Introduction: Proposed Question
Amidst the currents of our time, a question of profound consequence has been posed by sincere Seventh-day Adventists regarding the “Liberty of Conscience Petition.” Does this call to exalt the Bible as our sole authoritative test of faith serve as a disguised entry for anti-Trinitarianism? This concern, born of a genuine desire to protect doctrinal purity, has become a barrier for many, who fear that such an initiative would effectively “legalize” heresy within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The Liberty of Conscience Petition, however, has a single, paramount purpose: to restore the Bible to its divinely appointed and all-sufficient role as the ultimate test of faith. If this principle is fully implemented, would it indeed open the doors wide to anti-Trinitarian error?
Let us pose the question with unflinching honesty. Can the personality of the Holy Spirit be tested and affirmed by the Bible alone? Unquestionably. Can the full divinity of Christ be established from its pages? Absolutely. Can Christ’s existence from all eternity be proven through Scripture? Without a doubt. Not only does the Bible testify positively to these foundational truths, but the Spirit of Prophecy stands shoulder to shoulder with Scripture in their defense. The Bible is supremely sufficient to guard the church against false views of the Godhead, and the Spirit of Prophecy has consistently upheld this biblical witness.
The inherent virtue of the Sola Scriptura principle is that the Bible guards the truth irrespective of human theological preferences, including those that are Trinitarian. For are there not false views of God currently held among our people under the very banner of “Trinitarianism”? Regrettably, yes. How, then, shall we test these views? By demanding adherence to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, or by bringing them to the bar of the whole counsel of God’s Word?
A Comparative Examination of Two Formulations
Let us conduct a practical examination of two distinct, yet both uniquely Adventist, views of God. We will run them through the test of Scripture, bearing in mind that both represent formulations that have been embraced by the church at different points in its history.
- The Fundamental Principles (1872 - 1914) - The original statement of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, printed and published by the church throughout the life of Ellen White.
Seventh-day Adventists officially believed:
“I – That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.
II – That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; …”
(Scan copy) (*) - The current Fundamental Beliefs (1980 - present)
II - There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)
III - God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also those of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 4:35; Ps. 110:1,4; John 3:16; 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:28; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 4:8; Rev. 4:11.)
IV - God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged…
V - God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; 2 Sam. 23:2; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 61:1; Luke 1:35; 4:18; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; John 16:7-13; Acts 1:8; 5:3; 10:38; Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 12:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Peter 1:21.)
XIV - … Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children…
These two views of God, while both Adventist, are fundamentally different. If we were to take either statement and make it the final test of fellowship—instead of testing all beliefs by the Bible—we would step onto a perilous path toward apostasy. Therefore, let us bring both formulations to the bar of Scripture on their corresponding points of difference.
Monotheism
The Fundamental Principles articulate a view wherein the monotheistic God of the Bible is a single Being—the Father—to whom creation is ultimately attributed.
In contrast, the current Fundamental Beliefs posit that the monotheistic God of the Bible is a unity of three coeternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 8:4b, 6 - KJV
"4 ...we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
The initial points of the Fundamental Principles borrow their language directly from this verse, claiming the "one God" of monotheism is the Father. Our current Fundamental Beliefs do not arrive at this conclusion, though they do affirm that the Father is "the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation," consistent with the phrase "of whom are all things."
Another definitive text on monotheism is John 17:3. Here, Christ Himself, praying to His Father, identifies Him as "the only true God":
John 17:3 - KJV
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Other passages, such as Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5, speak with similar clarity of the Father as "one God." There are no explicit verses in the Bible that describe the Son or the Holy Spirit with the phrase "the one God." The conclusion of the Fundamental Beliefs—that the "one God" is a unity of three Persons—is reached through a specific theological synthesis rather than from the direct voice of Scripture. This line of theological reasoning, which stems from the imperative to uphold the full divinity of Christ, leads to an understanding of monotheism that extends beyond the most literal language of certain biblical passages.
The Full Divinity of Christ
That Jesus is fully God is a non-negotiable scriptural truth, stated in texts like John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:5-7; and Isaiah 9:6. Does this testimony contradict Scripture's own claim that the Father alone is the "one God"? The answer depends on one’s theological framework.
The Fundamental Beliefs adjusted its view on monotheism to include Christ as God. But is this theological maneuver the only way to harmonize these seemingly competing claims? The Fundamental Principles stand as proof that it is not.
The full divinity of Christ is robustly upheld in the phrase "the Son of the Eternal Father." The question at hand is, how is Jesus God? In the Trinitarian view, Jesus is, or is a part of, the one monotheistic God. In the non-Trinitarian view of the pioneers, Jesus is God by the merits of His Sonship, a conclusion drawn from accepting the phrase "the Son of God" in the most direct and obvious sense the language employs. Children, after all, inherit the complete nature of their parents. So it is with Christ. Paul writes:
Ephesians 3:14-15 - KJV
"14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family [patria - fatherhood] in heaven and earth is named,"
The modern Trinitarian view, however, does not take the Fatherhood of God or the Sonship of Christ in this literal, ontological sense. Instead, it limits their relationship to functional roles within the Plan of Salvation.
“The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role for the purpose of accomplishing a particular goal, not a change in essence or status.” {Gerhard Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute, THE TRINITY IN SCRIPTURE, June 1999.}
“Sonship is not His innate, eternal identity, but rather a role He took up for a purpose.” {Ty Gipson, The Sonship of Christ, p. 72 Kindle}
“But all of this meaningful and beautiful gospel theology is lost if we push the Sonship of Christ off into some unique identity that He alone possesses from eternity past. None of Paul’s narrative logic makes any sense if we work from the premise that Jesus is God’s Son in an ancient, ontological sense.” {Ty Gipson, The Sonship of Christ, p. 78 Kindle}
Herein lies a critical theological trajectory. The term ‘ontological,’ as employed by these theologians, refers to a literal Sonship, and it is set in opposition to the obvious meaning of the words "the Son of God." The reason for denying this plain meaning is a logical deduction: a literal sonship implies a beginning, which would contradict Christ’s eternality.
“...the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. The term ‘Son’ is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” {BRI, Question on Sonship}
This logical trail begins with the biblical truth that Jesus is eternal. From this premise, the reasoning concludes that His Sonship must be metaphorical, which in turn leads to the final conclusion that His divinity is affirmed by redefining the "one God" as a unity of three persons, thereby setting aside the plain language of Scripture that the monotheistic God is the Father. We must recognize this entire chain for what it is: a human theological synthesis. As such, we are free to test it by the Scriptures.
The question of "how" God is one and yet three is generally deemed a mystery. But could we not apply the same principle of mystery to the Sonship of Christ? Can we not accept by faith both that Christ is eternal (Micah 5:2, Proverbs 8:23) and at the same time that He is the only begotten Son of God—"begotten in the express image of the Father's person" {ST May 30, 1895, par. 3}? To our finite minds, the language that His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2) and that He "was set up from everlasting, from the beginning" (Proverbs 8:23) is indeed paradoxical. How can one be from everlasting and yet be begotten? If a seemingly contradictory notion arises from our finite comprehension, let it rest with the clear testimony of Scripture rather than with our theological reasoning.
If we accept by faith that Christ is both eternal and truly begotten of the Father—a mystery similar to the Trinitarian acceptance of one God in three Persons—we can affirm Christ's full divinity through His Sonship without setting aside His direct testimony that His Father is "the only true God." It is therefore clear that this non-Trinitarian view is not only a biblically valid option, but one with strong scriptural standing.
In the context of this comparative analysis, which statement of faith is more biblically sound?
1) God is: a unity of three persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
2) God is: the Father of Christ, and Christ is the Son of God
If our only test were the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, we would never examine this question by the Scriptures in the first place. But we see that Scripture itself is sufficient to teach a simple monotheism, Christ's full divinity, and His eternal existence.
The Personality of the Holy Spirit
Here, the Scriptures provide full sufficiency to teach the truth. The personality of the Holy Spirit is revealed through His work: the Holy Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2), teaches (John 14:26), makes decisions (Acts 15:28), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), can be lied to (Acts 5:3,4), forbids plans (Acts 16:6,7), comprehends God’s thoughts (1 Corinthians 2:10,11), and bears witness (Romans 8:16; John 15:26).
The counsel of Ellen White is in full accord with this reasoning:
"The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. 'For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man, which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.'" [1 Corinthians 2:11.]. {EGW; 21LtMs, Ms 20, 1906, par. 32}
Our current Fundamental Beliefs are in full agreement with these clear testimonies. The earlier Fundamental Principles also upheld the personality of the Holy Spirit by describing Him as God's active 'Representative.' How can a Representative be impersonal? God is "everywhere present by His representative the Holy Spirit." As a Representative of God, He is in full work of bearing witness, teaching, reproving etc.
Both statements adhere to the personality of the Holy Spirit, though the current Fundamental Beliefs are more explicit.
The Omnipresence and Personality of God
Here, we encounter a subtle yet profound difference. In the Fundamental Beliefs, God—a unity of three persons—is inherently omnipresent. In the Fundamental Principles, God—specifically the Father—is not personally omnipresent, but achieves omnipresence through "His representative, the Holy Spirit." The theological repercussions of this distinction are startling, especially when considered in light of the personality of God.
The personality of God deals with how God is a person—specifically, how the Father is a person. Fundamental Belief #5 states of the Holy Spirit: "He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son." This suggests the Father and Son are persons in the same sense as the Holy Spirit is: functionally. They speak, teach, and decide. This implies their personhood is not ontological but functional. We are told not to inquire into the ontological nature of God, for it is a mystery.
But the question "How is the Father a person?" is a legitimate one, and the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy provide a clear answer. A definitive revelation came to Ellen White in vision, which answers whether the personality of Father is merely functional or something more:
"I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person, and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, 'I am the express image of My Father's person!' [Hebrews 1:3.]". {EGW; 18LtMs, Lt 253, 1903, par. 12}
What makes the Father a person? It is not merely His abstract qualities, but His outward, visible form. In other words, God the Father is a person because He possesses a tangible, material form. As such, He is located in a specific place: Heaven, in the Heavenly Sanctuary, where He sits and rules from His Throne. Though He personally dwells in Heaven, He is everywhere present by His Representative, the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, inferring from the simplicity of this testimony, the Father and the Son are ontologically persons (possessing distinct, material forms), while the Holy Spirit is a person in a strictly functional sense, possessing no such form (Luke 24:39).
The canonical prophets, together with Ellen White, saw the glory of God's person. The interpretive question is whether we accept these accounts in their plain, obvious sense or in some spiritual sense. Immediately after recounting her vision, Ellen White delivered this solemn warning:
"I have often seen that the spiritual view took away all the glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David and the lovely person of Jesus have been burned up in the fire of Spiritualism. I have seen that some who have been deceived and led into this error will be brought out into the light of truth, but it will be almost impossible for them to get entirely rid of the deceptive power of Spiritualism" {EGW; Lt 253, 1903, par. 13.}
The "fire of Spiritualism" consumes the reality of God's throne and Christ's person as a direct result of a "spiritual view." If we accept the Trinitarian notion that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-equal persons, persons in the exact same sense, and we rightfully affirm the Holy Spirit’s personality to be functional and without form, then we consequently divest the Father and the Son of their visible, material forms—ending in the very spiritualism we are warned against. Our current Fundamental Beliefs statement not only lacks guardrails against this error, but also leaves room to support such a view.
Unlike the Fundamental Beliefs which are silent on the question of the personality of God, the Fundamental Principles, uphold the biblical doctrine of God's personality by stating that the "one God"—the Father—is "a personal spiritual being" who is everywhere present by His Representative. This language preserves the intricate connection between the Bible's clear teaching on the omnipresence of God and His personal (bodily) dwelling in Heaven.
Conclusion
With the doctrine of the presence and personality of God, we have come full circle. This doctrine, accepted in its biblical simplicity, affirms Christ’s literal Sonship, which leads to His full divinity, yet upholds the Father as the one monotheistic God of the Bible and confirms the personality of the Holy Spirit. It was a pillar of our faith from the beginning, held firmly throughout the life of Ellen White, and was her chief defense against the pantheistic errors of Kellogg in her final decade.
Ultimately, two mutually exclusive doctrines concerning God are before us: the modern doctrine of the Trinity and the pioneer doctrine of the presence and personality of God. The difference lies in the interpretation of biblical language. In one view, God adjusts Himself to our finite understanding, using metaphors like "Father" and "Son" as functional roles within the scope of the Plan of Salvation, while outside of that scope, He is not so (immanent view of the Trinity). In the other view, God adjusted man to Himself. God created man in His own image, and the terms "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" describe an innate reality to be read in the obvious sense the language employs.
The contrast is stark. One view advocates a complex theological synthesis that conceals the plain language of the Bible in symbolism; the other accepts the straightforward and apparent language of the Bible. Both views contain elements that are incomprehensible to the finite mind and must be accepted by faith. Both adhere to the full divinity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Yet with the Scripture in our hands, we are enabled to test out which is more coherent, more consistent, and closer to the divine testimony.
It is precisely because a doctrine like the Trinity is constructed upon layers of intricate theological reasoning and philosophical assumptions that it naturally comes under the most rigorous scrutiny when the authority of a human creed is set aside. Historically, this doctrine was raised by establishing human made-creeds. This reality, however, does not render the Liberty of Conscience initiative inherently anti-Trinitarian. The principle of Sola Scriptura is majestically impartial; it is neither pro- nor anti-Trinitarian. It simply demands that every belief, whether cherished by majorities or minorities, be brought to the one unassailable standard. As the Spirit of Prophecy so powerfully declared: “Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.'” {EGW; GC 595.1; 1911}
We return to the paramount question and its definitive answer. Is it perilous to exalt the Bible as our sole creed? The peril lies not in God’s Word but in the coercion of human systems. God’s divine plan is not unity by creed but unity by hearing. It is the sacred duty of His church to listen for her Shepherd’s voice as it speaks from His divinely appointed Word, and to follow Him wherever He may lead (John 10:27; Revelation 14:4).
Therefore, our only safety—our only security from error—rests in this same unwavering allegiance. When we elevate the Bible as the ultimate test of faith, the church is purified not by the enforcement of humanly imposed labels, but by the living and active power of the Word itself. In that sacred space, where conscience is subject only to God, His people will be kept safe, faithful, and true.
For Further Study and Testimony
The doctrines explored herein, particularly the personality of God, possess a depth and historical breadth that far exceed the scope of a single article. For those whose interest has been sparked to delve deeper into the historical development of this foundational Adventist belief, we commend to your study the book The Forgotten Pillar, a work that provides a comprehensive examination of this doctrine's evolution within our movement.
Furthermore, to witness the practical and at times, heartrending consequences of the principles discussed, we direct your attention to another essential record. It recounts the story of two elders of the Chewelah Seventh-day Adventist Church and two faithful pastors who, standing firmly upon the simple language of the Bible, found themselves unable in good conscience to uphold the precise wording of Fundamental Belief #2. The narrative documents the severe ecclesiastical measures they faced for their stand. Their powerful defense of faith, juxtaposed with the misuse of institutional authority, is chronicled in the account, One God, One Church.