In his article, The Pre-Existence of Christ White says,
“Finally, in 1:18(9), John seals the case by calling Jesus the “only-begotten God,” or, more accurately, the “unique God”(10) who reveals the Father, who “exegetes”(11) God to man.” http://vintage.aomin.org/The_Pre_Existence_of_Christ.html#10
You will notice that there is not a single mention of the eternal sonship or eternal generation of the Son in this entire article. You want to know why? Because he doesn’t believe it.
In our quotation we see endnote: (10). If you reference the endnote you will read, “10) For the true meaning of monogenes see J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1935) pp. 416-417.”
This can be read here at archives.org
In this work we read monogenes, “is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), *******not ‘only-begotten********,’ which would be [monogennetos] (unigenitus)…and is so applied in a special sense to Christ in Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 Jn 4:9, where the emphasis is on the thought that, as the ‘only’ Son of God, he has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father.”
Dr. Gordon Clark refuted this use of the word “monogenes” in his The Trinity but David Waltz’s article The Eternal Generation of the Son refutes White’s heretical and nonsensical interpretation of the word “monogenes” in much greater detail. Folks, if monogenes meant “one of a kind”, then the Son could not be consubstantial with the Father. He would be of a different kind. And get this: these people actually accuse my position of Arianism! What a laugh!