to examine whether ADD’s interpretations faithfully reflect the biblical text they emphasize.
Core Doctrinal Claims and Points of Tension
The Nature of Jesus Christ
One of the most consequential findings of my review concerns ADD’s teaching on the identity of Jesus Christ. Ang Dating Daan asserts that Jesus is not God but a man uniquely used by God. This position stands in tension with multiple biblical passages that explicitly attribute divinity to Christ.
John 1:1 states that “the Word was God,” while verse 14 identifies the Word as Jesus Christ. ADD’s interpretation redefines these passages in ways that diverge from their plain grammatical and contextual meaning. Additional texts—such as Isaiah 9:6, Romans 9:5, and Hebrews 1—further complicate ADD’s position by referring to Christ in unmistakably divine terms.
The editorial concern here is not denominational disagreement but interpretive consistency. When clear passages are minimized or reinterpreted to sustain a predetermined conclusion, the integrity of biblical interpretation is called into question.
The Rejection of the Trinity
Ang Dating Daan categorically rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, labeling it as unscriptural. However, the Trinity is not derived from a single verse but from a comprehensive reading of Scripture.
Jesus’ statements in John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”), His authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), and the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 collectively support the historic Christian understanding of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rejecting this framework requires selective reading rather than holistic analysis.
The Holy Spirit as an Impersonal Force
ADD’s portrayal of the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force contrasts sharply with biblical descriptions. Scripture attributes intellect, volition, and speech to the Holy Spirit—characteristics of personhood rather than abstract power (Romans 8:27; Acts 13:2; 1 Corinthians 12:11).
This reduction of the Holy Spirit raises significant theological concerns, particularly given the Spirit’s central role in Christian faith and practice.
Authority, Exclusivity, and the Claim of a “Sugo”
Another critical issue is the assertion by Bro. Eli Soriano of being a divinely appointed “Sugo” or end-time messenger. The Bible presents Jesus Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), with no provision for an exclusive modern prophetic authority over doctrinal truth.
Similarly, ADD’s claim to be the only true church places organizational membership at the center of salvation—a position not supported by Scripture, which consistently emphasizes faith in Christ rather than institutional affiliation.
Scripture Interpretation: Methodological Concerns
Although ADD promotes the slogan “Biblia ang Sasagot,” my analysis reveals repeated instances of:
Verse isolation, where passages are removed from their literary and historical context
Selective translation usage, favoring disputed versions when convenient
Omission of counterbalancing texts, particularly on Christology
Such methods undermine the claim of purely Bible-based teaching and raise concerns about doctrinal confirmation bias.
Organizational Culture and Ethical Implications
Beyond doctrine, former members and independent observers have described an internal culture characterized by:
- Discouragement of critical inquiry
- Strong emphasis on obedience to leadership
- Judgment toward other Christian groups
- Sustained pressure to contribute financially
While discipline and commitment are not inherently problematic, these practices become concerning when they restrict personal conscience and discourage independent biblical examination.
Legal Context: Separating Law from Theology
Ang Dating Daan has successfully defended itself in several legal cases, particularly related to defamation. These outcomes affirm the group’s legal rights but should not be conflated with doctrinal validation. Legal rulings address civil matters; theological accuracy must be assessed through scriptural examination.
Conclusion: The Responsibility of Discernment
After careful review, I conclude that Ang Dating Daan’s teachings contain significant doctrinal inconsistencies when measured against the broader witness of Scripture. While the organization promotes moral discipline and biblical literacy, its interpretive framework selectively redefines foundational Christian beliefs—particularly concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
As a concerned citizen and independent blogger, my appeal is not one of hostility but of discernment. Faith should never require the suspension of critical thinking. Scripture invites examination, not unquestioning allegiance to any human authority. In matters of belief—especially those with eternal implications—truth deserves careful, honest, and comprehensive evaluation.
