QUESTION 5

*As excerpted from the manuscript Trinity in Adventism, by Derrick Gillespie

SHOULD ADVENTISTS BELIEVE THAT

JESUS HAD A BEGINNING BECAUSE HE
WAS BEGOTTEN?
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by
adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son *BEGOTTEN in
the express image of the Fathers Person, and in all the
brightness of His majesty and glory, One EQUAL with God*IN
AUTHORITY, [notice] DIGNITY [rank, office, title], and divine
perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895
Evidently, to Mrs. White the first begetting of Jesus was not just at
his incarnation, because at that juncture He was not begotten with
all the brightness of His [the Fathers] majesty and glory, but had laid
these aside as he emptied Himself. This E.G White reference must
therefore relate to His Heavenly existence!!
But did she teach that this Heavenly begetting of Christ means that He had
a beginning and His life is dependent on that of the Fathers? The next quote
from her will set the stage for a frank discussion about really what true
Adventists should believe:

Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human
race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels
all wear the yoke of obedience [in Heaven]. They are the
appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all
heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.
He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the

*ETERNAL,* SELF-EXISTING SON, *ON WHOM NO YOKE

HAD COME [i.e. He was not limited, dependent, or subservient by
nature, in any way, UNTIL HIS INCARNATION]; and when God
asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send
me." He could pledge himself to become man's surety; for he
could say that, which the highest angel [and no created man]
could not say,--I have power over *MY OWN LIFE, "power to
lay it down, and . . . power to take it again."
-E.G. White, Youth Instructor, June 21, 1900
The foregoing E.G. White declarations, and the following quote,
from the latest and official explanation of the S.D.A. 27 Statements
of Belief in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe(1988) can
serve as a good starting point to answer the question under
consideration:
That scripture alludes to Jesus as only begotten
and the first born and speaks of the day of His begetting does
not deny [exclude] His divine nature and *ETERNAL [I AM]
existence. The term only begotten (John1: 14/ John 1:18/ John
3:16/ 1 John 4:9) comes from the Greek word *
MONOGENES. The Biblical use of monogenes reveals that
its range of meanings extends to [includes contextually] only or
unique, depicting a special relationship, *NOT an event in
time [this event took place outside the bounds of time].
-S.D.A.s Believe... An Exposition of 27 Fundamental
Doctrines (1988), References, No.7, pg. 56
There are those SDA dissidents who misunderstand this official
statement. They take it to be saying that Jesus was not begotten
of the Father in His divinity. To their minds, this is evidence to
indicate that mainstream Adventism, or what they call apostate
Adventism, now denies that Jesus is truly the Son of God. While it
is regrettably true that some Adventist writers openly declare
that Jesus was not begotten in His divinity(denying that even

the Apostolic Fathers and earliest Christians believed

otherwise), however, a careful contextual analysis of this
official SDA Statement of Belief, and a look at the foregoing
E.G. White inspired statement would lead one to recognize the
truth. The emphasis here is that Jesus declared begetting does
*not suggest that He had a beginning at an *EVENT IN TIME
[emphasis on it happening in time], but a begetting in the
context of a special or unique divine relationship with His
Father. This statement does not directly deny a Heavenly
begetting, but it does deny that Jesus had a beginning at an
event in time, and disagrees with any use of begetting to
suggest his beginning at a point in time, or limit His eternal
existence.
The same passage, quoted in part here, later indicated (please see it
for yourself) that Jesus did become at a specific event in time,
and in a unique sense, the *divine-human Son, at His
incarnation, when divine and human nature united in His Person.
Which is why He is even more special, unique or monogenes,
that is, He was begotten twice, thus becoming so impacted in
His being.
The earthly process of Jesus becoming, at a *specific
time, the human Son of God (by his human birth, his resurrection,
and priestly enthronement) cannot be seen in the same context of
His begetting in His divinity. While He is really and truly
presented as the only begotten Son of the Father in His
divinity(said Mrs. White), brought forth, or set up, or given
birth from everlasting (Prov. 8:22-31), this cannot be taken to
mean He had a beginning in the same way a human son has a
beginning, at a point in time. Why? This is precisely the reason
why Mrs. White (obviously agreeing with the following early
Christian teaching) declared that Jesus eternal oneness with the
Father, His pre-existence, and His Heavenly begetting is
infinitely mysterious and incomprehensible, and why
Trinitarians, while accepting His Heavenly birth, removes it
from the sphere of time and accepts it as a mysterious

process. Here following (again), is the proof of this earliest

Christian teaching, and then Mrs. White making very much the
same inspired admission.

When he [John] says: what was in the beginning [1 John

1:1], he touches upon the generation without beginning of

the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. [The word] Was
therefore is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just
as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one with the
Father, in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and
uncreated. That the Word always existed is signified by the
saying: In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1]
- Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius

History, Book 6, Chapter 140

*Thus Origen, 185-254 A.D., who would be just five years
old in 190 A.D. when the above quoted was written, is not
properly credited by some theologians for first teaching the
truth of the co-eternality (same age) of Jesus Christ with
His Father. It was a Bible truth- *Micah 5:2- being taught by
Christians long before him:

100 AD Ignatius of Antioch "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father

before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus
Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to
one [Father] . . . God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his
Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence,

[thus having no beginning as when a speaker begins a speech from the

point of getting up from his silence] and who in all things pleased him
that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6-8).
180 AD Irenaeus "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the
Father, [thus co-eternal] from of old, [even from everlasting] yea,
from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels,
Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

This pre-papal testimony is today echoed by Mrs. White in

Adventism:
If Christ made all things He existed before all things [John 1:13]. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one
need be left in doubt. Christ was GOD essentially, and in the
HIGHEST [nothing-higher, thus co-equal] sense. He was *WITH
[alongside] God [the Person of the Father] FROM [now
notice]*ALL ETERNITY
-E.G. White- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1126
From *ALL ETERNITY [Micah 5:2] Christ was united with [note with]
the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature [and was
separated from His Fathers immediate presence], He was STILL [in the
same way as before] one with God [existing as two distinct Beings,
separate but united for all eternity]
E.G. White Comments- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5,
pg. 1115
From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator
of the Covenant [Hebrews 7:3] was *GOD essentially and *IN THE
HIGHEST [nothing higher] SENSE [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY
GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5] a *DISTINCT [separate] Person, yet one
[united] with the Father.
E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906

 This truth [about Jesus eternal pre-existence and distinction] infinitely

MYSTERIOUS in itself, explains [Heb.7:3] otherwise unexplainable
truths, while enshrined in light unapproachable and
INCOMPREHENSIBLE
E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906

Here it is evidenced, from inspired testimony, that true

Adventism believes that Jesus was from all eternity a
distinct Being, in the sense of separateness (as the Oxford
dictionary defines distinct), since that is what Mediator (go
between) of the Covenant, from all eternity also means. But
there are those within Adventism who strive to put a limit on
these all eternity statements of Mrs. White, feeling that at
some time, which can be dated back into the far recesses of
eternity, Jesus must have come into existence after the Father,
since that is what begetting logically suggests a preexisting (or antecedent) Father. However, this view, while
understandable from the standpoint of logic, has no real
support. Why is this view, with its foundation based only on logic,
not supported? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned!!
First of all, such a view, if correct, would automatically turn Mrs.
White into a false prophet (even if only by some of her own
people). This would happen because, under inspiration, and from
her conviction in what the Bible teaches, she herself also distinctly
stated that, quote:
In speaking of His pre-existence Christ takes the mind
back through *DATELESS [infinite] AGES [in all eternity], He
assures us that there never was a time [in the dateless ages of
all eternity] when He was not in close *FELLOWSHIP
[association with another] with the eternal God.
-E.G.
White- Evangelism, pg. 615
Could Mrs. White be any clearer? What other words could she
choose to make it more explicit that Jesus simply had no
beginning, in the sense of a point in time? What is an infinite

mystery? What does incomprehensible mean? Clearly there is

no mystery involved in saying that Jesus, the Son, came after
the Father, at a point in time, which is normal human
experience. But there is mystery involved in saying that the
divine Son and His Father both existed, distinct, from all
eternity, despite begotten by the Father. The earliest
Christians testified to this truth!!
Only one led by the spirit of presumption would want to solve
this MYSTERY, to satisfy his own need for reconciling with
logic, and thus unwittingly discredit, not just the servant of the
Lord (Mrs. White) but even God Himself who said:
Before me there was *no GOD formed, neither
shall there be any *AFTER me
-Isaiah 43:10
Clearly Jesus could not have been formed as GOD
*after the Father, whether in nature or in authority, even by divine
birth, because the Father would have no explanation or answer to
His own words in Isaiah here!
So, how do we
reconcile with the two truths that Jesus, as God, was both
begotten from the Father, yet was distinct or separate as a
Person, and God over all for all eternity? We CANNOT
reconcile the two (logically, that is), but must accept both truths by
faith, without denying any, since both truths are the unerring word
of God! That is what infinitely mysterious and
incomprehensible mean. If human logic is applied here, it will
fail, because who by searching can find out God?(Job 11:79). With God all things are possible!! The truth is that Jesus is
divinely begotten, the only begotten, and is the true Son
of God, but just not so by the laws of human experience.
The truth is that Jesus simply had no beginning, at a
point in time, even though He is presented as the Son of God
(Heb. 7:3). The truth is that He is fully eternal, as a distinct
or separate Person for all eternity, even though He is
pictured as being fully related to the Father, who is pictured as
giving Him all things. That is why many Christians believe
that the Father and the Son, being both fully and truly GOD,

being both fully and truly FROM ALL ETERNITY, are

therefore both
CO-ETERNAL!! That is what the true Adventist believes!!
Time would be wasted, and one would be blasphemously
arrogant to even begin to think he can explain this mystery,
which is described by Mrs. White as infinitely mysterious and
incomprehensible!
Some try to resolve this mystery in their minds by saying that the
Son existed (past tense) figuratively, but not individually and
independently, within the Fathers bosom, but later (during
eternity) became independent of the Father as a separate Being.
This is a proposition that is neither true nor mysterious!
Firstly, this view is neither mysterious nor
incomprehensible because the mind can reconcile with this view,
and even illustrate it on a human level (as some try to do) by
referring to Hebrews 7: 9, 10.
Secondly, this view is not true because Jesus is presented, in
John 1:17, as being IN (present tense) the bosom (a symbol of
fellowship) of the Father, not His loins (a symbol of generation).
Clearly the Fathers bosom does not mean a place of generation,
but a place of fellowship, since Jesus would not now be in it
after returning to it! He was, is, and always will be in the bosom
(in the fellowship) of the Father! With that now understood it must
now be said that the belief that the Son existed for all eternity
as a distinct (separate) Person along with His Father, from
whom He was begotten is the better proposition that fits the
Scriptures and one that is a veritable mystery!
Hear the words of one who saw the truth in vision:
The name of God [I AM or Jehovah], given to Moses to express the
idea of ETERNAL PRESENCE, had been claimed as His *OWN [John
8:58,59] by this Galilean Rabbi [Jesus]. He had announced *HIMSELF
[not just His Father] to be, the Self-Existent One... -Mrs. White- Desire of
Ages, pgs. 469-470
I AM means an eternal presence: past, present, future...

-Mrs. White S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol.1,

pg. 1009

Who will venture to propose that Jesus name (I AM), does not
fully fit His nature, or that He has a false name? Who will venture
to say that I AM is not Jesus own name from all eternity? This
writer will not.
There is very little that need to be said after this on this matter,
except to remind you dear reader that the Father and the Son are
both called the First and the Last, clearly indicating equality
in time or length of existence. Jesus is not the Second but also
First (Rev. 2:8/22:12, 13).
Resist not the word of God, or twist it, but believe it unto
salvation!
APPENDIX
Despite the early Christians believed in one God the Father,
they saw no conflict in their beliefs about Jesus being
absolutely called God, LORD or Jehovah in name,
and equal with the Father as Deity, simply because He
was, as another separate Person, the Son of God. This is
precisely how the Jews (John 10:30-33) understood Jesus
Son-ship, that is, it was a claim to equality with the Father,
not a claim to being the Father Himself. Also, it is precisely
upon this premise that the earliest PRE-PAPAL reference to
a Trinity was made; not that Jesus is Himself the Father,
or that the Holy Spirit is another independent Almighty
God. The ongoing mistake of some anti-Trinitarians (not all)
is failure to recognize this historical fact.
The One true God the Father is, by His very nature, revealed in and
worshipped through His Eternal Son, and is present everywhere and
served through His Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead.
This was the teaching of the earliest Christians *long before the Papacy
and Roman Catholicism was born in the fourth century after

Constantine became Christian (signaling the birth of Roman

Catholicism). The historical evidence is undeniable:

100 A.D.
Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of
all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, not unto one [one person, as in Sabellian
modalism] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate,
but into three [persons] possessed of *EQUAL HONOR.
- Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2
150 A.D.
Both Him [the Father], and the Son AND the prophetic Spirit, we worship
and adore- Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 17
150 A.D.
I praise you [the Father] for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you
AND the Holy Spirit be glory both now, and to all coming ages. Amen!
Polycarp of Smyrna, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 14
180 A.D.
The THREE days [separate entities], which were before the luminaries [the
fourth day Creation of sun, moon, etc.], are types [symbols] of the *Trinity
[triavdo- Greek], of God [the Father], and His Word [Jesus], and His Wisdom
[Spirit]. And the fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light
- Theophilus of Antioch, Chapter 15, Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15
190 A.D.
I understand nothing else than the Holy *TRINITY [triavdo] to be meant; for
the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were
made according to the will of the Father [the first Person].
-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14
200 A.D.
See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they [Sabellian modalists]
have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ,
Himself the Son, Himself was born But this is not so. The Scriptures speak
what is right; but Noetus [a modalist heretic] is of a different mind from them
[the Scriptures] For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on
that account deny the economy (i.e. the number and disposition of [three]
persons in the *TRINITY [triavdo]
- Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One
Noetus

150 A.D
[the Father in Creation] conversed with Someone [the pre-incarnate
Jesus] *numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational being- Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho,
Chapter 62
200 A.D.
All Scriptures give clear proof of the *Trinity [trinitas- Latin], and it is from
these that our principle is deduced the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly
displayed - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 11
That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will
never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not
God, nor the Spirit, God [but] when Christ would come, He might be
acknowledged as God, and be called Lord, because He is the Son of Him who is
both God and Lord - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13:6

So the Christians nearest the Bible apostles taught a trinity, but denied
a plurality of Gods.
The idea of gods in the Godhead is one of Satans first lies told on
earth. This lie, recorded distinctly in Genesis 3:5, and illuminated in
E.G. Whites, Great Controversy, pgs. 532-533, is one which he told
because he knew that more than one Person in the Godhead is properly
called GOD(Gen. 3:22), but also knowing that a misunderstanding of
*the unity is what would cause us to falsely see Them either as separate
gods or worse, as a monstrous three headed individual being
(organism). This lie (counterfeit) is found in almost all ancient religions
of the world, simply because, by his knowledge of the real truth, Satan
was able to plant the seed of misunderstanding.
Why is there such a coincidence of divine threes in counterfeit
religions? Evidently it was by Satans influence (himself knowing the
truth about the true Godhead of constituent Persons) that these
ancient pagan religions unwittingly recognized that truly there is a
plurality of persons in the Godhead, but unfortunately the persons are
either seen as gods, or God is seen as a personal being (personality)
with three forms!
No Christian should therefore seek to promote these pagan lies, or on
the other hand go to the other extreme of unwittingly opposing all that
is called God (2 Thessalonians 2:4), in the Persons of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, simply because they cannot understand how, when the

Three are spiritually united in the Godhead, 1x1x1 =1(one) God, and
not 1+1+1=3(three) gods.