You are on page 1of 19


Compelling Reasons Why I Believe in Jesus

Pre-Incarnate Begetting by the Father!!
By Derrick Gillespie (July, 2017)
*Third Edition (expanded and edited)

1611 A.D. - Bible, King James Version
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

150 A.D. Justin Martyr

our Physician is the only true God, the un-begotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and
Begetter of the only begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the
only begotten Son and Word, *before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the
virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."

As a Seventh-day Adventist Trinitarian believer (with no intention to recant) I appropriately opened this
presentation with a quote from the Bible; a quote which is probably the most well-known, well-loved
and the most meaningful Scripture in the entire world. I then quoted below it a 2nd century teaching
coming from the early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, a Greek speaking Christian who wrote long
before the first Latin Bible or the Vulgate was compiled late in the fourth century by Jerome (i.e. after
380 A.D.). I did this because it sets the stage for me to, from the very beginning, debunk the popular
view among some that Jesus being deemed the only begotten Son of God from eternity is, as is often
argued, the result of some insertion or mistranslation in the fourth century Vulgate (the Latin Bible),
which then popularized *thereafter the concept of Jesus as the only begotten Son, instead of him just
being deemed the only Son of God, or Gods unique Son, as coming from the Greek word
monogenes in John 3:16 (KJV).
From the above introductory quote (and I will furnish much more like it later on) it is plain that Greek
speaking Christian writers and apologists, like Justin Martyr, from as early the first and second centuries
already were faithfully preaching what they inherited from the apostles (no doubt), i.e. the true teaching
that the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ [is] the only begotten Son and Word, *before time began. This
puts to silence any attempt by some (scholars included) to muddy the waters with the claim that this
was all a post fourth century teaching. Now I can proceed with my presentation.

After years of teaching and defending the position that Jesus was not begotten before time began,
since begotten would suggest he has a beginning, in all good conscience I later recanted that position
and I personally cannot but NOW accept (been doing so since about the year 2000) that Jesus was the
pre-incarnately BEGOTTEN Son of God, even if he is undeniably and irrefutably a beginningless and
fully eternal being (Heb. 7:3; 1 John 1:1-3) who is from everlasting or from all eternity past (Micah
5:2), just like God the Father (see Psalm 90:1-2 with Psalm 93:2). I know it sounds paradoxical and self-
contradictory, but I have learned that almost everything about the things related to the Godhead seem
to the human mind to be mysterious and beyond comprehension, yet still Christians accept and believe
it all, even when they cant explain it to suit human logic. In this instance there is therefore nothing
different in terms of dealing with the mysterious as it relates to the Godhead, and Job 11:7-9 tells us
why that is so. Open your Bible and read this vital passage before you go on, dear reader.

In the presence of, or by way of two or three witnesses a truth is established in the court of truth
examination, the bible tells us in Matthew 18:16, and I have four or more witnesses to the above
described truth. And while I may or may not convince others to adopt my view, yet it is my attempt to
show why, in light of what both 1 Peter 3:15 and Jude 1:3 requires of me, I personally cannot but teach
what John 3:16 plainly says in the KJV; that God the Father gave to us his only begotten Son as the
means by which we must be saved. Here now are my four or more witnesses to the reason for my
faith in this matter.


Christians nearest the apostles long before the Papacy arose after the fourth century, almost to a man,
all testified to the truth of the pre-incarnate Jesus being BEGOTTEN before coming to earth
(debunking the view that its a Roman Catholic teaching), and in the first three centuries they not
only spoke Greek but best understood the Greek monogenes (the expression translated only
begotten Son in John 3:16; KJV), compared to modern scholars trying to pretend they know ancient
Greek better than the real Greek speakers and writers did then. They, who best spoke and wrote their
own ancient Greek language, knew that not only does the word monogenes mean unique or one of
a kind (like the phoenix that was then called a monogenes or unique mythological bird) but it also
means only begotten. These Greek speaking Christian apologists from the very first century
consistently pointed to Jesus as the pre-incarnately BEGOTTEN Son of the Father before Jerome or the
Vulgate Latin Bible even existed, and so their testimony bears much weight for me, even if its
uninspired testimony. Note more of that pre-fourth-century testimony:

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

This is 190 A.D. and notice, compared to Justin Martyrs 150 A.D. testimony quoted earlier, the
same/common theme is seen running through the teaching of this pre-Vulgate Christian apologisti.e.
the pre-incarnate generation or begetting of the eternal Jesus without him having a beginning
at some point within eternity!!! This is what Justin Martyr clearly meant over a generation before
Clement of Alexandria, when he further said:

You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring
[i.e. Jesus] was begotten by the Father *before all things created; and that that which is begotten is
*numerically distinct from that which beget, ... ---Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 150 A.D.
chapter 129,

What is therefore painfully evident from the first three centuries of Christian thought is that those who
were nearest the apostles inherited the faith that these two paradoxical truths can co-exist equallyi.e.
there was a begotten and numerically distinct Jesus before he came to earth and yet he is still a
fully eternal Jesus who, like the unbegotten Father, is from everlasting and had no beginning!! If
they could have freely taught this truth then, and died in faith believing it, then why should I reject it to
suit modern scholars who know no more than they did?

Those who struggle with that historical and biblical truth today, and even change Bible translations to
accommodate their struggle, they do so because they want to and seek to rationally and logically explain
the divine things of God, when it is all way beyond our comprehension. They assume that begetting
and birth in Heaven must mean having the Father acting like a pregnant mother and giving birth to a
child (and a father cant do that, they protest), and further, that would mean Jesus had a beginning
and is not truly eternal, they argue. Yet they fail to realize that the things of God cant be always fitted
into all of our human experiences and analyzed that way. It is when we try to apply finite logic to the
things of an infinite Godhead, and bring those things down to finite and earthly experiences we run into
problems. People of faith need to just take God at his Word, even when what he says we cant
understand it here and now. I choose to believe; not quibble over what is above my comprehension!!

I close this examination of my first witness in this court of truth examination, i.e. the earliest
Christian apologists, by noting that even before Jerome wrote his Vulgate Latin Bible after 380 A.D., the
most well-known Trinitarian Christian creed, the Nicene Creed, testified to the truth already established
for hundreds of years among Christians, when it said:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things, visible and
invisible" ... "We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the *only-begotten *born of
the Father *before all worlds; *only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God,
light of light, true God of true God, *born, *not made [or created][and] those who say, 'There was a
time when he [the Son] did not existthese the universal church anathematizes [or pronounces
accursed] Nicene Creed, 325. A.D.

While I would not have expressed certain truths about the Godhead exactly the way the Trinitarian
Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. did, yet this witness is important to further strengthen the view that the
begotten nature of Jesus before all worlds was a well-nigh universal teaching among most
Christians BEFORE even the Latin Vulgate translated the word monogenes as only begotten.
The orthodox Trinitarian and speaker of Greek, Alexander, during the Council of Nicea (in 325. A.D.),
and long before the Latin Vulgate came over 50 years later, he expressed the Trinitarian faith thus:

Alexander [REPRESENTING ORTHODOXY] declared: --

"The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in
this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of his Father. Everything is found
in the image which exists in its archetype; and it was this that our Lord taught when he said, `My
Father is greater than I.' And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for he is
the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of his substance. But let no one be led from this
to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual
power: for to say that he was, that he has *always been, and that he existed before all ages, is not to
say that he is unbegotten." --- Source---Theodoret's "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. iv.

Thats a mouthful!! And remember, dear reader, and get this because its crucial, that the only word in
existence in the entire Bible that is used of Jesus Christ to ever be understood to also mean only
begotten by Greek speaking Christians from the first three centuries is monogenes; a word which
appears only five times in the New Testament connected directly to Jesus as Gods Son (see John 1:14,
18; John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Now if the word monogenes never also meant only begotten to Greek
speaking Christians, but just a unique Son, as is argued by many today, then there is no way so many
pre-Vulgate Greek Christians would have faithfully and independently taught it to mean that!! They are
the best witnesses to the meaning of the ancient Greek that they spoke; not modern people far
removed from that time. That crucial piece of circumstantial evidence cannot be willy nilly swept under
the rug and be ignored. It simply refuses to go way. And I as an objective and honest Bible student, and a
student of history, I cannot in good conscience ignore it. Its compelling!! And I must allow the evidence
to take me where it honestly leadseven if it will rock the boat of some in my modern SDA Church!!

Now, lets fast forward to the 19th century and see what the SDA pioneers consistently and
unapologetically taught concerning this matter, from 1863 onwards, when my SDA Church was officially
organized, and even up to and long after 1915, when its most renowned pioneer, Mrs. E.G. White died,
and when, by then, they had gradually become comfortable to declare that they believed in the Trinity
(as separate beings, mind you; not as one undivided substance). Lets now bring in this second witness
to the witness stand. They will shock many modern SDA members who today, just like I was doing some
years ago, are unwittingly teaching the opposite of what they all taught on this matter.

I did a check recently of how many times Mrs. White, the leading pioneer in SD Adventism (and the
Churchs accepted inspired prophetess) used the expression only begotten Son, and lo and behold it
was well over 2000 times Mrs. White referred to Jesus as Gods only begotten Son!!! It is plain that
she, in her inspired understanding of Scripture never once questioned whether monogenes, as used
by John the apostle, and Jesus beloved disciple, ever meant simply only begotten Son. In addition,
the SDA pioneers by her side, who did enough research to know that, for instance, 1 John 5:7 was an
unfortunate insertion into the Latin Bible, they never once deemed the expression only begotten Son
to be any such thing. Notice carefully that both Mrs. White and the SDA pioneers correctly understood
that 1 John 5:7 was an unfortunate post fourth century insertion into the Vulgate Bible, and that is why
they never used it ever to comment on the Godhead in the entire lifetime of their pioneering witness to
the truth. But as it concerns the expression only begotten Son they freely used it to refer to Jesus
being not just Gods begotten Son on earth at his incarnation, but also to mean his begetting in
eternity; thus to all SDA pioneers Jesus was begotten TWICE!! Thats telling, and is a total rebuke to
all modern SDA scholars and theologians who have ignored this reality and have bought into the
modern drift away from this bedrock of truth, to be teaching otherwise that Jesus was only a unique
Son and was not begotten of the Father before coming to earth.

I intend to put Mrs. White herself on the witness stand separately later on, so I will not analyze her
crucial and eye-opening statements here and now, but suffice it to say here (as the undeniable evidence
which I will quote later will prove), she was fully onboard with what am about to quote from her
contemporaries (the other pioneers) who spoke of Jesus pre-incarnate begetting from 1863 all the
way to 1915 and long after as well; even when they started to declare in the late 1890s and thereafter
that they had eventually come to believe in the Trinity!! Follow the progression of the years related to
the following quotes from pioneers in SD Adventism EVEN WHILE THEY *STARTED TO EXPRESS THE

It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that he was the
Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was
createdWe know that Christ proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42), but it was so far
back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of manThe Scriptures declare
that Christ is the only begotten son of God. He is begotten, not created. As to when He was
begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. --E. J. Waggoner, 1890,
Christ and His Righteousness, page 9)

He [Jesus] who was born in the form of God took the form of man. In the flesh he was all the while as
God, but he did not appear as God. He divested himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the
form and fashion of man. The glories of the form of God, He for a while relinquished. ---A. T. Jones,
General Conference Bulletin 1895, page 448)

Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh,
thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who have been born once already in
the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our experience may
be the same, the human and the divine being joined in a life union. ---W. W. Prescott, April 14, 1896,
Review & Herald, page 232


He was born of the Holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus Christ was born again. He came from heaven,
Gods first-born, to the earth, and was born again. He whose goings forth have been from the days
of eternity, the first-born of God, was born again in order that we might be born again. ---A. T. Jones,
Review & Herald, July 7 -August 1, 1899 (Christian Perfection, paragraphs 53, 54 A Sermon )
These utterances all came in the 1890s at a time when, as SDAs doctrinally matured, these SDA pioneers
themselves started FOR THE FIRST TIME to allow for certain (not all) Trinitarian-type expressions to be
used to express teachings about the threefold Godhead (even singing praises to the Trinity, for the
first time ever, in their well-known Christ in Song pioneering hymnals of 1900 and 1908). Click the
link to see the proofs. And yet I noticed that while all this was taking place there was no change from
their continued efforts to teach what even the Trinitarian Nicene Creed had equally stated since
325.A.D.that Jesus is Gods only begotten Son from eternity, and yet he is still a beginningless and an
eternal being. Now it is true SDA pioneers initially taught Jesus as not eternal like the Father, and that
he had a beginning in the far recesses of eternity past (that is undeniable, as all well read researchers
know and can furnish quotes to prove it), but what is plain is that the overall picture shows a
consistent teaching about Jesus pre-incarnate begetting even when they began to gradually
advance towards the thought that Jesus, as a being, always existed from all eternity past, despite
begotten of the Father.

Even when the SDA pioneers plainly came out and stated that they eventually believe in the Trinity (as
separate beings; not one undivided substance, mind you), and even when they started to accept the
visionary utterances of E.G. White that Jesus existed as an Eternal Son and a self-existent Son, or
as a being from all eternity, and that there never was a time in the infinite or dateless ages of
all eternity that Jesus was not fellowshipping with the eternal God, yet the fundamental
teaching of his pre-incarnate begetting (which is equally accepted by historic Trinitarians) remained the
same for SDA pioneers right throughout (including with Mrs. White herself), as the furnished quotes will
now show hereafter. Mrs. White made a plain distinction, by the way, between things which happen
after time began, and what happens in time, as opposed to what happened before time began on
earth, and what will happen when time shall cease for eternity. Thus when she spoke of Jesus as a
being from all eternity past she never meant that it simply involves an indefinite amount of time that
may have a limit (a reality which debunks so many dissidents on the fringes of Adventism seeking to
limit Jesus existence). How do I know this? She made plain about the bible student in the earth made

There will be open to the student, history of infinite scope and of wealth inexpressible. Here, from the
vantage ground of Gods word, the student is afforded a view of the vast field of history and may gain
some knowledge of the principles that govern the course of human events. But his vision is still
clouded, and his knowledge incomplete. Not until he stands in the light of eternity will he see all
things clearly. Then will be opened before him the course of the great conflict that had its birth
*BEFORE TIME BEGAN [obviously time on earth], and that ends only WHEN *TIME SHALL CEASE
[obviously time on earth]. The history of the inception of sin; of fatal falsehood in its crooked working;
of truth that, swerving not from its own straight lines, has met and conquered errorall will be made
manifest. The veil that interposes between the visible and the invisible world will be drawn aside, and
wonderful things will be revealed ---E.G. White, Education, pg. 304

Doing a search of her writings (the reader can either search online or on CD; click link to search) it plainly
shows that she distinguishes between time and eternity very often, and speaks of time beginning and
ceasing, and its instructive that its only the divine members of the Godhead she ever spoke about as
existing from all eternity pastno one else; not even the angels created before time began on earth.
And I cannot but agree with her inspired insights, since as a Geography teacher (a science teacher of
sorts) I am well aware of what the time dimension is scientifically deemed to be. With that said, let me
now show a number of things about the expressions of the pioneers from the 1890s through to after
1915, and how this proves the premise of this study/research big time!!
First let me show the progression of the increasing pioneering use of Trinitarian type expressions after
1891, and then show how the begetting of Jesus before his incarnation remained the same with the
pioneers (just like how the Trininitarian Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. has it expressed about Jesus as the
only begotten Son before time began).

" We [SD Adventists] understand the Trinity, as applied to the Godhead, to consist of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spiritthe Son is *of the Father, equal in glory and honor, but in some measure subject in
authority. The Holy Spirit is the representative of the Deity in all parts of the universe.
These supreme Beings we cannot comprehend or measure. There is certainly nothing incongruous in
the idea of the Spirit being a personal representative, hence saying that the Spirit is the representative
of the Father and Son does not deny his personality as our friend would make out. He [the Spirit]
occupies in our minds an exalted place with Deity; and the paragraph in question speaks of him as a
supreme Being. --- Bible Echo & Signs of the Times (Australia), Vol. 7, April 1, 1892, p112

The Godhead makes its appearance in the great plan for human salvation. God
in this plan is brought before our thoughts under the personal titles of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, with diversity in offices, relations, and actions toward men The
distinction thus revealed in the Bible is the basis of the doctrine of the tri-personal
GodThe Christian doctrine of the Trinitywhether, as to its elements, taken
collectively or separately so far from being a dry, unpractical, and useless dogma
adjusts itself to the condition and wants of men as sinners. The truth is that God
the Father in the primacy attached to Him in the Bible, and God the Son in the re-
deeming and saving work assigned to Him in the same Bible, and God the Holy
Ghost in his office of regeneration and sanctification whether considered
collectively as one God, or separately in the relation of each to human salvation
are really omnipresent in, and belong to, the whole texture of the revealed plan for
saving sinners." - The Bible doctrine of the Trinity- Pacific Press, 1892

" surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of *our triune God, manifested by
the personal presence of the Holy Ghost."
--- *Blended Personalities, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 14, April 3, *1900, pg. 210

There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalitiesWe have the Father described in
Dan. 7:9, 10a personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a
personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These divine
persons are associated in the work of GodBut this union is not one in which individuality is
lostThere is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the
angels- He was the only begotten of the Father, and He came to earth as the one with the
Father from the "days of eternity.
- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of
the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe, -

1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being,
omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the
eternal Father, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the
redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one
regenerating agency in the work of redemption..." Review and Herald, October 9, 1912

We [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each
possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose, so welded
together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James
2:19. This divine unity is similar to the unity existing between Christ and the believer, and
between the different believers in their fellowship in Christ Jesus
--- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald, 1931

So here we see that the SDA pioneers, my third witness on the witness stand, in no way
changed the truth about Jesus as the only begotten Son of God from eternity, even when
many of them started to make plain that, unlike in earlier years (18631888), they had now
come to accept the Trinity, but as separate beings in the Godhead!!

Now, before I come to the Biblical evidence, which is the MOST IMPORTANT and the FINAL
AUTHORITY on anything that is doctrinal, and is what should appropriately be my star witness,
let me now call to the witness stand SD Adventisms modern prophet, Mrs. E.G. White, to see
what her testimony is since her testimony bears much weight for SDAs whom I represent in
this world as a fellow evangelist. She is supposed to lead all honest and sincere SD Adventists
back to the Bible truths which might have been overlooked or neglected, and that is why her
testimony is placed second to last in this court thats meant only to examine the truth. She will
lead me back to the Bible!! Lets now call her in.

Mrs. Whites references to Jesus as Gods only begotten Son was not just some reference to his
earthly sojourn as the human Messiah born through Mary (as some today desperately try to teach), but
rather, of the over2000 times she referred to Jesus as such, it is plain she meant that he was Gods only
begotten Son from before his incarnation, and she was plain in her utterances on this matter. By the
way, if she was wrong on this crucial and fundamental matter we would have her on record over 2000
times being in abject error, as one misguided SDA brother sought to label the SDA pioneering teaching
on this matter of Jesus as Gods only begotten Son. That would immediately discredit her as an
inspired guide or prophet, and that brother would have no ground on which to stand as a believer in her
inspiration as a prophetess. But, as we shall see, as we proceed, it is that brother and others like him,
who are sadly in error; not Mrs. White!! From the time that Lucifer sinned in Heaven, by rebelling
against the government of heaven, she said (note the years of the quotes from her, and the progression
of her teaching on the matter right up to her death in 1915):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God. John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the
eternal Fatherone in nature, in character, in purpose His goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting. Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: The Lord possessed Me in
the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was *set up *from everlasting.... When He
appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was
daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him. Proverbs 8:22-30 ---E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets,
pg. 34

before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King [God the Father] declared that none but
Christ, the only-begotten of God, could fully enter into his purposes, and to him it was committed to
execute the mighty counsels of his will. The son of God had wrought the Fathers will in the creation of
all the hosts of heaven; and to him, as well as to God [the Father], their [angelic] homage and
allegiance were due E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 36

All things Christ received from God [see John 5:26], but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in
His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Fathers life flows out to all; through
the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all.
E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pg. 21

If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. 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 sense. He was
with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of
God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of
heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels
was received by Him as His right. This was no robbery of God. The Lord possessed me in the beginning
of his way, He declares, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or
ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains
abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while
as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Proverbs 8:22-27 E.G. White, Selected Messages, pg.247

Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from
their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they
forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the angels
would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they
were not to consult Christ. One angel [LUCIFER] began the controversy and carried it on until there was
rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. E.G. White, April, 1910

The foregoing quotes from here are quite self-explanatory. Notice that with Mrs. Whites testimony
there was no denial of him being begotten or brought forth of the Father from all eternity past,
and no attempt to say it was just some future reference to his earthly begetting through Mary,
because she already made plain it was already a foregone fact the fallen angels wanted to obscure.
Thus it its plain when Jesus came to earth and became Gods Son she meant that he became the only
begotten Son of God IN A NEW SENSE, since he was already Gods only begotten Son in heaven,
having RIGHTS to all divine prerogatives ON THAT BASIS!! Since all the angels in heaven were sons of
God by creation, the only way Jesus could BE Gods special or unique Son, infinitely higher than the
angels could ever be, was by being filially related to the Father as his only begotten Son. It was this
initially begotten Son of God, who was begotten again in a new sense on earth, because it was in
the context of all that happened before in heaven that she could then plainly say:

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, DIGNITY, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895

Some try to explain away this 1895quote to say it only refers to Jesus while on earth, since she made
mention of his bodily Godhead, but this explanation is untenable, because not only did Mrs. White
later (ten years later in 1905) describe the Son as all the fullness of the Godhead MANIFESTED, but
she described the Father in the heavenly trio, who is a spirit, as all the fullness of the Godhead
BODILY (since the Father does have a spirit body or a spirit form). See what I am getting at, dear
reader? Jesus as a spirit being like the Father before coming to earth, he also would have had a spirit
body just like the Father, i.e. before his earthly body. Then to top it all off, she not only further
expressed that he was initially begotten in all of Gods brightness, majesty and glory, making it is plain
that it was NOT when he came to earth that he was begotten with all that brightness, majesty and glory
(he had laid it all aside, and later prayed for God to restore that glory nearing the close of his earthly
ministry), but she also made plain how many times Jesus was Gods only begotten Son:

In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, The
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God. While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a
new sense. Thus He stood in our worldthe Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race.
---E.G. White, Special Testimonies, August 2, 1905

From the foregoing we see the progression of Mrs. Whites teaching on Jesus as Gods only
begotten Son, clear as crystal, from in the 1890s right up until after the 1900s, i.e. just before
her death. And much of this this testimony from her was after her statement (from the 1890s)
indicating that in Jesus is life original, unborrowed and underived. This life original,
unborrowed and underived statement therefore did NOT mean that Jesus was not begotten,
but rather it clearly means something else; a matter which I will explain under the Appendix at
the end of this presentation. Please see the Appendix at the end.

Conclusion? Mrs. Whites testimony on Jesus pre-incarnate BEGOTTENESS stands on record

as a rebuke to all in SD Adventism blatantly teaching the opposite. And remember that his
begottenness from eternity, in Mrs. Whites own testimony, does not mean he was created,
because this she personally denied it meant, and she also declared him to be beginningless
just like the Father, by simply saying of him in in the April 5, 1906 Review and Herald (i.e.
when speaking again of him as expressed in Proverbs 8:22-31):

from everlasting to everlasting thou art God!!

No wonder on page 98 of the commentary Lift Him Up, we see Mrs. Whit making plain that
Jesus declares about himself that I am the Lord thy God. Why could he do this? Because he
is simply co-eternal with the Father as our God!! John 20:28-29. This is the only begotten
Son she spoke of in 1906; not a created being, or a limited eternal being, but one whose
begotteness from all eternity past, and his oneness with the Father as a fully eternal and
beginningless being is a truth thats infinitely mysterious and is incomprehensible. And
while some argue that her use of the only begotten Son expression of the KJV was simply
because that was the only translation she was exposed to at the time, however the unbiased
record of SDA history shows Mrs. White used several Bible translations, including ones like the
1881 RSV which translated "monogenes" as "only son", and yet she never once used that
translation of the John 3:16 verse. Instructive!! She had inspired wisdom to know which was the
proper translation of John 3:16 in the various bible versions (and remember she did not just use
the expression only begotten but explained the concept in a way thats undeniable as to her
meaning. Thats irrefutable.

Now its time to let the Bible itself speak, to not only test whether all other testimonies
presented so far agree with it (including that of Mrs. White herself), but to let God be true and
every man a liar if what humans say and what God says dont matchup (Romans 3:4).

WITNESS No.4 (The Bible or the Star Witness):

The Bible makes plain that: "Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the
Almighty unto perfection?
Job 11:8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
Job 11:9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."


With the above thought in mind I believe that none can fully understand the mysteries of 'the *HOW'
of God's doings, but we can declare the fact of his doings as laid out in his Word, and simply accept it
by faith, since "with God all things are possible". I don't know HOW or by what process God himself
existed "from everlasting" or from all eternity past (Psalm 90:2 and Psalm 93:2), or HOW or by what
process (except by a miracle that) he created everything out of nothing, but I accept his Word that he
did, since the Bible said so!! I also don't know HOW or by what process he had Jesus being his Son
experiencing his "goings forth" or "family descent" or 'origin' (Hebrew, "motsaah") FROM HIM "from
everlasting", as Micah 5:2 and as Proverbs 30:4 both made plain, but I accept it by faith!! And by the
way, notice carefully that nowhere in the Bible is the Father of Jesus ever said to experience a goings
forth (Hebrew, motsaah); only Jesus his Son!!

It is plain Jesus' 'origin' as God's Son is one that is "from everlasting", i.e. it is practically or literally
without "beginning of days" (as Hebrews 7:3 makes plain) since Proverbs 30:4 made plain that Jesus
already existed as God's Son BEFORE he even came to earth, and since John 1:1 depicts Jesus as the
"Word" or "Logos" that was already in existence WITH the Father even before all "beginnings" started.
That is why the epistle of 1 John 1:1-3 simply depicts Jesus as that "Word" or "Logos" (Jesus) who was
"that ETERNAL LIFE that [who] was WITH the Father"...he always existed alongside him, but of his
being or from Him [God], (see John 16:27-28) since words always come from a speaker or source (the
outward tangible expression of his thoughts). Jesus was not just sent forth from a woman, or out of
Mary's being as God's Son as Gal. 4:4 says, but also initially from God's own being IN HEAVEN!! That's
why 1 Cor. 1:24 depicts Jesus as God's "wisdom and power" since one's wisdom and power is from one's
own being, and is always in existence with one's being. No wonder Jesus is depicted also as God's
personal "wisdom" in imagery in Proverbs 8:1, 22-31 (just as 1 Cor. 1:24 depicts him), where that
"wisdom" or "logos" (thought made audible, or word, as it were) was "brought forth" from God, but
"from everlasting", which has no beginning point in time, since it was Jesus who created all time, space,
matter, and all life outside of the Godhead, and on behalf of the Godhead (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-3, 8-12).

The same way God presents "wisdom" as "brought forth" or 'begotten' (as it were) from his being, not
within time but from everlasting, yet wisdom was always in existence with God and related to God, its
the same picture the Bible presents of Jesus' relationship with the Father IN poetic IMAGERY in Proverbs
8. The two are inseparable *filially, but one is of/from the other, and notice only one of the two (not
both) is said to be brought forth and set up "from everlasting" or from all eternity past (a past tense
reality; not a continuous unending process). Simple!!

And by the way, this filial relationship that Jesus had with the Father "from everlasting" is what makes
them one in spirit as "God" (or divinity), and God the Father plainly depicted this oneness of family on
earth when he made Man in his own image by having the female come from the very substance of the
male, and so they could have remained "one flesh" with one name, "Adam" or "Man" (see Gen. 5:2),
despite they were now two persons. These two persons then combined and from them came their
manifold seed (their manifold offspring scattered all over or somewhat omnipresent, as it were, on
the planet) to form a threefold family group of two parents and their representative seed, all with the
same name of Man, and ruling the earth together; just as the threefold Godhead of Father, Son and
their omnipresent Spirit rules over all creation under one name (Matthew 28:19). Hence God had said,
let us make Man in our own image (Gen.1:26-28). The heavenly blueprint is imaged in several ways
in the earthly image.

The Scriptures are so plain for me on this issue; I cannot but bow in reverence to God (i.e. the Father,
Son and Spirit) who gave me the knowledge of this truth in His written Word (the Bible). All praises to
Yahweh's name!!

As a sort of bonus for the reader, let me share with you a short video clip online (click the link) showing
me explaining straight from the Bible why Proverbs 8:1, 22-31 , which is speaking of personified
wisdom or reason or the Word manifested, that this passage is not only applicable to Jesus from
everlasting, as 1 Cor. 1:24 makes plain, but why it shatters all arguments seeking to limit Jesus
existence as Gods Son from before he came to earth, as Proverbs 30:4 shows plainly.

So far I have shown in the Bible that Jesus was indeed Gods Son before he came to earth (Proverbs
30:4), but lets now explore why he had to be Gods only begotten Son, straight from the Bible!!
From the unbiased pages of the first three centuries of church history I have already adequately shown
that Jesus being called the only begotten Son, as in John 3:16 in the KJV, is a legitimate and plausible
translation, despite all the protestations of modern scholars. The Greek word monogenes for only
begotten, as seen in John 3:16, means first, an only child literally born from a parents own substance
within a specie, as well as a unique member of a group, and it is precisely the word God uses to describe

By the way, the Google language translator online (with no *biased agenda to defend any church
doctrine or version of Christology) shows plainly that "monogenes" in Greek *still UP TO THIS DAY
means both "only begotten" (the primary meaning), and (in a secondary sense) "one of a kind"; and
remember that translator has no agenda!! And this unbiased source also shows that the Greek for the
word "unique" *specifically, and no other meaning, is "monadikos" or . So all the Greek
speakers of the first centuries BEFORE THE VULGATE knew this, explaining why they preponderantly
spoke of monogenes meaning a pre-incarnately begotten Son, and at the moment the truth remains
the same for objective language sources with no biased agenda.

" " --monogenes: "only begotten" -- Source, Google translate

"" ---monadikos: "unique" ---Source, Google translate

Now some argue that certain Greek experts and Greek lexicographers deem the word monogenes to
only mean unique or only or one of a kind, and that is why most modern Bible translations have
rejected the only begotten translation of the past. I must remind readers that scholars and language
lexicographers differ sometimes on the matter of "Greek 101, just like they differ on the meaning of
the Greek expression for "the Lord's day" in the New Testament, and on other controversial Greek
expressions too!! Dont be fooled. Particular Greek lexicographers are not infallible; neither do they
have a monopoly on language interpretation or the facts of history!! Its just like many Greek
lexicographers and "scholars" of *some seminaries argue today that Matthew 28:19 was an illegitimate
insertion in later Bibles, yet research by *other scholars have shown that not to be the case. So what
needs to be done is to do an objective research on controversial issues, even language interpretation,
and allow the weight of evidence to guide ones decision on the matter. And the weight of evidence
leans heavily, if not undeniably in favor of monogenes meaning both only begotten as well as
one of a kind. None of the two shades of meaning can be denied, by this objective researcher.

Now, over and over the Father Himself declares that Jesus is his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, or His very
special Son, His unique Son who is the exact copy of his very person/being (Heb. 1:1-3), who has the
fullness of the Godhead or divine nature in Him (Col. 2:9), and so is unlike everyone else called sons of
God. If all other sons of God are CREATED beings (angels included), and are metaphorically the
designated sons of God, and if humans, as sons of God, are spiritually anointed and are said to be
begotten again by God, then in what sense could Jesus be said to be the ONLY Begotten Son God?
Only in the sense no other son of God is. He was (past tense) literally BEGOTTEN of the very
SUBSTANCE of God the Father Himself, by divine procreation or reproduction from the PERIOD the Bible
calls from everlasting, or from all eternity itself, since time is part of creation and was created by Jesus
Himself (John 1:1-3: Col. 1:16,17). The known universe consists of time and space (two invisible and
intangible realities), as well as tangible matter making up all living and non-living things (as proper research
would have indicated), and all three were the direct creation of Jesus Himself (Col. 1:16, 17).
Jesus therefore, like no other son of God ever can, has rights, by NATURAL INHERITANCE, to own what
God Himself owns, including his name (as wives and literal sons do), even his angels, his temple, his
church, his earthly children, his throne of the universe, his universal kingdom, et al. See John 16:15. He
even owns, in a way totally unknown to man, the very representative Spirit of God by natural right.
Why? This is because he is a TRUE Son; NOT a creature.

A creature is a new thing externally manufactured that never existed in its properties before, but a
reproduction is a biological PROCREATION from a pre-existing prototype (big difference), and is the
means by which a parent naturally/biologically brings about a copy of himself and his pre-existing
properties. Since no other son is said to be Gods only begotten Son, or is said to be express image
or the exact copy of his person(Heb. 1:1-3), then it stands to irrefutable reason that Jesus was a
NATURAL reproduction of His Father before time began, i.e. from everlasting or from all eternity
(past), and hence he is NOT a creation or the external manufacturing of properties never in
existence before, but is of the divine specie before time began (and hence is from everlasting as
well; Micah 5:2). Yes, he is of the divine specie, and hence is himself like his Father in terms of divine
specie; not in terms of status of divine headship or leadership OF THE DIVINE GROUP (a matter God
demonstrated faintly in principle, in the image of God in man, when he made Eve to come directly
from Adams substance, with Adam as the one true head of the first family and the entire human race).
And this principle is what confirms that Jesus is God in nature, yes, God in highest nature, just like Eve
was Man in highest nature, because she came DIRECTLY from Adams substance. And yet Jesus is not
the person called God, the Father, despite inheriting his name and nature as TRUE sons naturally do of
their literal fathers, just like Eve was not the person called Adam, but was called Adam in name (Gen.
5:1, 2.


Jesus must have been an only begotten Son before his incarnation experience of human Son-ship,
since he was GIVEN to humans as an only begotten Son (John 3:16), which strongly suggests a prior
relationship, and this is underscored by Proverbs 30:4. In addition, since "son-ship", whether literally
or figuratively, means a person reflecting the pre-exiting qualities of another, then Heb. 1:2, 3 telling
of Him fully reflecting the Father as "the exact copy of his very being", then this means that in the
divine sense he did not exist independently but was always existing in relation to another; the Father.
Notice the Father is never said to be reflective of Jesus, but always the other way around. That is
actually irrefutable, since "exact copy" is always in relation to a prototype as a REPRODUCTION of the
former; not two independent principles always in existence and unrelated biologically or by

In addition, the Bible uses imagery and terms that are quite compelling that this was so, because, first,
for Jesus to be depicted as "the Word", shows he came out of the Father's very being. Words
(whether first as thoughts, or later as separate expressions) they do not come out of nothing, but
proceed out of a source. Secondly, the Father used the first family on earth to demonstrate, or to
image, the Godheads nature (see Gen. 1:26-28 with Rom. 1:19, 20), that one family-related being
came out of the substance of the other, and yet they remained "one flesh". If God had made Eve from
a separate lump of clay, the two could never be considered "one flesh"; but two independent
substances. The principle of one coming out of the other was all part of the image of God in Man. If God
did not have this prior relationship with His Son, then there would be no image for the human family to
reflect, since images must have a prior existing principle to reflect. It's illogical otherwise. Today Jesus
and his Father are one; one in spirit or substance, one in nature, one in purpose, one in rulership, one
as a family.just as was seen in principle in the family of Man imaging the Godhead above (Gen. 1:26-
28). Remember too that the famous Scripture, Micah 5:2, which shows Jesus full eternal existence as a
being, also shows him being a filial descent of another, since the words goings forth comes from the
Hebrew word motsaah and means descent as well as to go forth as a king or royalty on royal
business; it does not mean self-origination!! The Father is the Source of the Son, but from
everlasting. That means that from as long as God the Father Himself existed from everlasting Jesus
was already his only begotten Son whos fully related to him in that way!! That reality is shrouded
in light thats certainly unapproachable and incomprehensible!! Its certainly a mystery none of
us can ever fathom in terms of the how of the process!!

Also, by the very fact that God uses the head of the family to be the source of family oneness, this
means that for God to remain one, he and Jesus could not always exist side by side as independent or
unrelated principles (as some desperately try to teach, in order to protect Jesus eternal existence),
otherwise you would have two Gods (polytheism!!); not one (i.e. a NATURALLY related unity of divine
beings, but headed by the source figure)! And thus Jesus MUST be depicted as "from" the very being of
the Father from all eternity past (Micah 5:2; Prov. 8:1, 22-24); not existing by himself as always
independent of the Father in terms of relationship. Yes, Jesus always separately existed as a being from
all eternity, but he is God in nature not by self-origination, but because he is the exact copy of the
Father from all eternity, and hence is properly an eternal Son; a paradox of paradoxes!! The Father did
not 'originate' himself. He simply exists from everlasting. Just like that. The Son likewise exists "from
everlasting", but as naturally related to the Father that he is "the exact copy" of. That's Bible truth!!

Finally, if Satan is a master counterfeiter, then we can see why most false religions have 'god' beings
emanating from, or begotten by a head figure. This was Satan's way of counterfeiting the original,
even while intending to caricature and cast doubt upon divinity. You don't counterfeit what is not
really in existence in the first place. Notice too his most favored counterfeit of divinity...triads, trios,
and trinities. I guess he cant help himself as a counterfeiter, and this tells us why 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11 or
Eph. 4:4-6, or Matthew 28:19 are so compelling as to the "triadic" nature of the Godhead; matters not
the protestations of the unlearned and misguided.


All four witnesses brought to the witness stand agree that Jesus was indeed Gods only begotten
Son from ALL eternity past, but as a BEGININGLESS and ETERNAL being. The Bible, the final authority
and the test of all other witnesses, prove it to be true without the shadow of a doubt for me. And it is
upon this basis that stand. Here I stand, I can do no other.
The following is a letter/email I shared several years ago (and repeatedly thereafter) with leaders in
my Church, the SDA Church, on the matter under discussion in this presentation. I went as far as
sending it to the General Conference of SDAs, to indicate why my faith is as it is in this matter. It will
make you understand dear reader that I am in no way seeking to create any division in our beloved
Church, but in all honesty am sharing my views on a crucial matter which certainly needs attention. In
the letter below, it will also explain why the E.G. Whites statement about Christ, that in him was life
original, unborrowed, underived, why in my humble view this is not a denial of his begetting from


Dear SDA leaders of our beloved Church (General Conference),

I know this e-mail may not be answered, due to the large volume of mail you do get, but I am praying that
it doesn't get lost in cyberspace, and am begging and pleading that at least its urgings will reach our
leaders at the highest level, and its appeal be taken seriously.

I am a stanch Trinitarian of the Church (with no shadow of turning or intention of recanting), and am
urgently appealing that we revisit the issues of contention that are presently dividing the membership,
especially as it concerns Jesus as the TRUE Son of God. I believe that if we listen to each other some
more we would see why there are actually valid points on both sides of the divide, and in actual fact the
truth lies not in the extremes (i.e. Trinitarianism vs. anti-Trinitarianism), but in fact the real truth is in the
middle, while admittedly leaning heavily in favor of Trinitarianism, but with certain key realities that
differ from that of the Catholic version as it exists today.
Let me urge us to recognize the following as a Church, and with some urgency too.

1. Trinitarianism is proven historically to be the common teaching of most Christians long before the
Papacy originated after the fourth century, and hence it is NOT a teaching original with papal doctrine
(despite the Papacy did add on and contaminate certain aspects of this teaching it inherited from
Christians before it). It is time the anti-Trinitarians in the Church listen to mainstream Adventism and
admit to that fact.

2.Trinitarianism is solidly built on the common thread of truth that Jesus is divine, and indeed is fully
Deity BECAUSE OF him being LITERALLY begotten before time directly from God the Father, despite
also being a distinct being one with him from all eternity. Mysterious and paradoxical? Yes!! But ALL
Trinitarians for fully three centuries before Nicea, and ever since Nicea have been united on this simple
truth of Jesus being God's truly begotten Son, and see no contradiction in terms. It is time the leadership
of our Church listen to the opposing voices reminding us of this fact. Our church have recently rejected
this "classic" Trinitarian viewpoint, and urges (it seems) that Jesus is a self-originate being simply
because of Mrs. White's statements about life in him that is "original, unborrowed, and underived". But I
urge our leadership to consider that this E.G. White expression is not teaching that Jesus is self-originate
as a being, because of the following:
a] She herself said this life (immortal life) that is "original, unborrowed, and underived" will become that
of the saints in paradise as a gift of eternal life, and hence indicated that it can be passed on to another by
way of adopted sonship. That is precisely how Mrs. White also sees Jesus life as "original, unborrowed,
underived"...that it was naturally given/transmitted to the Son (as his NATURAL inheritance) ever since
the Father has been in existence (i.e. from all eternity), and then this life force is to be passed on to those
who will be saved. So Jesus being begotten, and Jesus being fully eternal from all eternity are not
mutually exclusive if the full truth of the Bible be accepted.

b] Jesus being described as "self-existent" and as the "eternal Son" does not deny the truth of God the
Father passing on to Jesus, though his begetting, the property of having "life in Himself", or the ability to
be "self-existent". Over and over Mrs. White makes a distinction between the life of Christ and that of all
creature beings--- Jesus is not dependent on any other for CONTINUED existence (thus his life is
"underived"), and his life cannot be returned to the Giver (hence his life is "unborrowed"), but the rest of
us depend on the Father to continue living as his life flows to us though Christ as in a rivulet or stream
(hence we are not "self-existent"), and when we die our life returns to the Great Giver of life (hence our
life is not "unborrowed"). However, Jesus is depicted as the TRUE and eternal Son of the Father because
he was "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" (said Mrs. White). This must be about his begetting from eternity because when he was
begotten on earth he never came with all the "brightness of his [the Father's] majesty and glory".

For too long we have been making the mistake to think that Jesus being self-existent means he is self-
originate, when both the Bible and E.G. White's writings, and all the confessions of all Trinitarians
declare otherwise. So what certain of our mainstream writers call a "paradigm-shift" in Mrs. White's
viewpoint about Jesus' begetting seem to be a MISINTERPRETATION on our part, since she is plain that
Jesus "received ALL" from the Father (including His life that flows through Him), but "he took to give".
Why should we resist that truth, as if Jesus' begetting and Him being fully related to the Father as his
TRUE Son is anti-thetical to him being a distinct being from all eternity? Neither the Bible, nor E.G.
White, and indeed no Trinitarian past and present ever saw any disparity in these revealed truths. IT IS

3. It is time we recognize that Mrs. White used almost every catch-phrase of and endorsed almost every
"classic" argument in favor of Trinitarianism EXCEPT for:

a] Nowhere did she endorse that Jesus and the Father are the same Being (i.e. they are not separate
individuals), but plainly taught that they were separate beings!! But of course, certain historic Trinitarians
before the fourth century are on record to have held this concept of there being separate beings of the
Godhead as well.

b] Nowhere did she endorse the "eternal generation" concept of the Son being CONTINUOUSLY
begotten, but taught his begetting as a past reality from all eternity, i.e. ever since the Father has existed
"from everlasting" Jesus has been begotten since then and is fully related to Him in a filial way, yet
mysteriously co-existing in oneness with and being alongside him "from all eternity".

3. It is time the opposition to Trinitarianism in the Church recognize that, while our early pioneers did
register their rejection of the Trinity, yet it does appear that second generation pioneers came full circle
and started giving assent to a Trinity of the Godhead from as early as 1892, and Mrs. White never once
rebuked them for it!! The change was so fundamental that by 1913 F.M. Wilcox (our Chief publisher at
the time) declared, while Mrs. White was still alive, that "Seventh-day Adventists believe [NOW] in the
divine Trinity...". This was only a coming to greater maturity the changes already evident in Adventist
literature for over twenty years before, and with no rebuke from Mrs. White.

4. It is time the anti-Trinitarians in the Church recognize that none of the early pioneers ever registered in
their writings the later expressions of Mrs. White about the "Eternal Godhead" consisting of "three holiest
beings of heaven" (or that they all should be "served", or that, by her example of prayer directed to the
"three Great Worthies", that they all can be invoked in prayer). Even more importantly, it is time the anti-
Trinitarians in our Church recognize that it was only after Adventism had started to give official assent to
Trinitarianism after 1892 (through the published Spear's Trinitarian article, renamed "The Bible Doctrine
of the Trinity") that these "three" and "third person of the Godhead" expressions flowed unabated from
Mrs. White's pen. In fact Mrs. White left no room for any doubt about what she meant about there being
"three holiest beings of Heaven", because she was pointedly clear in stating that while "the Spirit
personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality", in just the same way she says Christ and the Father are
one, yet are distinct personalities. Hence her counting "three holiest beings" is simply mathematical and

In the end, what is clear is that there are certain errors being entertained by both groups in our Church (i.e.
by mainstream Trinitarians and 'on-the-fringe' anti-Trinitarians alike), and it is time we listen to each
other and come to grips with the fact that we must embrace all of the truth if we are to work together as
the Remnant entrusted with God's last day message.

Your brother in Christ

Derrick Gillespie

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a
member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.
(Contact Info: OR