“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