Of the Father's Love Begotten Ere the Worlds Began to Be
I am writing on behalf of the Maranatha Advent Christian Conference to give our hearty endorsement to the proposed Declaration of Principles and the bylaw changes that will be presented at this year’s Triennial Convention. Our Conference board gives full support to these matters and believes that the Executive Council of the Advent Christian General Conference is leading us well in bringing these matters of business before the 2026 Triennial’s delegate body. We believe that as we move forward as a denomination this new Declaration of Principles and the changes proposed to the bylaws and the proposed enduring resolution will help us acheive a greater theological cohesiveness and provide the groundwork for more effective Gospel ministry. While these recommended changes maintain our doctrinal distinctives and our Adventual Hope, the proposed DOP brings the greater Biblical and Gospel essentials into clearer view.
There is a greater openness in our day among evangelicals to the doctrine of conditional immortality. Many evangelicals have come to embrace conditionalism, while others now see this as a legitimate position rather than being aberrant or unbiblical but who still hold to the traditional view of hell. This kind of evangelical ecuminicism we should welcome and the proposed changes offer us just such a prospect. These proposed changes will more clearly define us as an evangelical denomination that, while holding to conditionalism, will be open to have in our midst those who may not. What I hope we would not want is to come down on our historically distinctive doctrines with the same hardline rigidity that many who hold to the traditional view of hell do and would not let those who hold to conditionalism fellowship or serve with them in Gospel ministry. Those even recently over social media who have oposed conditionalism have made it a Gospel issue. For them those who deny the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment and embrace conditional immortality have denied the Gospel. What I hope we can break away from is a similiar stance regarding our distinctives. Conditional immortality is a wonderful truth that I fully support as being taught by the Scriptures but it is not the Gospel. So, if we view those who hold to eternal conscious torment as rejecting the Gospel because for us they have denied that life is found in Christ alone (as conditionalism defines it) we are no different than those traditionalist, who do the same with their view of eternal conscious torment.
We also are no longer a movement but a denomination of local churches and we are losing ground in our engagment in advancing the kingdom. Our leadership at ACGC is to be commended for addressing this concern and for their stalwart efforts to cultivate church planters among us. We need pastors, church planters and missionaries who are captured by the Gospel of justification by faith as that which reconciles sinners to God, who alone has immortality, and saves them from his consuming but just fire, and from the sin that brings that judgment upon them. If we can recruit evangelicals who see our distinctives as a viable biblical postion but who may not hold that view, yet want to fellowship and work with us and who will be open to honest theological engagment with us that would be a wonderful blessing. Of course we also want to recuit many church planters who do embrace conditionalism. Likewise if we become known as a denomination that has historically affirmed conditional immortality and advocate for others to embrace this truth and who are now putting the doctrinal essentials that are in our Statement of Faith and are found in the first six affirmations and denials of the proposed DOP where they need to be, this puts us in a unique place among our evangelical brothers and sisters. So, I hope for these reasons that every delegate at this year’s Triennial convention would vote in favor for the bylaw changes, the enduring resolution on the intermediate state and final punishement and for the proposed Declaration of Principles.
I would also like to address a concern that is coming forward against the wording in Article three of the proposed Declaration of Principles that reads: “We affirm that God is one being in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that these three persons are fully divine and co-equal, of one substance, power and eternity, and with one will; and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
The phrase over which concern has been expressed is “and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.” There is some question as to whether this is Biblical and some confusion over what it means. For centuries the Greek word “monogenēs” that occurs in five verses of John’s Gospel and his first letter, which references the Lord Jesus Christ, has been translated as “only begotten” as in “only begotten Son.” While I believe that “only begotten” is a better translation of the word “monogenēs” (see below), the doctrine that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father is not dependent solely upon these five verses. Neither do I believe that because the phrases “eternally begotten Son” or “the Son is eternally begotten” are not expressed this way in the Bible that the doctrine is thereby not found in the Bible.
The Translation Difference Surrounding “Monogenēs”
What does the word “monogenēs” mean in those verses that reference the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:4, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9)? In the King James and the New American Standard versions, it is translated “only begotten” and in the more recent versions like the ESV it is translated “only” and the NIV “one and only.” In these verses Jesus is described as either the “only begotten Son,” or “the only Son,” or “the one and only Son.” Why the difference and is this important?
Both translations of “monogenēs” are found in the Tyndale Bible (1534 AD): “only begotten Son” in John 1:14, 18; 1 John 4:9 and “only Son” in John 3:16, 18. In the Geneva Bible (1599 AD) “the only begotten Son” appears in all these verses. Until fairly recently the standard translation of “monogenēs” was “only begotten” as in “only begotten Son.” However, there was strong pushback in the early 1950’s to this standard translation and it has continued up to the present time, and it is reflected in the majority of newer versions. Basically the argument is that the compound adjective “monogenēs” comes not from monos (only) and gennaō (beget) but rather from monos (only) and genos (kind) and thus should be translated “only one” or “unique.”
However, usage is far more significant than etymological considerations. I accept the fact that in some contexts “monogenēs” is better translated as only. A good example of this is when the writer of Hebrews (11:17) states that Abraham in offering up Isaac offered his “ton monogenē.” Isaac was certainly not the only biological son of Abraham but God chose Isaac as the firstborn over Ishmael to be the son of the covenant promise. So, Isaac was the only son of Abraham in regards to God’s purposes. In three other texts where “monogenēs” is used, without referencing Christ, it has a definite biological meaning. These are only begotten children whom Jesus healed; the only son of the widow of Nain (Lk.7:12), the only daughter of Jarius (Lk.8:42), and the boy who was possessed by a demon whose father begs Jesus to attend to “my son, for he is my “monogenēs,” or “my only son” (Lk. 9:38). Now in each of these cases the children were unique in that they were the only children born of their parents. They were “only begottens.”
Charles Lee Irons has shown that those who reject that “monogenēs” can ever be translated in the generative sense of “only begotten” are mistaken. In his article at the Gospel Coalition entitled “Let’s Go Back to Only Begotten” (November 16, 2016) he writes: “But what about the etymological argument that the –genēs portion of monogenēs comes from genos (“kind”) rather than gennao (“beget”)? This argument collapses once it is recognized that both genos and gennao derive from a common Indo-European root, ǵenh (“beget, arise”).” So, when “monogenēs” is used with reference to Christ as the Son of God, it is most acceptable to see that he too is the unique Son of God in a generative sense. He is the only begotten Son of God the Father.
I am convinced that the reason for this change was not primarily because of new linguistic discoveries of the meaning of this Greek word but due, in part, to opposition to the theology of “the eternal generation of the Son” that the older translations supported. For centuries it was understood and affirmed that if Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son this must be an eternal reality and not due to him being a creature or due to his incarnation by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. Yet in recent years the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son has been questioned. It seems illogical, confusing, and even nonsensical. So, it is affirmed, by those who oppose the eternal generation of the Son, that if “monogenēs” really means “only” as in “only Son” support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is simply undercut. In fact, there is no Biblical support for any notion of “the eternal generation of the Son.” Is this truly the case? I think not and let me explain.
Even if “monogenēs” is better translated as “only” or “one and only” as applied to the Son the question needs to be asked: “In what sense is Jesus Christ the only Son of God?” Believers are sons of God by the grace of regeneration and adoption (John 1:12-13; Romans 8:14-17), but Jesus Christ is God’s Son by nature. The very names of Father and Son imply a correlative relationship and because both the Father and the Son are eternal (John 1:1, 18) the relationship is also eternal. The Father was never without the Son, and the Son was never without the Father.
Yet there is an order. The Father is never said to be from the Son or to come from the Son or to be sent by the Son. Jesus said, “But I know him, for I am from him, and he has sent me” John 7:29 (my translation). Some modern versions add the word “come,” “I have come from him.” Yet, I would contend that the prepositional phrase “from him” points to the eternal origin of the Son from the Father and it is this eternal Son, who in time, the Father sends into the world. Yet, he is the Son before he is sent. It is God the Father, who so loved the world, that he gave his “monogenē” only (or only begotten) Son. He did not become the Son by being sent into the world to be our savior or by his incarnation or even by his resurrection. It is the eternal Son of or from the Father, whom the Father sent.
The same concept of the Son being from the Father is seen in John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we gazed upon his glory, glory of the ‘monogenous”’ from the Father full of grace and truth” (my translation). Again, some modern versions add the word “came” as “the glory of the “monogenous” who came from the Father.” While it is true that the Son came from the Father into the world (John 16:27-28), it is also true that he is eternally from the Father and this is what I think is said about the “monongenēs” in John 1:14 and should be translated: “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” The word Son is not found in this verse but the adjective “monogenous” is used substantively and the context would support that the noun Son is implied as in “the only begotten Son from the Father.” This reality has for centuries been best captured by the Son being eternally begotten of the Father, rather than being the Son in some non-descript or static manner.
Insights from the Past
I think that those Greek bishops and elders who framed the Nicene Creed of 325 AD and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 AD knew their Greek better than those Greek scholars of today, who reject “monogenēs” being translated as “only begotten” and prefer “only” or “one and only” when it references Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The background to these creedal formations was the fourth century Christological controversy surrounding the Son and his relation to God the Father. Arius, an elder in the church of Alexandria, Egypt came into conflict with the bishop of the church, Alexander, over the nature of the Son. At the center of the controversy, in part, was this word “monogenēs.” Yet both sides in the conflict understood “monogenēs” to mean “only begotten. That was not contested. The controversy simmered over what side of the Creator-creature divide did this place the Son. For Arius and his supporters, the Son being “only begotten” meant that he was a creature of God the Father. The first and greatest creature that God made and hence he was not divine in any sense and certainly did not share in the divine nature with the Father.
Those who framed the creeds of 325 and 381 also understood monogenēs as “only begotten.” However, they also were clear that this did not make the Son a creature for the New Testament stresses his eternity and his full deity, while keeping his personal distinction to the Father. This is clearly taught in the first verse of the prologue to John’s Gospel. “In the beginning was the Word (the eternity of the Word/Son is affirmed) and the Word was with God (both the distinction between the Word and God the Father and yet the intimate union of the two are affirmed) and the Word was God (the full deity of the Word is affirmed) – John 1:1.
Both creeds use the term monogenēs but for the sake of time I will only reference the creed of 381. It reads, “I believe…also in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the monogenēs Son of God.” Now, someone might argue that the English versions of the creed have mistranslated this part and it should read, “I believe…also in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,” or “the one and only Son of God.” Yet the next line further defines what the framers understood “monogenēs” to mean. There is not the least possibility of any ambiguity for the Greek word that is used is “gennaō” in the passive voice, which means to be “born of.” It reads with reference to the only begotten Son: “born (or begotten) of the Father before all the ages.” It is clear that what is affirmed here is the “eternal generation of the Son” or “the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.” So, this standard English translation of this section of the Creed is best expressed as “I believe…also in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.”
At least by the fourth century the Greeks on both sides of the Christological controversy understood the plain meaning of “monogenēs” to be “only begotten.” They differed radically on whether this meant the Son was a creature begotten in time or the Son, who was begotten by the Father before all the ages, which is a clear description of eternity. Yet the framers of the creed went on to flesh out what this eternal generation of the Son entailed. This does not mean that the Son is subordinate to the Father in regard to deity or a lesser god or demiurge. It reads further that the Son is “light from light” (echoing Hebrews 1:3, “He is the radiance of His Glory), true God from true God.” The Son’s eternal generation by the Father indicates that there is a kind of order, or procession that occurred outside of time within the inner life of the Godhead but the creed goes on to make it very clear that though the Son has been begotten he has not been made but is of the same essence or nature as the Father. “Begotten (gennēthenta) not made, of the same nature (homoousion) as the Father, through whom all things were made.” So, while the Father and the Son are of the same essence or nature there is also an eternal differentiation and this is captured in the phrases “begotten of the Father before the ages” and “begotten not made.” It is this differentiation that is in Article three of the proposed Declaration of Principles, that while the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are “fully divine and co-equal, of one substance, power and eternity and one will,” they are not the same in persons. All that the Father is in his divine nature, the Son is but the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. It is this difference that is captured in the Son being eternally begotten of the Father.
What About the Bible?
I can hear someone declare, “Ok, but the Nicene Creed is not the Bible, and I want simply to hold to what the Bible teaches. You are basing most of what you have written so far on the creed and not the Bible. I am only going to embrace what the Bible teaches.” That is indeed what I want too. I would also point out that this was the frame of mind and heart of those fourth century Greek Christians who wrote the creed. They were not simply making things up, they were actually engaging with Scripture, looking to understand, interpret and teach God’s Word.
I can also hear someone object by saying, “Well that is all fine and dandy, but these Greeks used non-Biblical words and fancy philosophical words at that. They were more concerned with matters of philosophy than sticking to plain Biblical words. It would be better to use only Bible words for Bible doctrines.” Well, they did use Bible words. “Monogenēs” and “gennaō” are used in the New Testament of Christ. Yet they also used non-Biblical words like “homoousias” (of the same nature or essence) and non-Biblical phrases like “begotten by the Father before all ages.” In fact, it is impossible when looking to teach what the Bible teaches not to use non-Biblical words. For example, many Christians in explaining what it means to believe in Jesus will use the phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus,” which is not found in the Bible. Or what about the phrase “conditional immortality,” which is also not found in the Bible. Yet, the concepts are most certainly Biblical. Also, the particular words that those Greek fathers used, who held a high view of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and went further to bring out what the Bible taught concerning the Trinity, were not philosophical but common words put to theological use. Words like essence, nature, person were used in normal everyday conversations but were also seen as helpful in explaining what the Bible in fact taught.
So Where Do We Find the Bible Teaching
the Eternal Generation of the Son?
Jeff Vann in a recent post made the correct observation that “monogenēs” is never found in the New Testament accompanied by the adjective eternal (aiōnios). However, does this mean that the concept of the Son being eternally begotten is therefore ruled out all together? I think not and let me try to give my reasons.
What is clear from the Bible is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He has a Father. It is also clear from Scripture that the Father has a Son. It is also clear that the Father is fully God and the Son is fully God. They share the same divine nature, yet they are distinguished from one another as Father and Son. What is also clear from Scripture is that it was the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit that in time became incarnate as a human being, while still keeping the divine nature that he shares with the Father and the Spirit. It is also clear that it was not the Father or the Son who was poured out upon the church on the Day of Pentecost but the Holy Spirit, who ever stays with the church to keep our bond with the risen Christ firm. How the Triune God is operating in this grand saving work in redemptive history in the Father sending his Son and the Father and the Son sending the Spirit does reveal the working of the inner life of the Trinity in eternity and this inner life of the Trinity would be true if God never created the world.
So, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit exhaust the fullness of the Divine nature. This is what they have in common. So, we can say with Scriptural support that the Father is fully God (John 6:27; Titus 1:4; 1Tim. 1:2), the Son is fully God (John 1:1,18;8:58; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; Titus 2:13; Rom. 9:5) and the Holy Spirit is a person like the Father and the Son and is fully God (John 14:16, 26; 16:7-8, 13-15; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; Acts 5:3-4; Mark 3:28-30; John 3:5-6; Eph. 1:13-14). Yet, the appellations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not bare names that have no meaning in relation to each other. The Father is really and truly the Father of the Son and is from all eternity (Heb.1:5-8; John 17:1-5). The Son is really and truly the Son of the Father and is from all eternity (John 1:1-2, 14, 18; Mark 1:11; 9:7 Gal. 4:4). The Holy Spirit is really and truly the Spirit of both the Father and the Son and is from all eternity (John 15:26; 16:13-14; 20:22; Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:9). They hold these personal properties in relation with one another eternally for the simple reason that they each share equally the divine nature. Yet they do not share their personal properties with one another. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son (John 14:16-17).
So, the Father is eternally the Father of the Son and both this relation and distinction are expressed in the Son being eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and both the relation and distinction are expressed in declaring that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.
A Word About The Language of the Bible
God reveals himself in Scripture by using human language. God is the transcendent, exalted and eternal Lord and Creator.
“Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust. Lebanon would not suffice for fuel, nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness” (Isa. 40:13-17 ESV).
Even when Scripture uses such attributes to describe God, we are able to understand the reality of his exalted greatness, yet there is still much about Him that we cannot fully understand. So, when we read about God’s being or God’s works in the Scriptures, we need to be clear that we are meeting One who is ineffable and glorious. The language that the Bible uses of God is not to be taken as expressing an equality of meaning with our human experiences. When the Bible says that God is angry or loving or grieved it does not mean that God is angry or loving or grieved as we humans are. Nor is such language showing realities about God that are completely different from what is true of human beings so that we cannot know anything that is real or true about God. Rather the language the Bible uses concerning God is analogical. This means the language expresses realities about God that because of our life experiences we can understand but also can never fully comprehend. So mystery remains.
When the Bible speaks of the Father and the Son, something is being revealed that we can understand from human experience, yet it transcends our experience because it concerns this ineffable, transcendent, eternal and glorious God. As human parents have children, so the Father has a Son. I am a father, but I also had a father. God the Father has no father. There was a time when I was not a father. God the Father has been Father from all eternity. My son came into existence in time. The Son never came into existence but was eternally begotten by the Father. My son was conceived by my wife in an act of love. God’s Son was eternally begotten without a mother and without any passion, yet the Father has always loved the Son (John 17:23-26; Matt. 3:17), who is the “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrew 1:3). So, the Biblical language of Father, Son and only begotten is analogous to our human experience of begetting, conceiving, bearing children, and being parents and this enables us to understand what the Bible is teaching us about the relationship of the Father and the Son but we cannot fully comprehend its depths. We can understand that there is both a correlation between the Father and the Son and a differentiation. There is also an implied order in the relationship but since the Father and the Son share fully in the divine nature there is no subordination, separation or derivation of the Son in the divine nature that he shares eternally with the Father but there is a differentiation of their persons.
The Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck stressed that the eternal generation of the Son reveals that the immutable Triune God is not inert or static but abounding with fullness of life and activity.
“Generation occurs also in the divine being. God’s fecundity is a beautiful theme, one that frequently occurs in the church fathers. God is no abstract, fixed, monadic, solitary substance, but a plentitude of life. It is his nature to be generative and fruitful. It is capable of expansion, unfolding and communication. Those who deny this fecund productivity fail to take seriously the fact that God is an infinite fulness of blessed life. All such people have left is an abstract deistic concept of God…Apart from the Trinity even the act of creation becomes inconceivable. For if God cannot communicate himself, he is a darkened light, a dry spring, unable to exert himself outward to communicate himself to creatures.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, pages 308-309)
The Eternal Son, The Incarnate Son
The “Son” is a title that applies first to the inter-trinitarian life of the Godhead. The Son, who is also the Word, was with God in the beginning as the only begotten God (John 1:18). As the only begotten God he sustains the most intimate relationship with the Father, being at his side or near his bosom (again analogous language). While no one has ever seen God, the one who is at the Father’s side, now as the incarnate Word, has made him known or has explained him or declared him. The Greek verb used is where we get our word exegesis. The incarnate Son, who is also the eternal Word has exegeted the Father. This is why Jesus could say of himself, “Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46), and again “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” (Jn. 14:9).
It is therefore the eternal Son from the Father (eternally begotten of the Father) who in time became the incarnate Son. The Son assumed full human nature as he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. That is why the angel Gabriel answered Mary question "How will this be, since I am a virgin” by responding to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-- the Son of God” (Lk. 1:34-.35 ESV). Therefore, God the Father is also the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect to the Son becoming a human being. So, the eternal Son became the incarnate Son but there are not two Sons. It is the Son, who is eternally from the Father, who, not by laying aside his divine nature , power or glory, took on a new human nature, with a rational soul and a physical body, as he became incarnate as an embryo in the virgin’s womb (Jn 1:1; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7).
The eternal Son came into the world as the incarnate Son to fulfill the mission he received from the Father of securing redemption for sinners and establishing God’s kingdom in this world. In doing this he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and prophecies of the Messiah, the Anointed One. As the incarnate Son, the Christ, he is the fulfillment of the three offices of prophet, priest and king. They were types or shadows that pointed to him. In him all the ancient Messianic prophecies find their fulfillment. In fact all of the Old Testament either directly or indirectly, through types and shadows and prophetic utterance presents the eternal Son, who is the incarnate Christ, as the one who unites its metanarrative of creation, fall, redemption and restoration (Lk. 24:24-27, 44-47; Matt. 5:17).
It is as the Christ that the Son manifests his eternal Sonship with the Father in history. Those Old Testament texts that describe the investiture of Israel’s king as the Son of God are reflections of that eternal Sonship and are prophecies of that Son’s incarnation as the Messiah (Ps. 2:6-7; Ps. 45:6-7; Ps. 89:26-27). and are seen by the New Testament writers as pointing to the Incarnate Son, who is the ultimate Messianic king (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-14; 5:5). The Lord Jesus Christ, who as the incarnate Messianic Son, in his state of humiliation (becoming incarnate, being born under law, securing atonement by his penal sacrificial death and being buried) and in his state of exaltation (resurrection, ascension, present session and glorious Second Coming) manifests the reality of his eternal Sonship. The Incarnate Son is none other than the eternal Son begotten of the Father!
Of the Father’s Love Begotten
Ere the Worlds Began to Be
There is much more that can and needs to be written and discussed about this wonderful truth of the Son being eternally begotten of the Father and for that matter about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. It would be wonderful to have honest dialogue about these grand and glorious truths. So, I am more than willing to answer questions and to engage more on these matters, but I am not going to become involved in heated debates. The Bible’s teachings on the Trinity and on the eternal generation of the Son are not illogical. They certainly hold mystery, but they are not self-contradictory. I am in love with both doctrines and believe they are meant to be understood together. Without the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit our understanding of the Trinity is weakened considerably. Both these grand Biblical teachings help us to appreciate with greater joy and amazement that, while the Triune God is immutable, the inner life of the Godhead is not static but ever abounds with eternal vitality, love and glory and this should overwhelm us with awe, wonder, praise and worship!
This is captured well in the early 5th century hymn composed by the poet Aurelius Clemens Pruedentius and translated into English by John Mason Neale and Henry Baker and was set to the plainsong melody “Divinum Mysterium” (the Divine Mystery), which origins date to the 10th Century.
Of the Father's love begotten,
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the source, the ending He,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and evermore.
At His word they were created;
He commanded; it was done:
Heav’n and earth and depths of ocean
In their threefold order one;
All that grows beneath the shining
Of the moon and burning sun,
Evermore and evermore.
O ye heights of Heav’n adore Him!
Angel hosts, His praises sing!
All dominions bow before Him
And extol our God and King.
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert ring—
Evermore and evermore.
Christ, to Thee with God the Father,
And, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant and high thanksgiving
And unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion,
And eternal victory,
Evermore and evermore!
My hope and prayer are that my fellow Advent Christians would take time to consider these realities and rejoice that the proposed Declaration of Principles includes the affirmation of such glorious and Biblical truths about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and see the importance and value of voting in favor of its passing at our 2026 Triennial Convention.