Our opponents use this statement to prove that Jesus recieved His life from the Father. All means all, including His life. However, careful look into the statement proves otherwise:

A. The statements plainly tells us the purpose of recieving "all", and that is to give. For whom? "For all CREATED BEINGS." What he recieved from the Father was for the benefit of all created beings NOT FOR HIMSELF.

B. This is in perfect harmony with her other statement in the same book.
"ALL CREATED BEINGS live by the will and power of God. They are dependent RECIPIENTS OF THE LIFE OF GOD. From the HIGHEST SERAPH TO THE HUMBLEST ANIMATE BEING, ALL ARE REPLENISHED FROM THE SOURCE OF LIFE." DA 785.

Does "ALL life" include the life of Jesus? NO. Only the life of "all created beings." These created beings are "recipients of the life of God." Jesus is not recipient because He is not a created being.

The Bible tells us that his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. He is the "Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the End."
So, When DA21 says "THRHOUGH THE BELOVED SON, the FATHER'S LIFE FLOWS OUT TO ALL; THROUGH THE SON IT RETURNS...to the GREAT SOURCE OF ALL," remember DA785 that it means "the Father's life flows to all created beings" and returns "to the great source of all created beings."

C. We can also see that, "all created beings," "through the Son IT RETURNS, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the GREAT SOURCE OF ALL."
Notice: "Created beings" return praise and joyous service to the Father through the Son. But the statement doesn't say that Jesus also returns praise and service to the Father. This destroys the intent of the statement. First, it says "all created beings." Second, the focus is on the ministry of Jesus for us not for the Father.

D. The life of Jesus is "exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life." 1SM 296. Here we see "the property of God (singular)" but mentioned "the Word (God) who was with God (Father)." Singular God but two persons. It plainly puts Jesus into equality with the Father as God and have equal life as God. This imortality was and is "in Him." No one gave it to Him because IT'S HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY AS GOD.

Then it goes on to say that "Physical life is something which each individual receives." If we continue, even immortal "life is not inherent in man...it is GIVEN him as a free gift." Both physical life and immortal life are given to man. Remember that Ellen is contrasting our life and the life of Jesus here. Man's life is given. "But the life of Christ was unborrowed...In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived." Basically, if the life of man is "given," then the life of Jesus is "not given." Very clear contrast.
Why would Ellen White say that man's life is given and contrast it with the unborrowed and underived life of Jesus when in reality she was also teaching that Jesus recieved His from the Father? That's a blatant contradiction.

They also argue that Jesus inherited His divinity from the Father by virtue of birth. Just like our children inherit our nature by birth. But the question is, when you recieved your life from your parents, does it become your original, unborrowed and underived life? Our life is inherited. But the life of Jesus is inherent in Him in contrast to ours. To inherit means to recieve it by inheritance or by genetic transmission. But inherent doesn't include any of that. It means it's your permanent nature. It's your essence. No one gave it to you.