My mistake, Sorry.
I do believe that there is some sleight of hand on your part, Gustave. The reason being that when you get "cornered" you bring up another issue r/t Arianism. Originally, the issue was EGW's anti Trinity statements regarding Christ's relation to the Father. You never produced a single statement. Coincidentally, 3 SDA scholars have affirmed that no such statement exists.
Since you couldn't produce a statement or admit there wasn't such a statement, you moved to another issue, i.e., Christ being capable of vice/virtue. That's hardly a legitimate issue, since it is not mentioned in the Nicene creed or the Athanasian creed. Now you want to move into the matter of anthropomorphology, the identity of Michael, and other matters that are possibly corollaries but not the central issue. The central issue is really, what the terms begotten and firstborn mean. You have admitted that Canright's anti trinity article can not legitimately be imputed to EGW. I commend you for that.
The Bible clearly states, in more than one place, that Jesus became the Son of God by decree. Since he became the son of God, He couldn't have always been the Son. Sonship implies the right of inheritance, which was accorded to Christ upon his resurrection and coronation as high priest.
As for affirming any creed, can't do that. It's just a way of moving people away from the authority of Scripture to the doctrines of men. What I believe about Christ is what is recorded in Hebrews chapter 1 and a few other places, such as Colossians 2:9,10. Interestingly, I hold the same view of this matter as Calvin, although I didn't learn it from him.