“DO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE IN THE

PRE-INCARNATE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD?”

By Jason Smith
On:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0qkAiMEMi7UvRjprkXENmzhK6UzCaxE3Z4JKPB7YXtMsyff3cCBJ
rTnThxgBt9XVGl&id=564009379&mibextid=Nif5oz

Some of the ministering brethren get upset with me for what I am about to say
but is it not true? And if it is true, have I now become your enemy because I speak
the truth? So, let's get into it.

The quintessential confession of holy Scripture is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of the living God. This confession was made by Jesus Himself, His disciples, and
even demons as they were being exorcised (Matthew 16:16; Matthew 26:63, 64;
Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; John 20:31). Yet within the synagogue, the church of God in
Jesus’ day, that very confession would get you cast out (John 9:22). In fact, if you
preached that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, it could even result in being
persecuted to death. The reason why this occurred is because those in power there
didn’t really know God the Father or His Son Jesus (John 16:1-3; Acts 9:20-23). Thus
when Jesus declared His Sonship to God, they called it blasphemy.

“But Jesus held His peace, And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure
Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of
God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the
clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken
blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard
his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”
(Matthew 26:63-66)

Now, why does any of this upset some of the ministering brethren? The reason is
because of a modern day application I am about to make. This evokes quite a
response at times yet, putting all emotions aside, is it true? That is what matters here
so you tell me! Here is the application.

In certain circles of Seventh-day Adventism today, if you preach or teach the

following Bible verses and SOP quotes listed below -- you can get fired from your
job (if you are a professor or a minister), you can be removed from your spiritual
office (if you are an elder, deacon, or sabbath school teacher), and you can even be
dis-fellowshipped (if you are a member on the books). And what are all of these
verses and quotes about? Just read them for yourself:

Page 1 of 7
 Bible Verses:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, He hath declared Him.” (John 1:18)

“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.” (John 3:16)

“He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten
Son of God.” (John 3:18)

“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” (1 John 4:9)

Now many SDA scholars and ministers these days will tell you that “only begotten
Son” is an incorrect translation. They say that the Greek word “monogenes” has
nothing to do with a begotten Son but rather it means a “unique” or “one of a
kind” Son.

Yet let's test that claim by allowing the SDA prophet to give us her definition. She
received visions from God and wrote under revelation/inspiration with an express
purpose “to correct those who err from Bible truth” {EW 78.1}. In fact, SDAs have
codified that purpose within their fundamental beliefs, one of which says, in part,
that “as the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source
of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and
correction.” (SDA FB # 18). So you would figure that all SDA ministers would receive
correction on this matter from her pen (and, I really wish that was true but it's not!).
Here is an important quote from the Testimony of Jesus that let's us test what “only
begotten Son” means.

“A complete offering has been made; for “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
Father’s 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.” {ST May 30, 1895, par. 3}

Here sister White defines what God's only begotten Son means by two negations
and one positive affirmation.

The only begotten Son is NOT a son by creation, as were the angels. That is the
first definition by negation.

Page 2 of 7
 The only begotten Son is NOT a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner. That
is the second definition by negation.

And now the positive assertion that defines it. The only begotten Son is a Son
begotten in God's express image, in all the brightness of His majesty and glory, one
equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection.

You would figure that this would settle the matter conclusively so as to allow this
doctrine within Adventism but, again, that is wishful thinking. Yet we see a clear
definition from an inspired source, from someone that SDAs believe saw and talked
with Jesus in vision. Do any of the SDA scholars or ministers dare contradict? Sadly,
quite a few of them do and I am apparently considered quite the enemy of
Adventism by some because I am calling this to account. Yet let's look at some more
quotes because they are important for us to understand. And, again, quite sadly,
you can get in quite a bit of trouble if you preach or teach these within today's
Adventism.

SOP Quotes:

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity,
but not in personality.” {20LtMs, Ms 116, 1905, par. 19}

“He was the Son of the living God. His personality did not begin with His
incarnation in the flesh.” {9LtMs, Lt 77, 1894, par. 9}

Note: Some SDA ministers try to say that before His incarnation, Jesus was not really the
Son of God. Thus they claim that His personality, as God's Son, is solely the result
of His incarnation as a human being. The two quotes above completely shut that
claim down. He was clearly the only begotten Son of God prior to His incarnation
and that differentiated Him from His Father. While the Father was truly God in
infinity and personality, His Son was truly God in infinity but not in personality.
This is a very controversial point, for some, but is it false? Let's keep reading
because we will see irrefutable proof that He was truly the only begotten Son of
God, as a matter of fact, before His incarnation as the Son of man.

“Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got up
a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth.” {25LtMs,
Ms 86, 1910, par. 29}

“… the first departure from truth in the history of the fall of Lucifer from heaven.
He occupied a special, exalted position in the heavenly courts. He must have no
one higher than himself. He must be next to God in efficiency. But Christ was above
him, and he claimed he must be above Christ. Christ was the only begotten Son of
God, united with God.” {25LtMs, Lt 157, 1910, par. 1}

“I am instructed to say to you, All this holding to sentiments of infallibility is a

specious device of the angel that was so exalted in the heavenly court. His beauty
was so highly exalted that he thought he should be as God, and Christ must be
Page 3 of 7
second to him; but the Lord informed satan this could not be possible. Christ was
His only begotten Son.” {25LtMs, Lt 157, 1910, par. 7}

Note: Unless the SDA church is going to throw away the writings of Mrs. White it is self-
evident, as a matter of fact, that the pre-incarnate Jesus was God's only begotten
Son. The Lord Himself told Satan as much.

“Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in the heavenly courts next to Jesus Christ, but
Christ was one with God, assimilated to the image of God to do the will of God.
Satan, knowing that Christ had the first place next to God, began to insinuate to the
angels that he should be next to God….” {Ms90-1910.4}

Note: 👆 This is another unpopular quote. It is clearly talking about the pre-incarnate
Christ and we are told that He was “assimilated to the image of God” to do the will
of God. This indicates that there was a process, something that occurred, with the
result that Jesus was the image of God. What else can this be except He was
begotten? Remember, only begotten Son means a Son begotten, not a son by
creation like an angel, nor a son by adoption like a forgiven sinner. Let's keep
reading:

“When God would not concede to Satan’s claim to a place above His only begotten
Son, Satan rebelled. There was war in heaven, and he was cast out. He pressed his
claim to be placed above Christ, but the warfare resulted in his losing his position in
the heavenly courts.” {25LtMs, Lt 132, 1910, par. 4}

Note: The war in heaven was over the matter of God's only begotten Son. He had a position
that Satan wanted to exceed but God the Father would not allow it. And this matter
of warfare extended throughout the heavenly family as this next quote reveals:

“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with
God.... 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.” {25LtMs, Lt
42, 1910, par. 3}

“… It means that when the angels came to claim the highest place in heaven, above
the only begotten Son of God, it was not given to them. And because they did not
receive it, there was war in heaven, and those that wanted a higher place, to crowd
out Christ Jesus, were cast out of heaven because they would not repent and accept
the rule of God; and they may be listening to me today.” {25LtMs, Ms 84, 1910,
par. 36}

Note: What did the rebellious angels try to obscure? The fact that Christ was the only
begotten Son of God! This is a fact regarding His pre-incarnate existence. Why
would they try to do this? Isn't the obvious answer that they knew that this is what
distinguished Him as a Divine Being from themselves as created beings? So we see,
via the quote above, that just like Lucifer (who had become Satan) these angels (who
had now become demons) tried to usurp the only begotten of God. Let's read some
more quotes:
Page 4 of 7
“God is love.” His matchless love for fallen man, expressed in the gift of his beloved
Son, amazed the holy angels. Christ was the heir of all things, by whom also the
worlds were made. He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the “express
image of his person.” He upheld “all things by the word of his power.” In himself
he possessed divine excellence and greatness; for it pleased the Father that in him
all fullness should dwell. And Christ “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
Yet he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.””
{BEcho January 1, 1887, par. 2}

Note: Why did Jesus possess divine excellence and greatness in Himself? The answer is
“for it pleased the Father.” That sounds like God the Father is responsible for it.
Remember He was a Son begotten in the Father's express image, in all the brightness
of His majesty and glory, one equal with God, possessing the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. It's the same consistent doctrine throughout the quotes.

Let’s read some more:

“In order that man might be placed on vantage ground with God, Christ, the only
begotten Son of God, made in His express image, came to this world and in the
likeness of humanity lived a perfect life. “God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
everlasting life.”…” {Ms127-1905.14}

“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave His only begotten Son, tore from
His bosom Him who was made in the express image of His person, and sent Him
down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” {RH July 9, 1895, par. 13}

“Christ was the Lord of heaven and earth, yet for our sake He became poor, that
we through His poverty might be made rich. He was made in the likeness of God,
yet He humbled Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant, that He might
save us.” {20LtMs, Lt 133, 1905, par. 6}

Note: These are EGW quotes that you will never read in mainstream SDA literature today.
They are considered very impolitic language yet they are there in her literary corpus.
So what do we make of them?

Well, in EGW's day, the word “made” could be used in a different sense than
“create.” Here is proof from the 1828 dictionary. I am quoting from the 2nd
definition of “make”:

“2. To form of materials; to fashion; to mold into shape; to cause to exist in a

different form, or as a distinct thing.”

And here is an example sentence of this usage:

Page 5 of 7
“God not only made, but created; not only made the work, but the materials.”

Note: Here we see that “made” is being used in a different sense than “created.”

Now here is the 3rd definition of “make” from the 1828 dictionary.

“3. To create; to cause to exist; to form from nothing. God made the materials of
the earth and of all worlds.”

It should be apparent that all of EGW's references to the pre-incarnate Christ as

“made” in the image or likeness of God is the same as her reference to Him as “not
a son by creation” like an angel but rather “a Son begotten.” Although she used
words like “made” or “begotten” she differentiated that from “created.” This was
actually common theology in her day but it is very much rejected by SDAs today.
Let's keep reading:

“Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence
provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of
Himself. The brightness of the Father’s glory came to a world all seared and marred
with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged
the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man.” {6LtMs,
Lt 36a, 1890, par. 11}

In EGW's theology God has an inherent form. He has a substance or material,

albeit we cannot define it like we can for man (we are dust). Yet her teaching is
clear. The Son of God is this same material. His material is a part of God Himself.
He is of one substance with the Father. This again fits begotten theology and is why
He is the only begotten Son of God. He is the only Being who has the very
substance, material, or essence of God.

“… Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep
meaning as he put forth the claim that He and the Father were of one substance,
possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no
reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him.” {ST
November 27, 1893, par. 5}

Understanding these things is key to understanding the great controversy itself.

The only begotten Son of God, a Son truly begotten, is thus a Son in His personality.
It's why He always points to His Father as supreme. It's not because He is inferior or
lesser than God. No, He knows He is equal to Him but that's just not how He thinks
or acts out of His own individual personality. He is the true light of God, the
brightness of His glory, and thus will always reveal His Father as supreme.

“Christ volunteered to come to our world and give to men the true light. God gave
His only begotten Son to the world to reveal the Father as supreme in heaven and
in earth.” {25LtMs, Lt 132, 1910, par. 6}

Page 6 of 7
 There are many more quotes that I could share, such as her statements about Him
being “brought forth” but I will forgo. The point has been more than established so
this will suffice.

So are these things true or false? What say you? And if they are true shouldn't they
be shared? Why else would God give them to us?

Yet if you share these things, you can get in trouble with the SDA Church today.
This is a sad, sad, reality.

I have witnessed ministers be fired for it. I have witnessed members get
disfellowshipped from the SDA church for sharing this information.

This ought not to be! No, no, not at all! The SDA Church needs a reformation on
this matter.

In plain language, if you are a Seventh-day Adventist minister, elder, deacon, or

lay person, you should be able to preach or teach a pre-incarnate only begotten Son
-- a Son begotten in the express image of God, a Son made in the likeness of God,
a Son assimilated to the image of God to do the will of God -- without any negative
repercussion. Yet this is not so.

This is what I am continuing to protest against. What's going on in Adventism

today isn't right and, quite sadly, it is somewhat akin to what the 1st century Jewish
synagogues did against those who confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of
God.

“These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. 2 They shall
put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you
will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you,
because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But these things have I told
you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And
these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.” (John
16:1-4)

Page 7 of 7