A few of the brethren requested that I share an analysis of the recent presentation entitled “The Use of “Begotten” in Reference to the Pre-incarnate Christ in the Writings of Ellen G. White.” This was given on an April 6, 2026 Virtual Event that was a part of an Ellen White Issues Symposium. The presenter was Walter Steger. Here is his biographical blurb as it was found on the program.
“Walter Steger (Ph.D. Student). A native of Argentina, Walter Steger holds a master’s degree in Theology from River Plate Adventist University and is currently pursuing a PhD in Religion with an emphasis in Adventist Studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He also serves as an adjunct professor at the Seminary. Previously, he worked as an editor and writer for the South American Adventist Publishing House in Buenos Aires and has published several book chapters, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and popular articles. An ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he is married to Emilia Steger, an educational psychologist specializing in neuropsychology, and they have two sons.”
I am grateful that this issue was even brought up. This is a hopeful sign for Seventh-day Adventism but the presentation itself revealed that there is much work to be done in helping to apply the eye salve to rid Adventism of its new tradition of unbegottenism.
So, with that said, let’s get into the paper. I will begin with a positive aspect first.
The first positive thing here is that very name of the presentation. It is often the case that SDA ministers avoid the fact that Ellen White used the word “begotten” in reference to the pre-incarnate Christ. Mr. Steger’s presentation, by its very name, repudiates that approach. He also acknowledged this problem and that was another positive. I am quoting now from his paper:
“Over the years, numerous investigations have sought to describe and elucidate how the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of the Godhead has developed…However, none of these investigations deal with Ellen G. White’s understanding of Christ as “begotten” of the Father, particularly before His incarnation” *
* How this presentation worked is that Mr. Stegler basically just read from his paper which was available for us to see. Also, as a disclaimer, this paper was said to be a work in progress so it may read somewhat differently when it is finally published than the version we saw. I am quoting from screenshots that I took.
Interestingly enough, he then asserted that Egw’s contemporaries had a “struggle…with their own understanding of the ontological begottenness of Christ as the Son of the Father.”
Unfortunately, this supposed “struggle” was not documented or explained but a footnote referenced his 2024 research paper entitled “The Development of the Understanding of the Begottenness of Christ in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” I will attempt to get a hold of this paper to evaluate the claim but, right now, I would not characterize this issue as much of a struggle, if any at all. From the time of the formal organization as a church, the SDA pioneers simply believed the Word of God that Christ was the only begotten Son of God. While some, most notably Uriah Smith, believed that this was an act of creation that idea was dropped in the next decade in favor of an hermeneutic that begotten was different from creation. I know of only one exception to this. In 1890, Charles Boyd explained his belief in the trinity(!) by saying Christ was created (see Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, October 15, 1890). All the other references I know of, from 1873 onward (1 decade after the organization of the SDA church) consistently differentiate that Christ as not created but begotten. I have documented these elsewhere so I will not do now. So, I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Steger is referring to here. However, he used that supposed struggle to stress the import of analyzing and understanding Ellen White’s usage of the word “begotten.”
This brings us to the first negative aspect of the presentation. In my opinion, Mr. Stegler introduced a seed of doubt regarding the Testimony of Jesus, as a true and faithful interpreter of the Word of God. This is akin to the standard goat fodder we hear from certain the high scholars. He said that White was not a theologian. Here he was quoting Fritz Guy in the book “Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet” by Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers. This book is higher criticism against the prophet. Also, Fritz Guy was the original author behind the current 1980 fundamental belief on the trinity and a pro-homosexual advocate. The stratagem here is to denigrate the process of revelation/inspiration and make Ellen White an unreliable witness on the matter. I do not impute this motivation to Mr. Stegler himself but I would like to address the matter head on.
I find it patently absurd to conclude, as he did, that Egw’s mentioning of “the begottenness of Christ” are in passing, mere background information of a narrative, or devotional and practical, and “never…an explicit treatise on the ontological nature of Christ as the Son of God” and therefore claim that it is “difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of her words regarding the nature of Christ’s divinity and sonship.”
If the entire SDA church back then was using “begotten” to refer to the ontology of the Son of God then the onus is on the modern day scholar to prove that Ellen White meant something different by it! This is the elephant in the room that is studiously ignored. Mr. Stegler himself did not deal adequately with this point. Furthermore, he claimed that “the issue of Bible translations available” in her day “makes things even more complicated.” Here Mr. Stegler presented an argument that I heard back in 2018 from Dr. Wilson Paroschi. Basically, the argument is that Egw was only parroting the erroneous translation of the KJV. Stegler’s paper states:
“It is more than clear that, in the vast majority of these occurrences, Ellen White is simply using the language of the English Scriptures available in her time to refer to Christ” and he states “it is unclear whether Ellen White has Christ’s incarnate birth in mind or if she is referring to His ontological origin as the Father’s begotten Son.”
This is a self-inflicted problem accomplished by ignoring the historical context under which Ellen White was writing. All of her contemporaries understood the phrase to be referring to Christ’s ontological origin. Without a serious proof that Egw was using the phrase in a new way this shouldn’t even be an issue. Thus, the conclusion is a giant non-sequitur:
“It is clear, however, that the weight of this use of expression “only begotten Son” is on the uniqueness and preciousness of Christ, the Son of God, as the gift of God for the salvation of humanity, more than on His ontological origin.”
This genuinely appears to be confirmation bias. Since the author has not proven that Egw was not using this phrase in the same way as all of her contemporaries, he should not have said that it is clear that the weight of the expression was on uniqueness or preciousness more than ontological origin. The exact opposite case makes perfect sense. Her view of Christ as the gift of God, unique and precious, is due to the fact that He really was God’s only begotten Son in an ontological sense.
This now brings us to the crux of the paper. Stegler states that the study “will focus on those few occurrences in which a clear bearing of White’s words can be identified or interpreted as referring to a possible ontological description of Christ’s nature as the Son of God, before the incarnation.”
Just here we have a positive and a negative aspect. The positive is that Stegler is at least acknowledging there are occurrences like this. The negative is that he clearly failed to examine and deal with the cognate usages in her writings, such as “brought forth” and “assimilated” or the totality of quotes wherein she used the verb “made.” More on that last one later on.
Stegler’s first mention was this:
“God is love.” His love manifested toward fallen man, in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Son was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”{PH169 1.1}
In his commentary on this quote he noted that Egw emphasized “the ontological equality of Christ with God the Father” and claimed this was “somewhat of a surprise, given that several Adventist pioneers had been advocating a non-trintarian, subordinationist view of Christ for years.”
Let’s pause here. The reference he gave to prove this claim was James White, “Letter from Br. White” in The Day-Star, January 24, 1846. The problem is that there is nothing in that letter that advocates a subordinationist view! This is the letter wherein James White repudiates the spiritualizers who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
“This class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and Son, as two distinct literal tangible persons….The way spiritualizers this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first, using the old unscriptural trinitarian creed, viz, that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God” (Day Star, Jan 24, 1846)
8 years before Ellen White published the statement in question James had published the “Personality of God” as a two-part article the Review and Herald. In this he argued “that the Son was in the express image of His Father’s person” and quoted Hebrews 1:1-3 and again that “Let us make man,” was an utterance from “Jehovah to Jesus” who “was the express image of the Father’s person” (RH June 18 & 25, 1861). Here we see the seminal idea, in James White’s theology, of ontological equality between God and Christ as Father and only begotten Son. Hence, we read from his pen in 1871.
“We have not as much sympathy with Unitarians that deny the divinity of Christ, as with Trinitarians who hold that the Son is the eternal Father, and talk so mistily about the three-one God. Give the Master all that divinity with which the Holy Scriptures clothe him. ”(RH June 6, 1871)
Again:
“The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?” (RH November 29, 1877)
The rhetorical question makes clear that James White, at least by this point, did not see Christ as an ontological inferior.
It may be possible that Stegler has not comprehended that although the majority of the early SDA pioneers did not believe in a triune god but rather a Son who was begotten at a point in time after the Father there was no consensus view that this automatically make Him an inferior. Thus, Ellen White’s assertion, as found in her 1869 publication, is not as surprising as one might think.
Yet what is surprising to this author is that Stegler did not give the full quote and neither did he compare it with parallel passages. Let’s turn back to the quote but this time we will continue with what was left off and then compare it to another Egw quote.
First the quote at Steger gave it:
“God is love.” His love manifested toward fallen man, in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Son was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” {PH169 1.1}
Now the full quote:
“God is love.” His love manifested toward fallen man, in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Son was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. He “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.” {PH169 1.1}
Stegler chose to focus on the ontological equality and present it as a surprise. This may not be as surprising as one thinks, as we stated before, yet notice that the continuation. The adverb “yet” makes it clear that the previous sentences are describing the pre-incarnate reality. To this Steger would agree but he appears to have missed the implication of the sentence “it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell.” This suggests that Christ’s fullness is the result of God’s will. This implication is made even stronger by a parallel reference.
“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}
This synonymous passage is basically the same as the previous one yet the conjunction “for” is now used as an explanation. It could be replaced with the conjunction “because” and have the same meaning. In plain language Christ possessed, in Himself, the fullness of divine excellence and greatness because of God the Father. This fits perfectly with begotten theology.
Now, again, Egw’s contemporaries would have read this without even batting an eye because they all understand only begotten Son ontologically. Modern day SDA trintiarians, if they read it at all tend to do so with blinders on. Unforutnately, Stegler’s paper did not address it at all.
Let’s move on. The next quote dealt with was the in the Great Contoversy 1888 edition wherein Egw refered to Christ as “the only begotten of God” and “the only being in all the universe that could enter all the counsels and purposes of God.”
Stegler commented that “this depiction of Christ as ‘the only begotten of God’ clearly antecedes the incarnation, and even Luicfer’s rebellion in heaven.” He is absolutely correct about that but he then muddies the water by claiming that “given the context, however, it is evident that White’s intention was not to emphasize the begotteneness of Christ (as opposed to unbegotteneness, hypothetically) but to highly the uniqueness and specialness of Christ’s unity and loving relationship with the Father…”
This appears to be confirmation bias at work. Steger appears to be working with a premise that Ellen White does not actually mean “a Son begotten” in any ontological sense when she refers to “only begotten Son” and so he can claim that she was not emphasizing the begottenness of Christ. This is negating the actual language that is there by means of an unproven thesis. This is a standard problem with modern SDA trintiarianism. It is making the Testimony of Jesus of none effect. Why even call Him the only begotten? I am going to skip ahead to his quote and commentary
“…They had become so accustomed to the pillar of cloud by day to cover them as a canopy, and the pillar of fire by night, that this was treated as a common thing. They did not consider that the only begotten Son of God, One equal with God, was accompanying them, and He had done wondrous things for them in their journeyings, notwithstanding their perversity, and rebellion and murmuring {8LtMs, Lt 98, 1893, par. 3}
Steger comments that “it seems quite clear that here mention of the pre-incarnate Christ as the “only begotten Son of God” has the purpose of emphasizing Christ’s exalted position, as “One equal with God,” and not his subordinate ontological nature.”
It is difficult to respond to this continued wresting in restrained tone. Ellen White’s conception of Christ as the only begotten Son is in regard to His ontological equality! She defines only begotten Son as, and I quote, “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} Steger knows this quote so how is he distorting the point so badly?
I suspect the problem here is that Steger apparently wants to remove the begotten aspect so he characterizes it as a subordinate ontological nature instead of what Egw presents it as, which is an equal ontological nature. More of Steger’s commentary on a different quote:
“Again, the emphasis does not seem to be on Christ’s begotteness, but on His exalted position in the heavenly courts in contrast to His incarnate condition.”
This is the cart before the horse. Ellen White focuses on the begotteness of Christ because that is the justification of why He has the exalted position in the heavenly courts.
Now let’s move forward to Steger’s take on ST May 30, 1895. He states that this is “perhaps the most explicit reference to the pre-incarnate Christ’s begottenenss.” He continues to comment that “the ontological contrast is quite clear; it seems that, in Ellen White’s understanding the pre-incarnate Christ was not a created being, like the angels, but “a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person. Again, Ellen White also stresses that, though begotten, the Son is ‘equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” This was exactly what Adventists in general were advocating at that time. It is also important to emphasize, once again, that Ellen White, like her fellow Adventists, used the terminology of the English translations of the Bible available in their time to refer to Christ’s divine nature.”
Okay, here we need to pause! I find this to be cognitive dissonance of no small degree. He sees that there is a clear “ontological contrast” but has still failed to connect “begotten” to ontology. He even sees that this was what Adventists generally advocated at the time. Yet he is negating it by the argument that this is just terminology from the English translations of the day. Yet here is the problem! Egw took special pain to bring out the “begotten” aspect and isolate it from the phrase “only begotten Son.” Hence it was not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner but rather “a Son begotten.” Steger would have us believe that this emphatic and isolated usage was just due to the terminology of the day, and has no ontological implication for the origin of Christ, even though this statement presents a clear ontological contrast. This is beyond credulity to me and shows the lengths that modern Adventism will go to in order to remove begotten.
Steger then went to the famous quote “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” and its literary source, John Cumming. He noted that Cumming “adhered to the concept of the eternal generation of the Son” and the implication that for Cumming this meant that this type of life was Christ’s “through His eternal begotteness.” In this respect I believe that Steger is correct. He then notes:
“Of course, Ellen White never expressed adherence to this concept of atemporality regarding the divine realm. Therefore, it is unclear how she harmonized this concept of Christ’s underived life with the terminology, such as “begotten,” that seems to convey an ontologically derived nature.”
Here we would note that Steger appears to have missed Ellen White’s assertion that the plan of salvation as devised “from all eternity” {ST Feb 5, 1894, par.6} or “prior to the commencement of time.” {7LtMs, Lt 27, 1892, par. 20} This oversight may be due to his acceptance of Fritz Guy’s claim that Ellen White “did not elaborate [on] God and time.”
Steger also appears to have missed Ellen White’s teaching that this very type of life can be “given” {ST Feb 13, 1912, par.13} which places her in harmony with John 5:26 and the fact that she spoke of the pre-incarnate Christ as having “received” all things from the Father and that it is “the Father’s life” that flows out from Christ to all created beings {DA 21.2}
While Ellen White never explains how Christ is both “begotten” and “from all eternity” that does not remove the fact that she asserted it. It seems to me that modern SDA theology, maybe even subconsciously, promotes the conception that if it cannot be explained then it is not actually so.
I want to skip ahead to another positive aspect of this paper. It is in regard to the following two quotes:
“Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be the Son of God. From all eternity He has sustained this relation to Jehovah. Before the foundations of the world were laid, He, the only begotten Son of God, pledged Himself to become the Redeemer of the human race should men sin.{20LtMs, Ms 22, 1905, par. 4}
“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}
Steger’s commentary on the first quote is that “the surprising aspect of this statement is that Christ’s sonship is affirmed to have been ‘from all eternity,’ and this sonship is intrinsically connected to the fact that He is described as ‘the only begotten Son of God’ ‘before the foundation of the world were laid.”
He is absolutely correct about this but he does not seem to have connected “from all eternity” to “prior to the commencement of time” and this is potentially blinding him from seeing the ontological implications of the latter statement.
His commentary on the second quote is that “here can also be found White’s emphasis on the distinctively of Christ as having a different ‘personality’ than the Father, in the sense of being a different ‘person.’
Please notice that Steger had to do a subtle shift here. Ellen White did not say “the Father” but rather she said “truly God.” Let’s read the quote again:
“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity but not in personality.”
If Steger let the statement read as it was given then he would collapse trintiarianism. This quote asserts that the only begotten Son (whom Steger admits is prior to the incarnation) is not truly God in personality.
The trinitarian conception of god is that there are 3 persons who are each truly and fully God in every sense. In other words, the Father is truly God in personality, the Son is truly God in personality, and the Spirit is truly God in personality, each of the 3 persons is truly and fully Him.
In order to keep this doctrine in tact, a shift is necessitated because the statement, as given, asserts that the only begotten Son is NOT truly God in personality. The trinitarian has to change the meaning of the phrase “truly God” halfway through the clause to maintain their doctrine. They cannot keep the meaning consistent all the way through because then they would end up with this.
Modalism:
“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly the Father in infinity but not in personality”
Or, with this:
Non-trintiarinism (the actual meaning):
“The Lord Jesus, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity but not truly God in personality”
So, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Hence the statement is being interpreted this way and the meaning of “truly God” is altered in the midst of the final clause.
SDA trinitarian modification:
“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity but not [truly the Father] in personality.”
I’m not sure Steger has even realized what he did here. This is standard Laodicean blindness at work. I used to do it myself so I am not trying to attack the man but I think he is sincerely mistaken.
Moving on let’s point out a very major negative aspect of the paper. Here Steger addressed one of the “made” statements.
“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 {20LtMs, Ms 127, 1905, par. 14}
Amazingly, here was his commentary:
“In the context of all the evidence presented thus far, it is highly unlikely that Ellen White here used the word ‘made’ to refer to any kind of creative act of the Father in ‘making’ the Son. She probably had in mind Hebrews 1:3, and simply misquoted the word ‘being’ with ‘made’, affirming Christ’s divine nature as the ‘express image’ of the Father.”
Once again necessity is the mother of invention. Egw clearly referred to the pre-incarnate Christ as “made” in God’s express image. This, by the way, does not mean created because the 1828 dictionary has a definition of “make” that is different from “create. Look it up if you doubt it. Yet this quote is problematic for Steger so he speculated that it is a misquote.
This theory is implausible and I am genuinely astonished that a P.h.D. candidate did not check in the Testimony of Jesus to see if there are any other references to the pre-incarnate Christ as “made.” There are several others. I actually shared these quotes in a comment over Zoom.
“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore for his bosom him who was made in the express image of his person…{RH July 9, 1895, par.13}
“Jesus was made one with God. His exaltation created envy and jealousy in satan’s heart…{17LtMs, Ms 1, 1902, par.2}
“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}
Now, to his credit, Mr. Steger saw and acknowledged that these quotes after Merlin Burt’s reply and said he would examine them. I hope he will adjust his paper accordingly. Let’s keep him in prayer because if he acknowledges the truth he may very well lose his career in Adventism. I also shared the quotes about the pre-incarnate Christ having been “assimilated to the image of God” {Ms90-1910.4} and that He “was brought forth” {ST Aug 29, 1900 par.15}
So let’s get into Mr. Steger’s conclusion:
“The evidence analyzed suggests that Ellen White understood the pre-incarnate Christ to be begotten in a literal sense. However, when comparing her writings with those of her contemporary Adventists, it is interesting to note that she never went into details nor tried to explain how and when Christ was begotten of the Father as they did.”
This was an excellent statement. If he would have let this be the conclusion I could have said a hearty amen but, unfortunately, he did not. We also read:
“The evidence is quite clear that Adventists in general at that time, and possibly Ellen White herself, had no trouble accepting Christ as ‘eternal’ and ‘self-existent,’ though they still considered Him begotten by the Father in some point of eternity past. The most reasonable explanation for this can be found simply in their literal understanding of the terms ‘begotten’ and ‘only begotten’ found in the English translations available in their time. It was not until the 1940s and 50s that Adventists began studying this aspect of the biblical evidence on the preincarnate Christ’s ontological divine nature under the light of exegetical studies in the original languages, and introduces the concept of unbegotteness.”
Here Mr. Steger has faltered. Christ as “eternal” and even “self-existent” did not mean unbegotten. And while certain of the pioneers viewed Christ as originating “in some point of eternity past” Ellen White never did. And the proffered explanation of their viewpoint is not credible. They were studying these issues well before the 1940s and 50s, even getting into the original languages. This really appears to be a not so subtle effort to claim that they just didn’t know the truth back then. Again we read:
“It seems that, while advocating the full divinity and, especially, the eternal pre-existence of the Son as equal to the Father, she also maintained a literal, plain understanding of the biblical term ‘begotten’ as it appeared in the English versions available during her lifetime.”
Yes, she did but I would argue that this was not merely due to the English versions of her time. She advocated this as light she received from the throne of God. Her other usages such as “made” or “assimilated” are not Biblical terms used for the pre-incarnate Christ but modern English terms that she was using synonymously with “begotten” and “brought forth” to express the truth that Christ was truly the only begotten Son of God (a Son begotten) from all eternity.
“It is more than clear that the context in which she mentions the pre-incarnate Christ as begotten is not centered on an explanation of His ontological divine nature. Rather, in every case, the purpose is either to exalt the love of God in giving His only Son for the salvation of humanity or to highly Christ’s exalted position and nature as equal to the Father in the context of Lucifer’s accusations and envy. Thus, her use of the biblical terms related to the ‘begotteneness’ of Christ, found in the English translations of her days, should be considered, in her own words, one of the ‘side issues,’ and ‘obscure or unimportant point, something that is not rully revealed or is not essential to our salvation…”
Here the data strongly disputes this supposedly “more than clear” contextual explanation. Ellen White’s Christology is very much centered on a matter of fact basis that only begotten Son is an ontological expression explaining the inherent Divine nature of Christ.
There is more that could be said here but this analysis has already taken up too much of my time. Steger ends the paper with a quote from sister White about scattered gems of truth that the people of God would find and claims that “the unbegottenness of Christ may well have been one of those gems of truth that would be discovered later on.”
I must respectfully disagree and I will end my analysis with three quotes from sister White to the exact opposite effect.
“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 began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. {25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3}
“Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature. {SpTB02 16.2}
The original heresy of the devil was to obscure that Christ was the only begotten Son of God. We are warned that the omega heresy would be giving heed to devilish doctrine. Consequently, I believe Steger’s idea that the unbegottenness of the pre-incarnate Christ is a gem of truth is naught but satanic deception. It is not a precious stone that we should built upon but a piece of stubble to be burned in the fire of the last day. Sadly, unbegottenism has become the litmus test of modern day Seventh-day Adventism. It is a theme we hear over and over again. In consideration of all that the Testimony of Jesus declares to us on this matter we know that unbegottenism is not light from the Father or Son but a false light from Lucifer.
“That which Brother D calls light is apparently harmless; it does not look as though anyone could be injured by it. But, brethren, it is Satan’s device, his entering wedge. This has been tried again and again. One accepts some new and original idea which does not seem to conflict with the truth. He talks of it and dwells upon it until it seems to him to be clothed with beauty and importance, for Satan has power to give this false appearance. At last it becomes the all-absorbing theme, the one great point around which everything centers; and the truth is uprooted from the heart. {5T 292.1}
An unbegotten pre-incarnate Christ is the new central dogma of Adventism and its adoption of trinitarian doctrine. We would do well to put it away and advocate instead the heavenly Trio of one God, the Father, His pre-incarnate only begotten Son from all eternity, and His omnipresent holy Spirit.
