Colin,

Would you call "eternal" a time in the future too far ahead for us to calculate, but which would have an end? If we would live during a time too long for us to calculate now, but would eventually die, would you call this eternal life?
"Eternal," backwards, means "without beginning," and "eternal," forwards, means "without end." Anything short of this can't be classified as "eternal."

Just read (from a quarter or so onwards of the page) the Ellet Waggoner and Ellen White quotes from this link on the Son's divine pre-existence as God's begotten Son: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/DetHis/oDHS15.htm

We cannot rely on the Oxford or any other dictionary definitions for Biblical principles, Rosangela, and Christ's eternal divine pre-existence needs better definitions than we are used to, not so?

Colin,

As I said previously, I don't believe that "only begotten" has a literal meaning, for the Bible calls Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham, something which obviously can't be taken literally.
I also don't believe Christ had a beginning, for the Bible explicitly says He had "neither beginning of days nor end of life." Ellen White says His life is underived, and she also says that children derive life and being from their parents.
Finally, it does not make any sense to say the word "eternal" has one meaning backwards and a different meaning forwards. This is not Oxford's definition, but common sense.

So, you haven't read EJW & EGW's statements from that link, then? This is Biblical teaching and what our church officially taught, including Sister White: They are clear. What do you think of them, now, if you would?

Colin, I'm having time constrictions this month with two deadlines to meet; one was met last week, the other one must be met by the end of the month.
So, I took just a quick look at the statements. Briefly, I would say I do not believe EGW "begotten" statement is parallel to Waggonner's and, so, that she is endorsing what he said. If you read EGW's paraphrase of other authors, you will see that she borrows what she agrees with and leaves out what she disagrees with. She never, ever, uses the expression "birth" or "born" referring to Christ before His incarnation. The author admits this but says that this is because the word could be misinterpreted. I don't see how "birth" can be misinterpreted but "beget" can't.
The author also tries to equate “begotten” and “made" with "birth." This is completely unwarranted, because "made" means "created." God made man; He didn't beget man. The same is true of the angels. God made the angels; He didn't beget them. Why would EGW use a word whose meaning is exaclty the opposite of the idea she was intending to convey?
I also don't believe Ellen White had the same concept of eternity as Waggoner. In fact, not even Waggoner believed that the concept he was presenting was really that of eternity, but, in order not to be found contradicting the Bible, he creates an explanation of his own. He says, "There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, ... but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning." So what he is saying is that there was a beginning for Christ, but, for practical purposes, we can say there wasn't (obviously to agree with what the Bible says). This doesn't make any sense, because the finite mind can perfectly understand what a beginning is, in spite of when it occurred.

Here are some EGW quotes, some of which I have bolded for emphasis only, regarding this discussion thread:

In relation to the above quotes, what does "He is the eternal, self-existent Son" of God mean? Note particularly the words eternal and self-existent.

Thank you for taking time out to handle their statements, and I wasn't in a hurry, y'no. There's time to wait for taking a good look at that website if not just that webpage, as she says much else besides.

Essentially, though, yes, it appears from our church teachings of Ellen White's day - including her own position, that the Son of God's "only begotten" pre-existence was not as 'equally', absolutely eternal as his Father's existence. The trinitarian doctrine's need for equal co-eternity is implicitly thus misplaced, they were saying.

I'll try to find more statements to paste them here, and make the 'search' a little easier.

BTW, Elder Judson Washburn, who witnessed Minneapolis 1888 as an ordained pastor, was one of 2 or 3 notable pastors of the 20th century to defend Jesus' literal, divine pre-existent Sonship till they all died by the 70's. Defenders keep appearing; a good defence is worthy of examination, though: some are not good. The full history of that teaching in our church is an alarm bell for me: What have we done and what are we doing with our Saviour's divine nature - our leaders, ourselves??!

Thanks, Daryl, but that isn't the pertinent question. That is accepted also by non-trinitarians like me.

Is Jesus the "only begotten" and "begotten" literal, divine Son of God before Bethlehem, in SOP and church literature generally - as the Bible also reads, that is the question. The best research I've found yet on historical literature and teachings is the website I referenced for Rosangela. The church hasn't argued current, changed, teachings adequately, sadly.

The current SDA trinitarian doctrine has similar and sometimes identical key words to our original, non-trinitarian belief in Jesus' divinity - like "eternal" and "self-existent", and that website, www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk, explains all this and sorts out the literature of Christian history generally and Adventist history, too.

DA 530: "In him is life, original, unborrowed, underived," is not automatically trinitarian, especially since everything else she wrote maintains Jesus as the pre-existent begotten Son of God. The full reading is necessary, as "trinity" almost inevitably is unbiblically defined, while non-trinitarian meanings can be Biblical nevertheless.

I looked at that link by Terry Hill, who is also a registered member here, but hasn't been actively posting here lately.

We need to be careful about pulling out and interpreting a set of EGW quotes and not comparing it to a set of other EGW quotes that may change the way the first set was interpreted, which is why I am trying to look at all the EGW quotes relative to this topic.

Will say more when I have more time.

Yes, we have to look at it all, of course. I know Terry is a member on here, but let's see what the evidence says.

There's time for this discussion to move when we actually have time for it, indeed.