7 Biblical Facts Why Sabbath Keeping Is Not Commanded Before the Time of Moses?

Investigating Ellen G. White #4: The Israel Dammon Trial: Ellen White’s “Supernatural Story” vs. Courtroom Reality (Taglish)

Alam mo ba na ang isa sa pinaka-explosive historical finds ng Seventh-day Adventist movement ay hindi galing sa vision ni Ellen White—kundi sa isang old newspaper clipping? Oo, legit.

March 1986, isang seminary student ng Andrews University na si Bruce Weaver ang nakahanap ng record tungkol sa arestuhan at trial ni Israel Dammon, close friend ni Ellen White. Ang nakita niya? Isang scandalous na pagkakaiba sa kwento ni Ellen White kumpara sa court testimony mismo.[1]

Eh bakit magkaiba? Sino ang dapat paniwalaan—yung self-proclaimed prophetess o yung mga eyewitness na nagsalita under oath?

Para maintindihan, balik tayo sa 1845.

---

Fanatic Frenzy After the Great Disappointment

Bagong-bago pa ang sugat ng “Great Disappointment.” Kaya naman puno ng religious confusion at fanaticism ang mga Millerite. Meetings nila? Hindi sa church, kundi sa mga bahay-bahay. At guess what—hindi ito yung tahimik na prayer meeting na iniisip mo.

Ang eksena? May “holy kissing,” malakas na sigawan at kantahan, mga tao naglalabasan ng visions habang nakahiga sa sahig, mixed footwashing, multiple baptisms, at minsan pati "crawling at barking." [2]

Ganyan ang backdrop nung dumating si Ellen Harmon (later White) sa Atkinson, Maine, February 16, 1845.

Kasama niya si Israel Dammon (isang dating sea captain turned preacher), at kapwa prophetess na si Dorinda Baker. Nandoon din si James White.

---

Eyewitness Testimonies: Chaos in the Name of God?

Sa korte, nag-testify ang isang 37-year-old lawyer na si William Crosby:

“They would at times all be talking at once, hallooing at the top of their voices... A woman on the floor lay on her back with a pillow under her head; she would occasionally arouse up and tell a vision... By spells it was the most noisy assembly I ever attended.”[3]

Talaga bang presence ng Holy Spirit ‘yan, o parang drunken frolic lang? Sabi nga ng isa pang witness, si Deacon James Rowe:

“Of all the places I ever was in, I never saw such a confusion, not even in a drunken frolic.”[4]

Dagdag pa ni Loton Lambert: may babaeng nakahiga sa sahig na tinawag nilang “Imitation of Christ” na nagre-relate ng visions, at nag-uutos sa mga tao na iwan lahat ng kaibigan nila o else… diretso impyerno. [5]

At alam mo kung sino yung “Imitation of Christ”? Si Ellen Harmon mismo.[6]

---

Ellen White’s Story: Supernatural vs. Sheriff’s Report

Ngayon, fast forward sa mismong arestuhan.

Sabi ni Ellen White sa kanyang libro Spiritual Gifts (1860): nung dumating ang sheriff, tinangkang arestuhin si Dammon pero… “the power of God” daw ang pumigil sa mga pulis. Kahit 12 men, hindi raw nila maigalaw si Dammon sa sahig. After 40 minutes, miracle-style, binuhat na lang siya “as easily as a child.”[7]

Wow. Kung movie, parang Avengers scene! Pero teka—ano ba sabi ng mismong Sheriff Joseph Moulton under oath?

“I went to the prisoner and took him by the hand... A number of women jumped on to him—he clung to them, and they to him. So great was the resistance, that I with three assistants, could not get him out... After more help arrived we overpowered them and got him out in custody.” [8]

So alin ang totoo? Supernatural miracle or simpleng physical obstruction? At kung may “glory of God” talaga, bakit walang ni isa sa 30 witnesses na nag-testify in support of Ellen White’s version?

---

Trial Verdict: Released or Jailed?

Ayon kay Ellen White, acquitted daw si Dammon at nagkaroon pa ng opportunity to share his faith at kumanta ng hymn. [9]

Pero ayon sa Piscataquis Farmer (yung newspaper mismo), guilty si Dammon sa “disturbing the peace” at sinentensyahan ng 10 days sa jail. [10]

So alin na naman ang totoo? Released, o jailed?

---

Fanatic Practices: Crawling, Barking, Holy Kissing

Maraming details ang iniwan ni Ellen White sa kanyang account. Hindi niya binanggit na may mga taong nag-creep sa sahig on hands and knees “as a mark of humility.” Witnesses testified na minsan pati si Dammon mismo gumagapang kasama ng iba. [11]

Nakakatawa? Nakakahiya? O nakakatakot? Is this really how the Spirit of God works—through crawling, barking, and shouting?

Interestingly, by 1894, si Ellen White mismo nagsulat na:

“Wild methods and strange freaks and confusion are not authorized by the God of order.” [12]

Eh pero noong 1840s, siya mismo ang nasa gitna ng ganitong eksena!

---

The Disappearing Dammon Story

Nung nirepublish ang Spiritual Gifts sa title na Spirit of Prophecy (1877), nawala bigla yung Dammon incident. Bakit kaya? Maybe dahil by that time, si Dammon mismo had publicly rejected Ellen White at ang “shut door” visions niya.[13]

How convenient na mawala ang kwento once the “hero” of her miracle turned against her.

---

Conclusion: A Pattern of Contradictions

Kung yung arrest and trial ni Israel Dammon ay ganito ka-contradictory, paano pa yung ibang supernatural claims ni Ellen White—yung tipong she held up a 40-pound Bible, or stopped breathing for hours?

Kahit si SDA General Conference President A.G. Daniels (1919) nagtanong: “How much of that is genuine, and how much has crawled into the story?” [14]

Kung mismong mga leaders nila doubtful, dapat ba tayong maniwala agad?

At higit sa lahat—kung totoong prophet of God si Ellen White, bakit ang dami niyang mismong eyewitness contradictions?

Baka nga mas tama si Israel Dammon, na after seeing her visions firsthand, walked away and never looked back.

---

References

1 Bruce Weaver, Adventist Currents, “The Arrest and Trial of Israel Dammon”, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988.

2 Ibid.

3 Piscataquis Farmer, Mar. 7, 1845.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2, pp. 40-41, 1860.

8 Piscataquis Farmer, Mar. 7, 1845.

9 Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42, 1860.

10 Piscataquis Farmer, Mar. 7, 1845.

11 Miles Grant, An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White's Visions, Boston: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1877.

12 Ellen White, Signs of the Times, Aug. 27, 1894.

13 Isaac Wellcome, World’s Crisis, 1874.

14 General Conference Minutes, 1919 Spirit of Prophecy Conference.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Rethinking the SDAs End-Time Timeline: A Critique of Adventist Eschatology

The “End-Time Timeline” presented in the image above represents a classic Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) eschatological chart. From 1798 to 1844, the Second Coming and beyond, this timeline appears comprehensive, even prophetic. But when viewed through a historico-grammatical hermeneutic, the partial preterist lens, and most crucially, a postmillennial perspective, several deep inconsistencies and theological leaps emerge.

So we must ask:

• Does this timeline reflect the biblical authors’ intended message?
  
  
• Does it offer hope for Christ's victory on earth or rehearse an endless narrative of doom?
  
  
• Has history outgrown the SDA's historicist framework?

Let’s break it down.

The Postmillennialist Perspective: Where is the Hope?

Postmillennialism stands on the promise that the Kingdom of God will gradually advance in history, through the power of the gospel and the work of the Church. Christ reigns now (Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25), and His reign will subdue His enemies before His final return. This isn't an optimistic fiction—it is a biblical trajectory.

So when we look at this SDA timeline, we must ask:

Where is the victorious Church?

Where is the transformation of nations, the discipling of cultures (Matthew 28:18-20), and the mustard-seed-like expansion of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:31-33)?

The SDA timeline instead moves toward persecution, tribulation, judgment, and ultimately a divine rescue from an utterly failed planet. Is that truly the biblical pattern? Does Isaiah 2’s vision of nations flowing to Zion find any place in this chart? Where is the “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9)?

The “Historicist” Method: An Obsolete Lens?

Seventh-day Adventism relies on the historicist method of interpreting biblical prophecy—a system that tries to match historical events, often arbitrarily, with apocalyptic symbols in books like Daniel and Revelation. According to this method:

* The "little horn" is the papacy.

* The 1260 days = 1260 years, ending in 1798.

* Daniel 8:14’s “2300 days” = 2300 years, ending in 1844.

* Revelation’s beasts and plagues are allegorically mapped onto European history and Adventist theology.

But this method, once popular among 19th-century Protestants, has fallen into near-total disuse for good reasons:

1. Exegetical Inconsistency

The historicist approach treats prophetic texts selectively:

• Numbers are symbolic until they need to be literal (e.g., 1260 days = 1260 years, but 1000 years in Revelation 20 is often literal).
  
  
• Events are spiritualized or historicized depending on theological needs—not textual clues.
  
  
• It often ignores the original audience of the prophecy. Daniel wrote to post-exilic Jews; John to persecuted Christians under Rome. Why would either be discussing 19th-century events?

As respected scholars have noted, this approach reads modern history into ancient texts rather than letting the text speak from its original context outward.

2. The Rise of More Grounded Alternatives

Modern evangelical and academic consensus has shifted strongly toward:

• Preterism (partial or full) for Daniel and Revelation—seeing fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70) and Roman persecution.
  
  
• Idealism, which views Revelation symbolically as the ongoing battle between good and evil.
  
  
• Futurism, for those who still await future apocalyptic events, yet often grounded more contextually than historicism.

Even SDA theologians and scholars like Dr. Desmond Ford challenged core components of the historicist method—particularly the investigative judgment doctrine derived from the 2300-day prophecy (Daniel 8:14). His work led to a major crisis within Adventism and forced the church to re-examine its foundations.

“The use of 1844 as a doctrinal anchor point has no real textual basis in Daniel 8:14 when read in its historical context.”— Desmond Ford, “Daniel 8:14: Its Validity and Limitations”

The Investigative Judgment: A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Unique to Adventism is the claim that in 1844, Christ began a “heavenly phase” of investigative judgment, determining who is truly saved. But this doctrine:

• Has no explicit biblical support.
  
  
• Emerged only after the Great Disappointment of 1844, when Christ failed to return as expected.
  
  
• Makes salvation conditional on a cosmic audit rather than the finished work of Christ on the cross (John 19:30; Romans 8:1).

Is this gospel? Or is it anxiety masquerading as theology?

Reflections

• Why should Christians cling to a 19th-century framework that failed its original test in 1844?
  
  
• Why build an eschatology around European history and papal conspiracies when the New Testament focuses on Christ’s reign and the mission of the Church?
  
  
• If Christ is already King, reigning until all enemies are under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25), shouldn't we expect a Church that advances, not retreats?

Conclusion: From Timelines to Triumph

This “End-Time Timeline” attempts to offer clarity and urgency, but ultimately reflects a worldview of delay, defeat, and escapism. The historicist scaffolding has cracked under the weight of better exegesis and more faithful readings of Scripture.

In contrast, a postmillennial vision sees the gospel conquering hearts and nations, history bending toward the glory of Christ, and prophecy fulfilled in real events—not speculative charts. The Church is not waiting to be rescued—it is commissioned to disciple the nations.

So the question remains:

Are we clinging to the shadows of disappointment, or stepping into the radiant promise of Christ’s ever-expanding kingdom?

Reformed Arminianism vs. Reformed Calvinism: Which Is More Faithful to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession?

Introduction: Who Owns the “Reformed” Label?

When people today hear “Reformed,” they almost automatically think of Calvinism and the five points of TULIP. But this is a historical confusion. The term “Reformed” originally referred to churches shaped by the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566)—all written decades before the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) ever narrowed the definition of Reformed.

The problem is clear: if Dort and TULIP define what it means to be Reformed, then Arminians (and their descendants) are outside the family. But if the Heidelberg and Belgic define Reformed theology—as they historically did—then Reformed Arminianism has every right to claim the name.

This is not mere hairsplitting. It is about recovering the broader, pastoral, Christ-centered faith of the early Reformed churches—one that speaks directly into apologetic conversations today.

---

1. The Pre-Dort Confessions: Broad and Christ-Centered

The Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession were not rigid scholastic systems. They were pastoral documents meant to disciple believers, comfort consciences, and protect the gospel.

• The Heidelberg Catechism is structured around guilt, grace, and gratitude. Its heartbeat is relational assurance: “That I am not my own, but belong…” (Q&A 1).¹

• The Belgic Confession, written by Guido de Brès, emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s mediatorial work and God’s justice and mercy. Its language of election is intentionally Christ-centered, not decretal or abstract.²

By contrast, Dort’s five points were polemical definitions designed to shut down the Remonstrants. They codified one strand of Reformed theology into binding dogma.

Thus, the confessions before Dort gave space for what later came to be called Reformed Arminianism. In fact, Arminius himself always insisted he never left the Reformed faith—he simply read Heidelberg and Belgic in a way that was consistent with their pastoral intent.³

---

2. How Heidelberg and Belgic Support Reformed Arminianism

a. Grace and Faith

• Heidelberg Q&A 20 teaches salvation only for those who, by a “true faith, are grafted into Christ.”⁴ This assumes grace can be resisted.

b. Election

• Belgic Article 16 describes election in Christ, not apart from Him. It also highlights justice in “leaving others in the fall… wherein they have involved themselves.”⁵ This suggests responsibility, not an arbitrary decree.

c. Atonement

• Belgic Article 21 describes Christ’s satisfaction for sin in universal terms—no limitation to the elect is stated.⁶

d. Assurance

• Heidelberg Q&A 1 and 86 place comfort in Christ and fruit-bearing faith, not in speculation about hidden decrees.⁷

This framework matches Reformed Arminianism: conditional election in Christ, universal atonement, resistible grace, and assurance in Christ.

---

3. TULIP Under the Microscope: Where It Conflicts with the Confessions

Now let’s flip the coin. For apologetics, it’s not enough to show that Reformed Arminianism fits the confessions—we must also show how TULIP Calvinism conflicts with them.

T – Total Depravity

Dort was right to affirm humanity’s fallen state. But Heidelberg already taught this in Q&A 8: “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good?” Answer: “Yes, unless we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.”⁸

This is no problem for Arminians—we affirm total depravity. The issue is not man’s condition but God’s provision of prevenient grace, enabling response. Nothing in Heidelberg denies this. Dort, however, reads irresistible grace back into depravity.

U – Unconditional Election

Belgic Article 16 speaks of election “in Christ” but does not spell out unconditionality apart from faith.⁹ Calvin himself, in Institutes 3.24.5, warned believers not to pry into secret decrees but to look to Christ.¹⁰ Yet Dort codified a naked decree theology, which the Heidelberg and Belgic never demanded.

L – Limited Atonement

This is where TULIP is most at odds with the confessions. Belgic Article 21 speaks of Christ’s satisfaction in universal terms. Heidelberg Q&A 37–38 stresses His substitutionary suffering without restricting its scope.¹¹ Arminius argued this was proof that the Belgic did not demand a “limited atonement.”¹²

I – Irresistible Grace

Heidelberg Q&A 20 and 60 emphasize faith as the human act of receiving.¹³ Grace enables, but the response is required. Nothing in Heidelberg or Belgic states that grace cannot be resisted. Dort’s “effectual calling” was an innovation over and against this pastoral balance.

P – Perseverance of the Saints

Heidelberg Q&A 1 gives assurance that Christ “so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head.”¹⁴ But the Catechism never explicitly rules out apostasy. The Remonstrants themselves left perseverance somewhat open.¹⁵ Dort closed the door, insisting on inevitable perseverance, whereas the confessions leave room for conditional security.

---

4. Apologetic Advantages of the Pre-Dort Faith

Why does this matter for apologetics today, especially for Former Adventists?

1. A Universal Gospel Offer – We can sincerely preach John 3:16 as it stands.

2. The Character of God – God is not arbitrary but truly desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

3. Pastoral Assurance – Comfort comes from Christ, not from trying to read the eternal decree.

4. Human Responsibility – Avoids fatalism; sinners are accountable for rejecting grace.

For former Adventists, who have long lived under the crushing weight of conditional assurance tied to law-keeping, the Reformed Arminian reading of the Heidelberg and Belgic offers real freedom: Christ is sufficient, salvation is offered to all, and assurance is found in Him alone.

---

Conclusion: Who Is More Truly “Reformed”?

The Synod of Dort narrowed the Reformed tradition into TULIP. But the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession—the bedrock of the Reformed churches—teach a broader, pastoral faith: Christ-centered election, universal sufficiency of the atonement, resistible grace, assurance in Christ.

Reformed Arminianism fits these confessions better than post-Dort Calvinism.

So when someone says, “You’re not Reformed unless you hold TULIP,” the historical answer is clear:

"No, Reformed Arminianism is actually closer to Heidelberg and Belgic than you are."

For those of us committed to gospel clarity and confessional fidelity, the way forward is not Dort’s narrowing but a return to the broader, warmer, and truer Reformed faith.

---

Footnotes

1. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 1, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: Volume III, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 307.

2. Belgic Confession, Article 16, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

3. Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 203–207.

4. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 20, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 309.

5. Belgic Confession, Article 16, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

6. Belgic Confession, Article 21, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 391.

7. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 86, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 333.

8. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 8, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 309.

9. Guido de Brès, Confession de foy, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

10. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.24.5, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 972–973.

11. Belgic Confession, Article 21, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 391.

12. Jacobus Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments (1608), in W. Nichols, ed., The Works of James Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 1:659–670.

13. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 60, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 326.

14. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 1, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 307.

15. Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 181–183.

Prayer Meeting: "Ways to live in God's Abundance" John 10:10" Pastor Zalie Ybanez

Gospel Adventism: A Polished Name for Law-Based Righteousness?

In recent exchanges with Gospel Adventists, a recurring theme emerges: “We keep the Sabbath not to be saved, but because we are saved.” At first glance, this sounds like a balanced view—faith first, obedience second. But when examined through the lens of New Covenant theology, biblical exegesis, and sound hermeneutics, this claim begins to unravel. What we find is not gospel liberty, but a subtle return to the Old Covenant law-keeping system, dressed in grace-language.

The Old Covenant: Written in Stone, Bound to Death

Yes, the Sabbath was written in stone and placed inside the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 10:2). But that’s precisely the issue. The stone tablets represented the Old Covenant—a covenant that Hebrews 8:13 says is “obsolete and growing old.” If the Sabbath command was part of that covenant, then its binding authority has likewise been fulfilled in Christ.

Paul makes this crystal clear in Romans 7:1–6. He compares the law to a husband: “The law has authority over a man only as long as he lives” (v.1). But through Christ’s death, we died to the law so that we might belong to another—Jesus Himself. To continue relating to God through the law after being joined to Christ is, in Paul’s words, spiritual adultery.

“So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ… that we might bear fruit for God.” —Romans 7:4

The New Covenant: Rest in Christ, Not in a Day

Hebrews 4 teaches that the true Sabbath rest is found in Christ, not in a calendar day. The Old Covenant Sabbath was a shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), but Christ is the substance. To insist on literal Sabbath observance as a divine requirement—even if not for salvation—is to elevate the shadow above the reality.

Paul’s words in Romans 14:5 are striking: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” If Sabbath-keeping were a moral obligation under the New Covenant, Paul would never treat it as a matter of personal conviction.

Analogy: From Marriage to Mastery

Imagine a woman who was once married to a strict, demanding husband. Every day, she lived under his rules—what to wear, when to speak, how to behave. Then one day, he dies. She mourns, but eventually remarries a loving, gracious man who doesn’t impose rules but invites her into a relationship built on love and freedom.

Now imagine she still wakes up every morning trying to obey her former husband’s rules, fearing she’ll disappoint her new one. That’s not love—it’s bondage. That’s what Paul meant in Romans 7. The law was our former “husband.” In Christ, we’ve entered a new covenant. To keep living by the old rules is to dishonor the new relationship.

Gospel Adventism: A Contradiction in Terms?

Let’s be honest: Gospel Adventism is not simply “Jesus alone.” It’s Jesus plus Sabbath. And that addition changes everything. It reintroduces a covenantal framework that Christ fulfilled and replaced. Galatians 5:4 warns:

“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

Even if Gospel Adventists claim they’re not keeping the Sabbath to be saved, the system itself implies that Sabbath observance is a mark of true obedience and divine favor. That’s not gospel freedom—it’s law-based righteousness in disguise.

Reflection

• If the Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant, and that covenant is obsolete, why insist on keeping it?
  
  
• If Paul treats “days” as optional, why do Gospel Adventists treat the seventh day as mandatory?
  
  
• If righteousness comes apart from the law (Romans 3:28), why tether it to a command written in stone?
  
  
• If Christ is our rest, why return to the shadow?

Conclusion: The Greater Glory Is in Christ

The gospel is not Jesus plus law. It’s Jesus alone. The New Covenant invites us to rest—not in a day, but in a Person. To cling to the tablets is to miss the glory of the cross. Gospel Adventism may sound gracious, but it still binds believers to a system that Christ fulfilled and set aside.

“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?” —2 Corinthians 3:7–8

Let us not settle for shadows when the substance has come. Let us not return to the law when grace has made us free.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

The “Two-Stage Logos” Theory: A Philosophical Invention, Not a Biblical Revelation

The doctrine of the “Two-Stage Logos”—that the Word (Logos) first existed merely as a thought in the mind of God (Logos endiathetos), and only later became a distinct person (Logos prophorikos) has gained traction among some early apologists. But when held up to the light of historico-grammatical hermeneutics and sound biblical exegesis, it collapses under its own philosophical weight.

Let us examine this theory not through the lens of Stoic categories or speculative theology, but through the inspired text of Scripture.

---

What Does John 1:1 Actually Say?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Where in this verse is the Logos merely a concept? Where is He a potentiality waiting to be uttered? The grammar is clear: ēn ho Logos—the Word was. Not “became,” not “was imagined,” not “was projected.” The verb ēn (was) denotes continuous existence. The Logos was with God in the beginning, not after some metaphysical transition.

If the Logos were merely “in the mind of God,” how could He be with God? Is God with His own thoughts? Does the text say “the thought of God was with God”? No—it says the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This is not a two-stage process. It is a single, eternal reality.

---

The Fallacy of Category Confusion

The “Two-Stage Logos” theory commits a classic category error: it conflates ontological being with linguistic expression. Just because humans think before they speak does not mean God’s eternal Word follows the same temporal process. Is God bound by time? Does He need to “emit” His Word like a man clearing his throat before speaking?

This is anthropomorphism at its worst, projecting human limitations onto the divine nature. The theory assumes that because humans have internal thoughts and external speech, God must too. But Scripture never describes the Logos as a mere “potentiality.” He is the eternal Son, not a divine idea waiting to be verbalized.

---

Rhetorical Questions That Expose the Absurdity

• If the Logos was only a thought in God’s mind, who was “with” God in the beginning?
• If the Logos became a person only when “spoken,” does that mean God was not triune before creation?
• If the Logos was not yet a person, how do we explain John 1:3—“All things were made through Him”? Was creation accomplished by a concept?

---

Historical Context vs. Biblical Authority

Yes, early apologists like Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Tatian flirted with this two-stage idea. But they were heavily influenced by Stoic philosophy, not sola Scriptura. They borrowed terms like Logos endiathetos and Logos prophorikos from pagan thought systems. Should we build our Christology on Stoicism or on the Word of God?

Even Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, speaks of the Logos as “another God and Lord” under the Father. This subordinationist language paved the way for later heresies. The “Two-Stage Logos” is not a safeguard of orthodoxy—it is the gateway to another Christ, one who is not eternally coequal with the Father.

---

Logical Fallacies in the Two-Stage Theory

Fallacy	Description	Example in Theory
Category Error	Confusing thought with personhood	Logos as “thought” before becoming “person”
Begging the Question	Assuming what must be proven	Assuming Logos must be “spoken” to exist
Anthropomorphism	Projecting human traits onto God	Treating divine speech like human speech
Straw Man	Misrepresenting biblical Logos	Reducing Logos to a philosophical abstraction

---

The True Logos: Eternal, Personal, Divine

The Logos of John 1:1 is not a two-stage phenomenon. He is eternally God, eternally with God, and eternally active in creation and redemption. The attempt to divide Him into “thought” and “speech” is not exegesis—it is eisegesis, reading into the text what the text does not say.

Let us not be seduced by philosophical categories that undermine the glory of Christ. The Logos is not a concept. He is a Person. He is not a projection. He is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3).

---

Final Word

The “Two-Stage Logos” theory may have historical curiosity, but it has no biblical credibility. It introduces a subordinate Christ, a temporal Son, and ultimately a different gospel. Let us return to the Word not as imagined, but as revealed. Not as processed, but as proclaimed.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14)

Not a thought. Not a stage. But the eternal Son, full of grace and truth.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Will Satan Imitate the Second Coming Before Christ Returns? A Biblical Response to Ellen White’s Speculative Theology

One of the more dramatic claims in Seventh-day Adventist theology is that Satan will impersonate Christ’s Second Coming before Jesus truly returns. But we must ask:

Is this taught in Scripture—or is it a product of Ellen White’s imagination?

Let’s examine the biblical evidence, then contrast it with Ellen White’s writings.

---

What Scripture Actually Teaches

The Bible describes Christ’s return as a cosmic, unmistakable event:

• Revelation 1:7 — “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him…”
  
  
  → Not secret. Not localized. Every eye will witness it.

• 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 — “The Lord Himself will descend… with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
  
  
  → Will Satan raise the dead? Will he command the trumpet of God?

• Matthew 24:27 — “For as lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
  
  
  → Christ’s return will be sudden, global, and impossible to counterfeit.

Nowhere does Scripture suggest Satan will stage a counterfeit Second Coming. It warns of false christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24), but not a global impersonation that precedes Christ’s return.

---

Ellen White’s Contradictory Claims

In The Great Controversy, Ellen White writes:

“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will impersonate Christ… The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’” — The Great Controversy, p. 624

Yet just one page later, she contradicts herself:

“But the people of God will not be misled… Satan is not permitted to counterfeit the manner of Christ’s advent.” — The Great Controversy, pp. 625–626

So which is it? Will Satan impersonate Christ with “unsurpassed glory,” or is he forbidden from mimicking the manner of Christ’s return?

This contradiction exposes a deeper issue: Ellen White’s theology often relies on fear, speculation, and dramatic narrative rather than biblical clarity.

---

Why This Matters

• Doctrinal Confusion: Ellen White’s claims introduce unnecessary fear and distract from the true hope of Christ’s return.
  
  
• Extra-Biblical Authority: Her visions add details Scripture never affirms, creating a parallel narrative that competes with the gospel.
  
  
• Christ-Eclipsing Focus: Instead of magnifying Christ’s glory, her writings spotlight Satan’s theatrics.

---

Gospel-Centered Clarity

The blessed hope is not a warning about Satan, it’s the joyful anticipation of Christ:

“Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” — Titus 2:13

We are not called to fear Satan’s illusions. We are called to fix our eyes on Jesus, whose return will be unmistakable, glorious, and triumphant.

---

Final Thought

If we trust Scripture alone, we don’t need Ellen White’s speculative drama. Christ’s return will not be counterfeited; it will be cosmic, glorious, and undeniable. Let’s not give Satan the spotlight. Let’s proclaim the true King.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

“10 Reasons Why SDAs 'Righteousness by Faith' Is Still Righteousness by Works in Disguise?"

FAP Sunday Service: "God’s Sovereignty in Salvation" John 6:44

Does Biblical Righteousness by Faith Include Obeying the Fourth Commandment to Keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath?

One of the most common questions raised, especially by Seventh-day Adventists, is this: If righteousness is by faith, does that not also mean keeping the seventh-day Sabbath (the fourth commandment) is included? In other words, is Sabbath-keeping part of the package of being justified by faith?

Let’s unpack this carefully.

---

What Is Righteousness by Faith?

The Bible is crystal clear: righteousness by faith is being declared righteous before God based on Christ’s finished work alone, not based on law-keeping.

• “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

• “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” (Romans 3:21-22)

Paul does not say, “apart from some laws but still tied to the Sabbath.” He says, “apart from the law.” Period.

Righteousness by faith means that when we believe in Christ, His obedience and sacrifice are credited to us. We stand before God clothed not in our law-keeping, but in Christ’s perfect obedience.

---

The Sabbath Command in the Old Covenant

The Sabbath command was given to Israel as part of the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12 15). It was a sign of that covenant between God and Israel:

• “Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.” (Exodus 31:16-17)

Notice: The Sabbath was never given to the nations. It was a covenant sign like circumcision that marked Israel off as God’s chosen nation.

So to argue that righteousness by faith today requires Sabbath-keeping is to confuse the Old Covenant sign with the New Covenant reality.

---

Christ as the Fulfillment of the Sabbath

The New Testament repeatedly points to the fact that Jesus Himself is the true Sabbath rest.

• “Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

• “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God… For whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:9-10)

The writer of Hebrews wasn’t calling Christians back to the seventh-day law of Moses. He was pointing them forward to Christ. The “Sabbath rest” is fulfilled in Jesus, where we cease striving for righteousness by works and trust in His finished work.

If righteousness by faith included Sabbath-keeping, then Paul, who fought tooth and nail against Judaizers, would have included it in his gospel. Instead, he says:

• “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” (Colossians 2:16)

That’s as clear as it gets. Sabbath observance was a shadow pointing to Christ (Col. 2:17). Once Christ came, the shadow no longer bound believers.

---

The Danger of Adding Law to Faith

The Judaizers in Galatia argued that Gentiles needed Christ plus circumcision to be justified. Paul rebuked them sharply:

• “You who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4)

Replace “circumcision” with “Sabbath,” and the logic stands: if you insist that righteousness by faith requires Sabbath-keeping, you are preaching Christ plus works. And Paul says that is another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

---

The Christian’s True Obedience

Does this mean Christians throw away the moral law? Of course not. Righteousness by faith produces a transformed life that obeys the Law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 6:2).

But this law is not the Old Covenant tablets; it is the New Covenant command to love God and love neighbor, which fulfills the law (Romans 13:10).

Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Instead, we see the early church gathering on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

---

Conclusion

Righteousness by faith does not include keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. To demand that is to smuggle Old Covenant shadows into the New Covenant gospel. The true Sabbath is found in Christ, not in a day.

So when Adventists ask, “Does faith establish the law, including the Sabbath?” the biblical answer is: faith establishes the law by showing its fulfillment in Christ not by dragging believers back under Sinai.

We rest not in the seventh day, but in the person—Jesus Christ.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Investigating Ellen G. White #3: "The Shut Door Prophetess: Is Salvation Really “Closed” for Sinners?" (Taglish)

Imagine this: October 22, 1844. William Miller’s followers are waiting with beating hearts, convinced that Christ will return that very day. Midnight passes. Dawn comes. No trumpet, no second coming just crushing disappointment.

Ito na ang tinatawag na "Great Disappointment". Most of the Millerites quietly went back to their churches. Pero may ilan na masyadong nahihiya o matigas ang ulo para amining nagkamali. Kaya nagsama-sama sila, nagtipon sa mga bahay at halls, at doon unti-unting nabuo ang grupo ng tinawag na “Adventists.” At dito ipinanganak ang kakaibang doktrina: the Shut Door teaching.

Ano ang “Shut Door” Doctrine?

Base ito sa parabula ng sampung dalaga sa Mateo 25. Sa kanilang interpretasyon, ang pagpasok ng mga matatalinong dalaga at ang pagsasara ng pintuan ay literal na naganap noong Oktubre 22, 1844.

Ayon sa kanila, noong araw na iyon si Cristo ay “tumayo” mula sa Kabanal-banalang Lugar at isinara ang pinto ng kaligtasan sa lahat ng hindi sumali sa Millerite movement. Kung hindi ka kabilang sa “wise virgins” (a.k.a. 1844 believers), tapos ka na wala ka nang pag-asang maligtas.

Seriously? Paano naging mabuting balita ang gospel kung biglang isinara ni Jesus ang pintuan ng awa noong 1844?

William Miller at ang Shut Door

Kahit mismo si William Miller, sa una, naniwala rito. Sulat niya noong Disyembre 1844:

“We have done our work in warning sinners… God in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir up one another to be patient.”¹

At noong Pebrero 1845, sabi niya:

“I have not seen a genuine conversion since [Oct. 22, 1844].”²

Kung walang kaligtasan para sa mga makasalanan after 1844, paano na ang Great Commission ni Cristo? Hindi ba’t malinaw sa Mateo 28:19–20 na dapat ipangaral ang ebanghelyo “hanggang sa katapusan ng panahon”?

Ellen G. White at ang Shut Door Visions

Hindi lang si Miller at Joseph Bates ang nagturo nito. Si Ellen Harmon (later Ellen G. White) mismo ay nakakita raw ng mga “vision” na nagpapatunay na sarado na ang pintuan ng awa. Si Lucinda Burdick, isang kasabayan niya, ay nagpatotoo:

“She declares that God revealed to her that the door of mercy was closed forever, and that there was henceforth no salvation for sinners.”³

Isipin mo ang takot ng mga kabataang gaya ni Lucinda. Kung totoo nga ang vision ni Ellen, wala nang pag-asa ang sinuman na hindi sumali sa 1844 movement. Pero teka lang hindi ba’t sinasabi ng Biblia na:

“Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13)?

So alin ang susundin natin ang malinaw na pangako ng Biblia, o ang panaginip ng isang batang babae na si Ellen Harmon?

Contradictory “Prophecy”?

An Adventist minister Isaac Wellcome recalls Ellen’s message:

“…all were lost who did not endorse the 1844 movement, that Christ had left the throne of mercy, and all were sealed that ever would be, and no others could repent.”⁴

Pero later, nang maging unpopular ang Shut Door, biglang nagbago ang tono ni Ellen. Ang dating absolute vision niya ay binura, tinakpan, at ni-revise sa mga susunod na publikasyon.

Question: Kung totoong prophecy ito galing sa Diyos, bakit nag-iba?

Hindi ba’t sa Deuteronomio 18:22 malinaw:

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken.”

Kung ang Diyos mismo nagsalita, hindi ba’t dapat walang palya?

Reality Check

By 1851, obvious na mali ang doktrinang ito. Hindi bumalik si Cristo, hindi natapos ang kaligtasan, at hindi totoo ang shut door visions ni Ellen. Resulta? Binura ni James White ang ilang bahagi ng visions ng kanyang asawa sa kanilang mga publikasyon para hindi halata ang pagkakamali.⁵

Mga kapatid, isipin natin ito: kung kailangan pang i-edit, itago, o burahin ang “prophecy” para hindi mapahiya ang isang simbahan, tunay ba talagang galing iyon sa Diyos?

Conclusion

The Shut Door doctrine is one of the clearest examples ng false prophecy sa early SDA history. Instead of pointing people to Christ’s open arms, it declared the gospel door shut. Pero ang totoo, hanggang ngayon bukas pa rin ang pinto ni Cristo para sa lahat ng mananampalataya (John 10:9; Heb. 7:25).

Ang tanong ngayon ay ito: Kanino ka maniniwala? Sa isang vision na nagkamali na ilang ulit, o sa walang palyang Salita ng Diyos?

Sources

1. William Miller, Advent Herald, Dec. 1844, quoted in Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992), 32.

2. William Miller, Letter, Feb. 19, 1845, quoted in Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1853), 328.

3. Lucinda Burdick, quoted in Miles Grant, An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White’s Visions (Boston: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1877), 17.

4. Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message and Mission (Yarmouth: privately printed, 1874), 406.

5. D.M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E.G. White (Chicago: Goodspeed, 1919), 63–65.

“Free Will and Grace: What Really Saves Us?”

Theology shapes how we preach the gospel, disciple believers, and understand God’s grace. Two movements that have gained traction in evangelical circles are Provisionism and Reformed Arminianism. Both claim fidelity to Scripture and reject Calvinistic determinism, yet they diverge significantly in their doctrine of salvation. This blog will compare their soteriology.

1. The Nature of Grace and Human Ability

Provisionism:

• Humanity is fallen but not totally depraved. People retain the natural ability to believe without the prevenient grace of God.

• Grace is mainly external: gospel proclamation, Christ’s cross, and the Spirit’s conviction.

• Key Texts: John 3:16; Romans 10:14–17.

Reformed Arminianism:

• Humanity is totally depraved (Eph. 2:1). No one seeks God apart from prevenient grace (Rom. 3:10–12).

• Grace is prevenient and enabling. The Spirit must open hearts (John 6:44; Acts 16:14), yet this grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51).

---

2. The Atonement

Provisionism:

• Christ died for all, making salvation possible for everyone (1 John 2:2).

• The atonement is universal in intent but only effective upon human faith.

Reformed Arminianism:

• Christ died for all (1 Tim. 2:4–6), but His death accomplished an actual substitution securing redemption for believers.

• Applied by grace through faith, not merely a potential provision (2 Cor. 5:14–15).

---

3. Faith and Regeneration

Provisionism:

• Faith precedes regeneration, and man is naturally able to believe.

• Regeneration follows man’s decision to believe.

Reformed Arminianism:

• Faith precedes regeneration, but faith itself is enabled by prevenient grace (John 6:65).

• Regeneration is fully a work of God (Titus 3:5).

---

4. Perseverance and Apostasy

Provisionism:

• Tends toward eternal security (OSAS). Apostasy passages are explained as loss of rewards or proof of false conversion.

• Key Texts: John 10:28–29; Romans 8:38–39.

Reformed Arminianism:

• Conditional security: believers are safe in Christ but must persevere in faith (Matt. 24:13; Col. 1:22–23).

• Apostasy is real and warned against (Heb. 6:4–6; Heb. 10:26–29).

---

5. The Role of the Holy Spirit

Provisionism:

• Spirit convicts externally but does not necessarily enable faith beyond natural capacity.

• Grace is resistible and not essential for initial belief.

Reformed Arminianism:

• Spirit convicts, enables, and draws sinners to Christ (John 16:8–11).

• Grace is resistible but absolutely necessary (1 Cor. 12:3).

---

Parallel Comparison Chart

Category	Provisionism	Reformed Arminianism
Human Condition	Fallen but able to believe without prevenient grace	Totally depraved, unable to believe apart from prevenient grace
Grace	External provisions (gospel, cross, conviction)	Internal, prevenient, enabling, but resistible
Atonement	Universal provision, effective only upon human faith	Unlimited atonement, actual redemption applied to believers
Faith & Regeneration	Faith comes from natural ability, and then regeneration follows	Faith enabled by grace, regeneration follows faith
Perseverance	Eternal security, apostasy is often reinterpreted	Conditional security, apostasy warnings taken seriously
Role of the Holy Spirit	Convicts externally, faith is possible without special enabling grace	Convicts, draws, and enables faith; essential to salvation

---

Practical Implications

1. Evangelism

• Provisionism: Emphasizes human decision. The call is to persuade people with the gospel since all retain the ability to believe.

• Reformed Arminianism: Emphasizes reliance on the Spirit. Evangelism is proclamation, trusting God to enable faith through prevenient grace.

2. Discipleship

• Provisionism: Assurance is tied to the initial decision. Focus leans on affirming one’s past choice.

• Reformed Arminianism: Assurance is tied to present faith and perseverance. Discipleship stresses growth, holiness, and endurance in the faith (Heb. 12:1–2).

3. Assurance of Salvation

• Provisionism: Strong sense of eternal security. The danger of nominal Christianity, that apostasy is often explained away.

• Reformed Arminianism: Real assurance through Christ, but with sober attention to the warnings of Scripture. Assurance grows as believers continue in faith and obedience (2 Pet. 1:10).

4. View of God’s Grace

• Provisionism: Grace is God’s provision; the decisive factor remains human will.

• Reformed Arminianism: Grace is God’s active empowerment; the decisive factor is God enabling man to respond while still allowing rejection.

---

Conclusion

Both Provisionism and Reformed Arminianism reject Calvinistic determinism and affirm human responsibility in salvation. But the fundamental divide is this:

• Provisionism: emphasizes man’s ability and God’s provision. Salvation depends on man’s decision, enabled by general revelation and gospel appeal.

• Reformed Arminianism: emphasizes man’s inability and God’s enabling grace. Salvation depends on persevering faith, made possible only through prevenient grace.

The historico-grammatical reading of Scripture strongly supports the Reformed Arminian position: man is radically fallen, salvation is fully of grace, faith is enabled but not coerced, and perseverance is necessary. Thus, while Provisionism seeks to highlight God’s fairness, it risks reducing salvation to human initiative rather than divine grace.

As Paul reminds us: “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Ellen G. White’s Two Concepts of the Trinity: Why This Exposes SDA Theology as Tritheistic

One of the bold claims of Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) is that Ellen G. White, whom they exalt as the “Spirit of Prophecy,” was a Trinitarian. But was she really? Or did she, in fact, introduce confusion into the very doctrine of God, the heart of Christianity?

Let’s ask some hard questions.

If the Bible clearly teaches “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4), why would Ellen White repeatedly speak of “three holiest beings” or a “heavenly trio” instead of “one God in three Persons”? Why would she describe the Father and the Son as having separate, tangible forms (Early Writings, p. 54), language that sounds more like Mormon tritheism than Nicene Christianity?

---

The Historic Trinity vs. Ellen White’s “Two Trinities”

Historically, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out in the Councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.) as a response to heresies. The Church confessed: one Being (ousia) in three Persons (hypostases). Not three gods. Not three beings united in purpose.

But Ellen White muddled this. SDA theologian Jerry Moon himself admits that her writings contain “two distinct varieties of Trinitarian belief,” one supposedly “based on Scripture alone” and the other allegedly influenced by “Greek philosophy” (i.e., the historic creedal Trinity).

Since when does biblical truth come in two competing versions? Does Paul ever present two models of the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)? Did Jesus ever say, “You can believe in Me as the eternal Son, or as a created being—choose whichever fits your interpretation”? Of course not. Truth is singular. Heresy comes in variations.

If Ellen White truly had the prophetic gift, why would her writings give birth to doctrinal division rather than unity in the knowledge of the true God (John 17:3)?

---

The Problem of “Unity in Purpose”

Consider SDA Fundamental Belief #2:

“There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.”

At first glance, that looks fine. But read carefully: it doesn’t say one Being in three Persons. Instead, “one God” is defined as a unity of three Persons, which is precisely how Mormons define their Godhead: three distinct divine beings united in purpose.

If the SDA creed reads more like Mormon theology than Nicene orthodoxy, what does that say about its source?

Even SDA leaders admitted this openly. At the 1980 Dallas GC Session, Leif Hansen suggested changing “unity” to “unity in purpose” to avoid implying “physical unity.” Neal C. Wilson, then president of the GC, agreed. In other words, they deliberately framed their doctrine of God in tritheistic terms.

"The statement about the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the noun "He".  Later as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are discussed, we use the same pronoun "He". I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but I would have a little difficulty applying the pronoun "He" to the Trinity or the Godhead."✳

Tell me, does this align with Christ’s command to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)? Or does it smuggle in a foreign god of “three beings” wearing the mask of unity?

---

Ellen White’s Vision: A Tritheistic God

Ellen White claimed she saw in vision that the Father had a “form” just like Jesus (EW, p. 54). That is a claim of separate tangible bodies, not one immaterial, indivisible divine essence.

But Scripture declares: “God is spirit” (John 4:24). He does not have body parts, form, or limitations like man (Num. 23:19). Ellen White’s vision directly contradicts the historico-grammatical reading of Scripture.

Can we call someone a true prophet if her visions distort the very nature of God, contradict the Bible’s plain teaching, and lead millions into a false conception of the Trinity?

---

Illustration: Marriage vs. Being

SDA theologians like Jerry Moon often compare their “Trinity” to a marriage: just as husband and wife are “one flesh” but two separate beings, so the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God but three beings.

But ask yourself: if your neighbor told you he had three separate houses that are “one house” because they share the same address, would you buy it? Of course not! Unity of purpose doesn’t erase ontological distinction. The biblical Trinity is one Being—not three houses, not three gods, not three beings in contract.

---

Division in the SDA Church

Dr. Michael Campbell, in 1919: The Untold Story of Adventism’s Struggle with Fundamentalism, documents that Ellen White’s confusion over the Trinity left the SDA church divided. Some adopted the “creedal Trinity” (the majority today), while others clung to Ellen White’s “three beings” model (mostly offshoots).

If Ellen White was truly a prophet of God, why did her words leave a legacy of theological division instead of truth and clarity? Did Isaiah or Jeremiah leave Israel divided about who Yahweh was? Or did they proclaim Him as the one true God?

---

Conclusion: Which God Will You Worship?

The biblical God is eternal, indivisible, and one in Being—Father, Son, and Spirit coequal and co-eternal Persons. This is the God Christians have confessed for centuries.

The SDA god, however, shifts between Ellen White’s “three beings” and the official “unity of three Persons.” That’s not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That’s not the God revealed in Christ.

So let me ask you: If your prophet leads you to worship a god more like the Mormon tritheistic godhead than the one true God of Scripture, can you really say she was inspired by the Spirit of Truth? Or does this bear the marks of a false prophet who points to another god (Deut. 13:1–5)?

Friend, the issue is not academic—it’s eternal. Jesus Himself said: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

Which God do you know? The biblical Trinity—or Ellen White’s “three beings”?

---

Doctrine of God	Biblical Trinity	Ellen G. White’s “Two Trinities”	Mormon Godhead
Definition	One God in three eternal Persons (Father, Son, Spirit). One Being, not three beings.	1. “Heavenly Trio” – three holiest beings united in purpose, mind, and character (tritheistic). 2. “Creedal Trinity” – borrowed terms but redefined, still emphasizing “unity in purpose” not in Being.	Three separate gods (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) united in purpose.
Nature/Essence	One divine essence (ousia). Eternal, indivisible, immaterial.	Three beings with separate forms and tangible bodies (Early Writings, p. 54).	Three distinct gods, each with a tangible body (Father & Son with flesh; Spirit is a personage of spirit).
Unity	Ontological unity: one Being, three Persons.	Relational unity: “like a marriage,” united in purpose but separate beings (Jerry Moon).	Relational unity: same purpose, not one Being.
Historical Source	Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), Constantinople (381 A.D.).	Ellen White’s visions + SDA redefinition of Trinity (1919 Bible Conference & 1980 Dallas GC).	Joseph Smith’s revelations (Doctrine & Covenants).
Scriptural Basis	Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; John 1:1; 2 Cor. 13:14.	Forced reinterpretation of “heavenly trio” into Trinity language.	None; openly rejects historic Christian creeds.
Result	Unity and orthodoxy across centuries of the church.	Division within the SDA church (two camps: “creedal” vs. “heavenly trio”).	Cult outside historic Christianity.

Is the Sabbath Really the Seal of God? A Biblical Response to Ellen G. White

 

Ellen G. White once wrote:

“The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation.” (Last Day Events, 224.3)

Sounds spiritual, right? But let’s pause. Does the Bible actually teach that the Sabbath is the seal of God? Or is this another case where Adventist tradition forces an idea into Scripture that just isn’t there? Let’s dig in with some common sense, logic, and careful exegesis.

---

1. The Seal of God in Scripture

When the Bible talks about God’s seal, what does it actually mean?

• Ephesians 1:13 – “You were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.”

• 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 – “He has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.”

• Ephesians 4:30 – “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Notice: the seal of God is not a day of the week — it’s the Holy Spirit Himself.

Question: If Paul repeatedly says the Spirit is God’s seal, why would we swap out the living presence of God for a calendar date?

---

2. Common Sense Check

Let’s use some everyday logic.

Imagine your passport. What makes it valid the date of issue, or the official seal and signature of the issuing authority? Obviously, the seal shows authenticity and ownership.

In the same way, God’s seal is the Spirit who marks us as His own, not our ability to follow a 24-hour block of time. To say “Sabbath is the seal” is like saying your passport is official just because it was printed on a Friday.

---

3. The Historico-Grammatical Lens

When Ellen White calls the Sabbath the “memorial of creation,” she’s borrowing from Exodus 20:8-11. True, the Sabbath was given to Israel as a reminder of God’s creation and His covenant with them (see also Deut. 5:15).

But here’s the kicker:

• The Sabbath is never once called the “seal of God” in the Old Testament.

• In fact, Ezekiel 20:12 calls it a sign between God and Israel, not humanity as a whole.

• A “sign” (Hebrew ’ot) is not the same as a “seal” (sphragis in Greek). A sign is temporary and external; a seal is internal and permanent.

So historically and grammatically, Ellen White is conflating two totally different biblical concepts.

---

4. Exegesis of Revelation

Adventists often point to Revelation and say, “See, the end-time seal of God must be Sabbath-keeping!” But let’s actually read the text.

• Revelation 7:3 – “Do not harm the earth... until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

• Revelation 14:1 – “They had His name and His Father’s name written on their foreheads.”

Notice: The seal in Revelation is connected with God’s name and identity, not with Sabbath observance. If John wanted to say Sabbath was the seal, he could have, but he didn’t.

Cross-exam question: Why would Adventists claim John meant Sabbath, when John himself wrote that the seal was God’s name?

---

5. Illustration: The Wedding Ring

Think of marriage. A wedding ring is a sign of the covenant, but it’s not the covenant itself. What makes the marriage real isn’t the jewelry — it’s the love, vows, and legal covenant.

Likewise, the Sabbath was a sign for Israel’s covenant. But the New Covenant is sealed, not by a day, but by the indwelling Holy Spirit. To cling to the old sign while ignoring the Spirit is like obsessing over the wedding ring while breaking the marriage vows.

---

6. The Gospel Implication

If the Sabbath is the seal of God, then only Sabbath-keepers are sealed. That means no Sunday Christian, no Gentile believer in the early church, and no Spirit-filled martyr who didn’t keep the seventh day could belong to God.

Is that the gospel? Or is that legalism dressed up as gospel?

Paul answers clearly in Romans 4:11. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, but he was already righteous by faith before circumcision. In the same way, believers today are righteous and sealed by faith and the Spirit, not by an Old Covenant sign.

---

Final Thoughts

Ellen White claimed the Sabbath is the seal of God, but Scripture is crystal clear:

• The Holy Spirit is the seal.

• The Sabbath was a sign given to Israel, not the church.

• Revelation’s seal is about God’s name and ownership, not Saturday observance.

At the end of the day, replacing the Spirit with the Sabbath is like replacing the Author with a bookmark. It misses the whole point of the New Covenant.

So here’s the question: Would you rather be sealed with the Spirit of the Living God — or with a shadow that pointed to Him?

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph