Nowhere is the crisis over the literal Sonship of Christ most intense as it is in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There are two classes: (1) non-trinitarians who believe that Christ is literally the Son of God and He had a beginning when He was in eternity begotten and brought forth by His Father; and (2) trinitarians who believe that Christ is merely a metaphorical son of God and co-eternal with God the Father. Trinitarians falsely accuse non-trinitarian brethren of implying Christ was created. But there is a vast difference between ‘begotten’ and ‘created’.

The divinity of Christ enables Him to minister physically in heaven and simultaneously spiritually on earth in our bodies. “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). Christ who breathed on His disciples saying, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), wants us to receive the same “Spirit of Christ” which was in all prophets (1 Peter 1:10-11), because “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Romans 8:9), which Spirit is Christ Himself, as “the Lord is that Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17), for Christ being “the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45) to be sent in you, “because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts” (Galatians 4:6), and therefore, “It is not safe to catch the spirit from another. We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ” – Ellen White {9LtMs, Lt 66, 1894, par. 18}.

Non-trinitarian Adventists believe that “the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality” — Ellen White {20LtMs, Ms 116, 1905, par. 19}. God the Father, essentially, is the “only true God” (John 17:3) in personality (identity), but both the Father and His Son are truly God in infinity (nature); both possess infinite love from an infinite divine nature. Non-trinitarians believe that before the universe was made, the Father and the Son were in complete unity, that “they were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character” — Ellen White {YI December 16, 1897, par. 5}. In other words, the Father and Son are not identical (“little short of being identical”), and the two are not absolute co-equal in all aspects.

Trinitarian Adventists believe in absolute equality of Father and Son, for they say, if “the Being we have come to know as God the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven …. Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling Each by the name we now use for the Other. That is what equality in the Deity means” (Sabbath School Lesson, Thursday 10 April 2008). This is based on official Adventist church teaching that designations of “Father” and “Son” are roles that the two “entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son” (Adventist Review, 31 October 1996); that “the sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional” (Bible Research Institute, 1999; Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (2003) p 83); that “the Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father” (Adventist World, November 2015, p 42).

Adventists who accept the plain reading of Scripture, that God is the Father of Jesus and Jesus is “the Son of the Father in truth” (2 John 1:3) cannot accept a composite ‘One (triune) God’, and they despair the loss of identity which results in making the Father and Son merely first and second persons because the designations of “Father” and “Son” are regarded as merely functional roles rather than the reality of who They are. From this perspective, such roles are not real at all, but only deceptive jargon.

If we demand ‘perfectly symmetrical equality among the hypostases of a triune deity,’ that there is no difference between Father and Son, that if “the Father came to die for us” on the cross we could not have detected any difference, — then the prospect of the ‘One (triune) God’ who brings forth from Himself the express image of Himself (Hebrews 1:3) to be His mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Galatians 3:20), His representative, His Word to the creation, — is irreconcilable with the premise of absolute equality.

The trinity doctrine was rejected by our pioneers, for it destroys the real Sonship of Christ. Ellen White warned: “Again and again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to make a nonentity of God and of Christ” {9T 68.1}. “The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A.D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (John N Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855). Our Adventist Church, for 117 years from its founding in 1863, was officially a non-trinitarian until 1980 when the trinity was officially adopted. Let us trace a brief timeline of events leading to adoption of trinity in Adventism.

Timeline from non-trinitarian to trinitarian

In 1903, Ellen White said: “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith … The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error …. Books of a new order would be written… Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement” – Ellen White {18LtMs, Lt 242, 1903}.

In 1915, Ellen White died, but before her death that same year, she had warned of great changes to come into Adventism. “I tell you now, that when I am laid to rest, great changes will take place” {25LtMs, Ms 1, 1915, par. 2}; “I do not know when I shall be taken; and I desire to warn all against the devices of the devil” {par. 3}; “I want the people to know that I warned them fully before my death” {ibid, par. 4}.

In 1919, Arthur G Daniells, GC President, led the Bible and Teachers Conference to test the waters to see if the doctrine of the trinity can be brought into Adventism; there was enough resistance for Arthur Daniells to table the trinity debate for another time.

In 1922, Judson Washburn, strongly protesting the growing trinity theology, wrote an open letter to Arthur G Daniells saying the 1919 Bible Conference trinity debate was “the most terrible thing that had ever happened in the history of this denomination.”

In 1930, Arthur G Daniells was subtly working to bring the trinity into Adventism; LeRoy Froom says, “Elder Daniels recognized the serious problems involved, and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would confront. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action (died), before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth” (LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, p 17).

In 1931, as prophecy said, “principles of truth” “would be discarded” and “fundamental principles” “would be accounted as error”, trinitarian Statement of Beliefs was published in the Yearbook, which read: “That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, ... the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, ... the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead” (p 377); they discarded or counted as error pioneers’ Fundamental Principles, that read: “I – That there is one God, ... everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7. II – That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father ... that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race ...” (1872, 1874, 1889-1914 Yearbooks).

In 1944, as prophecy said, “principles of truth” “would be discarded” “books of a new order would be written,” LeRoy Froom, removed all 18 non-trinitarian “principles of truth” from Uriah Smith’s book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, to cover up and obliterate our non-trinitarian history; Froom eliminated every portion that said ‘Christ was begotten of the Father’; reprinted new Smith’s book as “books of a new order” in circulation to this day.

In 1944, a book, Truth Triumphant, by Benjamin George Wilkinson, was published by our church’s Pacific Press Publishing Association; it contained strong statements against the trinity; LeRoy Froom was angry, and he ordered the destruction of original offset press plates so the book cannot be reprinted.

In 1952, as prophesy said, “books of a new order would be written,” a pro-trinity book, Principles of Life, was published for the Department of Education; chapter 7 devoted to the trinity doctrine; for use in training of all Seventh-day Adventist pastors; with this book, pastors would graduate as trinitarians.

In 1955, our brother Judson S Washburn, who opposed the trinity, “dropped out of action (died).”

In 1957, as prophesy said, “books of a new order would be written,” a pro-trinity book, Question On Doctrine, was published to convince Evangelicals that Adventists are trinitarians and are not a “cult”.

In 1968, our brother Benjamin George Wilkinson, “dropped out of action (died);” after servicing for 76 years; he spoke out against the trinity until his death.

In 1980, after objecting-pioneers had died, the General Conference in Session officially voted the trinity doctrine as part of our Fundamental Beliefs.

In 1981, Church admits the trinity is unbiblical: “While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times... Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity” (Adventist Review, 30 July 1981, p 4); “The concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed” (Fernando L Canale, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, volume 12, p 138). As “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), unbiblical trinity cannot be accepted by faith!

Alpha of the Crisis

The alpha (genesis) of the Sonship crisis was in heaven by Lucifer contesting the position of Christ. Before the entrance of sin, “Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God,” we are told, was “the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God” – Ellen White {GC 493.1}. Lucifer, a created being, thought he should enter the counsels of God, and he was angry that God’s Son was taken into counsel but he, Lucifer, was not. In effect, Lucifer had denied the fact that Christ was the literal Son of God. Lucifer wanted to be brought into that counsel to make a “trinity” of three beings worthy of worship and praise, but a created being could never be equal to his Creator.

In heaven, Satan had a position next to Christ, he was the Third Being in rank! We are told: “The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that His life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man” – Ellen White {2SP 9.1}; “Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in Heaven. He was next in honor to Christ” {RH February 24, 1874, par. 33}. Note that Christ was next in authority behind His Father, and the third highest being was none other than Satan himself. It is no wonder that Satan has since created the trinity to maintain his third position, now as third trinity god!

In heaven, Lucifer lost the war against Christ, he was thrown on earth, where he continues the same war. “Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got upon a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth” – Ellen White {25LtMs, Ms 86, 1910, par. 29}. Satan’s war consists of denying Christ is the literal Son of God – “This fact the [fallen] angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God” – Ellen White {25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3}.

Metaphorical Sonship

Our church says that Christ’s Sonship is a role-play: “In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son” (Adventist Review, 31 October 1996) – this role-play denies the Father and literal Son – “He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

The Biblical Research Institute (BRI), responsible for enhancing understanding of Adventist doctrines, says: “Christ is the eternal Son of God. … We are dealing with metaphorical use of the word ‘son.’ Metaphorical significance: The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father” (BRI website; Adventist World, November 2015, p 42). Sadly, this is the official position of our church on this subject!

Christ’s Sonship is not a metaphor, it is a fact. If the Sonship of Christ is a metaphor, explain how fallen angels are to “obscure” {25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3} what is simply a metaphor! “Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got upon a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth” – Ellen White {25LtMs, Ms 86, 1910, par. 29}. This warfare was over the reality that Christ was a literal Son of God.

Further, trinitarian Adventists say that “begotten” in John 1:18 is best translated as “unique” (Sabbath School Lesson, 3 Dec 2024). Sadly, translating the Greek “monogenēs” to ‘unique’ obscures the fact that Christ is the only begotten literal Son of God.

The Greek word “monogenēs” appears nine times in the NT, five of which are in relation to Jesus (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and four of which are in relation to other people (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Hebrews 11:17) – it refers to ‘only born’ in the latter five times, it all refers to literally born child of the person referred to. Even in the case of Abraham offering his “only begotten son” (Hebrews 11:17), Paul explains that Isaac was “born after the Spirit” (Galatians 4:22-23, 29-30) and the “only begotten,” for Ishmael was of the ‘flesh’ and to be cast out. If we refer to Isaac as ‘unique’ child of Abraham, we negate the lesson: “The ram offered in the place of Isaac represented the Son of God, who was to be sacrificed in our stead” {PP 154.1}; “No other test could have caused Abraham such torture of soul as did the offering of his son. God gave His Son to a death of agony and shame” – EG White {PP 154.2}.

To refer to Christ as ‘unique’ son is to aid Satan to “obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God” {25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3}. The truth is, “God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God” {8T 268.3}; “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” {ST May 30, 1895, par. 3}.

Literal Sonship of Christ

Christ is divine, for He is the only begotten Son of God. As a sign of His divinity, He is the resurrection and life to us all (see John 11:25-26). The origin of Christ affirms His divinity. Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), “the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3). Christ was literally the Son of God before He was born into humanity according to Proverbs 8:22-30. Of whom is this passage speaking? The first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of “wisdom.”

If we were to conclude that Proverbs 8:22-30 is merely referring to the quality of wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time, before God brought forth wisdom when wisdom did not exist and that therefore at one point, God was not wise. This person mentioned in Proverbs 8:22-30 has some very particular specifications which could apply to only one Being in the universe. Let us look at some of these specifications in Proverbs 8.

First, the person was “possessed” (Proverbs 8:23), the Hebrew rendering here is the same as that used by Eve when Cain was born, “I have gotten a man” from the Lord (Genesis 4:1) — see Strong’s Hebrew 7069. This means the person was “begotten” by Jehovah. Who is it that the Bible says was “begotten” by God (John 3:16; Colossians 1:15-17)? Only Jesus Christ is the begotten of God.

Second, the person was “brought forth” (Proverbs 8:24-25), the Hebrew rendering here is the same as that used by the Lord through the prophet Isaiah to say woe to a man who says to his mother “what hast thou brought forth?” (Isaiah 45:10) — see Strong’s Hebrew 2342. The term “brought forth” is translated in some Bible versions as “I was given birth” (NIV, CSB) or “I was born” (NLT, AB, NASB, NB, WEB). The specific form of verb that is in Proverbs 8:24-25 indicates birth language. It is the same Hebrew rendering in Psalm 51:5 where David says, “I was brought forth in inquiry” and in Job 15:7 where it is asked “Were you the first man ever born? Were you brought forth before the hills?” — all use Strong’s Hebrew 2342. It is impossible to avoid birth language in the Hebrew rendering of “brought forth”.

Third, the person was “set up” (Proverbs 8:23), the Hebrew rendering here is “poured out” and is the same as used in Isaiah 29:10 — see Strong’s Hebrew 5258. The term “set up” is translated in some Bible versions as “established” (NKJV).

Fourth, the person was before anything was created, a period referred to as “everlasting” (Proverbs 8:23). Of the origin of this person, says Micah 5:2 “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” The words rendered as “going forth” in the original Hebrew means “family decent” – see Strong’s 4163. The word has a parental quality. Notice how other Bible versions put it: “whose family line goes back to ancient times” (Good News Translation); “His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago” (God’s Word Translation); “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (English Revised Version); “whose family goes back to ancient times” (Contemporary English Version). Surely then, this “family decent” (Strong’s 4163) cannot be referring to “wisdom” as an abstract thing, it refers to a personal Being.

Fifth, the person was present during all the creative acts of God (Proverbs 8:27-29). Referring to Genesis 1:26, Ellen White says, “I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus” {1SG 17.1}. Paul says God created all things by Jesus (Ephesians 3:9).

Sixth, the person was with God “by Him, as a master workman” (Proverbs 8:30). By whom did God create all things that were created (Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2)? The answer is through Christ.

Seventh, the companionship of this person with God brought “delight” to God (Proverbs 8:30). Who does the Bible say brought delight to the heart of God (Matthew 3:17)? The answer is Christ.

The eighth chapter of Proverbs is the call of wisdom; but Christ is “the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24), so that the words are the words of Christ concerning Himself. In the twenty-second verse we read: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old.” Now there is in the Hebrew of this verse no word indicating “in,” so that, as expressed in some translations, it properly reads, “the beginning of His way.” So, we may read the text thus: “Jehovah brought Me forth, the beginning of His way, before His works of old.” Jesus Christ Himself is the Beginning (Colossians 1:18). Jesus was brought forth “from the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2).

Speaking of Christ’s superiority to the angels, Paul says that it is because “He hath by inheritance a more excellent name than they” (Hebrews 1:3). What name is it that He has by inheritance? It is, “The mighty God.” As the only begotten Son of God, He has that name by right. It is most natural that the Son should inherit the name of the Father. That He has this name, is shown still further by the words of the Father Himself, who addresses the Son by it. Speaking of God the Father, the apostle says: “But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8; see Psalm 45:6-7).

In Christ “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Notice the word ‘Godhead’ means ‘divinity’, and as Christ inherited His divinity from the Father, the text could be translated as: ‘In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Father bodily’.

Not only does the Father call Jesus God, but He also goes on to refer to Himself as the God of Christ Jesus, saying: “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (verse 9). This harmonises with other Scriptures where the Father is referred to as the God of Jesus (see Matt 27:46; John 20:17; Rev 3:12; (Eph 1:17).

While the Father is called the God of Jesus Christ, Jesus is never called the God of the Father! The Father exalted the Son to the same plateau as Himself, thus making His Son worthy of worship (Hebrews 1:6). It is the Father who is supreme above all, and even after sin is eradicated, it is the Father who will forever be supreme and Christ subordinate to the Father. Paul understood this well, for he wrote: “For he hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28).

These verses clearly show that the Father has put all things under Jesus’ feet, and that He, God, is not under Christ. When sin is eradicated, all things shall be given back to the Father, Jesus will be subject to the Father that God may be all in all. Thus, when Christ is called “God” in John 1:1, it is in reference to His divine nature, and “might God in Isaiah 9:6, is in reference to His relationship to us. However, Christ is not the Father Himself. Ephesians 1:17 agrees with this for the Father is called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” While the Father is called the God of Jesus, Jesus is never called the God of the Father.

God the Father is the supreme source of all life in the universe. And because the Son of God is “of” or “from” God, He has “by inheritance” (Heb 1:4) all things, for “the father had given all things into His hands” (John 13:3) – all things: His life (John 5:26; 6:57), His name (Heb 1:4; Phil 2:9; Exodus 23:21-23), His glory (John 17:22), His throne (Rev 3:21), and His power of authority (John 10:18; Matt 28:18). All things, Christ has received from the original life, God the Father “the great Source of all” {DA 21.2}.

That God is the source of immortality is plain from the statement of Paul. He speaks thus of God the Father: “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honour and power everlasting; Amen” (1 Timothy 6:16). This text is evidently designed to teach that the self-existent God is the only Being who, of Himself, possesses this wonderful nature. When Christ proceeded and came forth out of His Father, the Father ordained that Christ should have the same life original that is in God His Father; Ellen White puts it in this context:

“In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. ‘He that hath the Son hath life.’ 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life” – Ellen White {DA 530.3}. Does proceeding and coming forth from the Father reduce the life in Christ to borrowed life? Absolutely Not!

We also read: “In Jesus is our life derived. In Him is life, that is original, unborrowed, underived life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life. In Him is the fountain of life. Our life is something that we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to Himself. If our life is hid with Christ in God, we shall, when Christ shall appear, also appear with Him in glory. And while in this world we will give to God, in sanctified service, all the capabilities He has given us” – EG White {20LtMs, Lt 309, 1905, par. 7}.

Ellen White should be understood as contrasting the life which the Son of God inherits naturally from His Father with the life that is bestowed on the adopted sons of men. “‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men’ (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God” {ST April 8, 1897, par. 2}. It is clear in the Bible the source of the “life, original, unborrowed, underived” that is in Christ: “For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26).

In other words, the Father has immortality – “life, original, unborrowed, underived” {DA 530.3} – in Himself. The Father in has given the same “life, original, unborrowed, underived,” to His Son. This life, “immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God” {ST April 8, 1897}, Christ has in Himself by inheritance (Heb 1:4) from His Father who brought Him forth (Proverb 8:22-25; John 8:42).

Trinitarian Adventists who deny the Father and Son, who deny the literal Sonship of Christ, have “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4) and have a false hope of life, for God has put that life only in His literal Son, and he who has no true Son has no life. By emphasising that only those who have the Son have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12), John disproves the theory that the Sonship of Christ is metaphorical, for otherwise eternal life is metaphorical as well.

Pre-Existence of Christ

The pre-existence of Christ before He was born in Bethlehem, is often misused by trinitarian Adventists to deny that Christ had a beginning. Statements from the writings of Ellen White are often misused by trinitarian Seventh-day Adventists to establish the idea that God the Father and Christ have always existed alongside each other, with each having existed without beginning and therefore Christ could not have been begotten in the literal sense. Let us turn to the 1900 Ellen White statement that is often misused by trinitarian Adventists; it reads:

“In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him” – Ellen White, in Signs of the Times, {ST August 29, 1900, par. 15}.

Let us turn to the key that Ellen White gave us: “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the message given” {18LtMs, Lt 71, 1903, par. 11}. To apply this key, let us see the other Ellen White testimonies that explain the 1900 testimony:

“Christ was the Son of God; He had been one with Him before the angels were called into existence. He had ever stood at the right hand of the Father” – Ellen White {PP 38.3}.

Reading in the context of chapter 1 in Patriarchs and Prophets {PP}, the 1900 statement is saying that Christ, ever since before creation of all things, from when He “was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 14}, He has always been in close fellowship with His Father, the eternal God. Since after He “was set up from everlasting” {PP 34.1}, “before the angels were called into existence”, “He had ever stood at the right hand of the Father” {PP 38.3}. He is equal to His Father in divine attributes for He has them by inheritance (Hebrews1:4).

Notice how Ellen White, in the 1900 statement, said that Christ “carries the mind back through the dateless ages” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 15}. She expresses the time as “dateless ages”, for we cannot put a date on Christ’s origin in heaven. It is beyond our comprehension. In other words, we cannot compute His pre-existence by our human figures, as stated here in Ellen White’s other testimonies:

“Angels of God looked with amazement upon Christ who took upon Himself the form of man and humbly united His divinity with humanity in order that He might minister to fallen man. It is a marvel among the heavenly angels. God has told us that He did do it, and we are to accept the Word of God just as it reads” – Ellen White {5LtMs, Ms 13, 1888, par. 15}. “And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may begin to reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond” {5LtMs, Ms 13, 1888, par. 16}.

“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures” – Ellen White {ST May 3, 1899, par. 4}.

Notice, of the things that goes far back that our human minds cannot comprehend the time when they started, in the 1888 statement above, Ellen White includes “evil” entering the universe (or our world); she says, “And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may begin to reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond” {5LtMs, Ms 13, 1888, par. 16}. We know “evil” had a beginning, for “Satan, the originator and instigator of sin” {GC 485.3}, was created, yet even for that beginning of evil, it was far in the past that to human minds it is like eternity. If even “evil” that originated with a creature, we cannot comprehend when it first started, yet no denial “evil” had a beginning, can we not see what Ellen White is telling us of the “dateless ages” when it comes to the pre-existence of the Son of God? It is clearly not hard at all to understand.

Having applied the key that Ellen White gave us, to the 1900 statement, we conclude that Christ was the Son of God in His pre-existence, that is, He did not become the Son of God in Bethlehem. Ever since Christ was “brought forth” {RH April 5, 1906, par. 7} before creation of all things, “back through dateless ages” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 15}, He has ever been in close fellowship with His Father.

Christ is the pre-existent Son of God, meaning that He was a Son in His pre-existence. We know that this Son-ship is a literal one based on birth or “brought forth,” as Ellen White quotes of Him, “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” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 14}; {RH April 5, 1906, par. 7}. It is after clarifying this fact, that Christ is the Son of God in His pre-existence, that Ellen White then says “there never was a time when He was not in fellowship with the eternal God” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 15}. It is very clear. Ever since the literal Son was begotten of the Father, He has been in close fellowship with Him.

Omega of the Crisis

The omega (end) of the Sonship crisis will be at Sunday Law as trinitarian Adventists “abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition” {GC 608.2}. Ezekiel 8 foretold of both the sun-god and sun-worship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Trinity is a sun-god. At Sunday Law, sun-god worshippers will worship on sun-day: “In churches and in large gatherings in the open air, ministers will urge upon the people the necessity of keeping the first day of the week” {RH March 18, 1884, par. 18}. If “in the land of peace” (Jer 12:5) most trinitarian Adventists work on Sabbath, lightly regarding the Sabbath and God who created it, how will they resist Sabbath-breaking at Sunday Law? They will have no power to resist enormous satanic pressure, for “power belongeth unto God” (Psalm 62:11), yet they have no true God – they worship a trinity god, but God is not a trinity! Trinity is a sun-god; a sun-god cannot give power to resist sun-day worship!

All “power belongeth unto God” (Psalm 62:11), and God has given that power to His literal Son, for Christ says, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). Those who have a metaphorical son will have metaphorical power from “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4); and at Sunday Law, they will be lost – “not because they could not be saved, but because they would not be saved in God's own appointed way” {2T 445.2} – for they now refuse God’s appointed way through His literal Son.

The trinity not only makes God a nonentity, but it removes God from the trinitarians. The adoption of the trinity in 1980 fulfilled prophecy: “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, …. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. …. God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless” – Ellen White {18LtMs, Lt 242, 1903, par. 13}. “God being removed,” trinitarians will be without God at Sunday law. The coming real issue at Sunday Law is worship of either the trinity sun-god or the true God who made the Sabbath. The true God has given all power to His literal Son, the literal Son must live in you (Galatians 2:20; 4:6) to have power; those who deny the literal Son will have no power to resist at Sunday Law when they “see every earthly support cut off” – Ellen White {DA 121.3}.

Literal Son’s risk of eternal loss

The Sonship crisis is a tragedy! Trinitarians assert that Ellen White became a trinitarian later in her life; but that assertion is false! Ellen White believed that Christ become incarnate at the risk of His eternal existence. This risk factor cannot be accepted by trinitarians because none of the three-in-one Beings could cease to exist else the ‘one triune God’ would cease to exist – which in trinitarianism is supposedly an impossibility. Our church officially says that the three in “one substance” are “the one undivided God” and that each divine person is “inseparably connected to the other two” (SDA Bible Research Institute, Reflections Newsletter, July 2008, p 9). This negates the atonement the Son of God made, for the divine person is always alive in the substance of the trinity. So, the metaphorical ‘son’ can no more cease to exist than can the ‘one triune God’. But this false reasoning is contrary to Ellen White’s writings:

“Christ has found his pearl of great price in lost, perishing souls. He sold all that he had to come into possession, even engaged to do the work, and run the risk of losing his own life in the conflict” {10LtMs, Lt 119, 1895, par. 32}; “Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict” {GCB December 1, 1895, par. 23}; “Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss” {DA 49.1}; “Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss” {DA 131.2}; “Had there been the least taint of sin in Christ, Satan would have bruised His head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope” {12LtMs, Ms 143, 1897, par. 17}. Ellen White was non-trinitarian!