HALF THE STORY

WHY COVENANT SONSHIP RESTS ON ONTOLOGICAL SONSHIP

A Pre-publication Review of Ty Gibson’s ‘The Sonship of Christ’ through a series of emails and a prequel to ‘Trialogue’

By Brendan Valiant Introduction This document is not intended for widespread circulation. I am making it available only on request as people have learned about it through the Trialogue video. However, in case this does get shared, some context is appropriate to fully appreciate this document. This document contains a series of emails with Ty Gibson prior to the publication of his book “The Sonship of Christ: Exploring the Covenant Identity of God and Man”. The introduction was made by our mutual friend and colleague in Christ, David Asscherick in 2018. Ty had before that time only presented his manuscript to favourable reviewers, those who already agreed with him on the subject matter. It was an opportunity for him to have a truly objective appraisal of the content and he welcomed it. Through this process, a respect and friendship between Ty and myself was forged. Word about this review process got out to the editors of Adventist Review TV (ARTV) who asked if they could make a documentary of our discussions as part of their “Deeper” series. This culminated in mid- 2018 and was titled “Trialogue” and can be found at the link below: https://www.artvnow.com/digging-deeper/season:1/videos/trialogue-v4 The content in this review only constitutes one side of an interaction. It can only be complete when reading Ty Gibson’s book. The manuscript I was reviewing was an earlier copy than the final version. Two chapters which I didn’t review didn’t make that final copy. These chapters were on Adventist History and the views of Ellen White. They have now been included in a new forthcoming manuscript by Ty that deals more with the trinity as a sequel to this book. I have reviewed those and will make that document available to people who request it at an appropriate time. To get the best appreciation, this series of reviews should be read in conjunction with Ty’s book so that you can hear both sides of the interaction. This book is available in various formats from the following link: https://thesonshipofchrist.com/ Before this review and the ARTV documentary, I had been seeking to rejoin the SDA Church for over 10 years. It was not so much my views or my notoriety that was preventing my rejoining, but my association with the non-trinitarian label. I had never liked the term “non-trinitarian” and had never associated with the more extreme version “anti-trinitarian”. I had used “non-trinitarian” more as a default than because it was an accurate label. The problem with this label is it is a negative definition. It is being known for what you are NOT. It also casts too wide a net. Atheists are non- trinitarian. Muslims are non-trinitarian. Spiritualists are non-trinitarian. So it never really an appropriate title. Many use the term “Father-Son believers”. This has some value, but it tends to be used to mean “non-trinitarian” anyway. Trinitarians of all sorts believe in the “Father” and “Son” in some way, and so it can be confusing. I will still be happy to use this term, but I have completely rejected the term “non-trinitarian” and now choose the more bridge-building term “Triotarian”, derived from Ellen White’s phrase grouping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - “heavenly trio”. I am also happy to use the term “trinity” to describe my view, though my view is a qualified form of “economic trinitarianism” as you will see in this document. Since I have renounced the term “non-trinitarian” and embraced more inclusive language, the final barriers to my rejoining the SDA Church disappeared. I joined the Church once more in early 2019 under profession of faith, some 14 years after I had withdrawn my membership through zeal without knowledge. The reason this was a barrier is because the Church uses the term “trinity” in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (28FB). It is difficult for the Church to understand and accept that someone would want to be a member while holding to a label that outright rejects these beliefs. The 28FB are not a creed. The Preamble states this clearly. They are more a Public Relations statement – a way of presenting a summary to the world. If someone in antagonistic to this statement of beliefs, they are often removed from Church membership not so much because they have opposing beliefs, but because they have an opposing attitude. It isn’t WHAT they believe, but more HOW they express their beliefs. The more I have spoken to pastors and theologians in the Church, the more they have expressed respect for my positions and openness to listen to me. This is because I am not seen as an opponent, but someone who wants to build up and edify the Church. I am now welcomed to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the nature and character of God within the Church. Another thing I have found, not a single person I have spoken to in the Church, if they had the individual task of writing up a statement of beliefs for the Church, would come up with what appears in the 28FB. Everyone I have spoken to has said they would prefer to emphasise certain things not emphasised or loosen language that is too strong. Yet they all submit in humility to an imperfect statement because it is the only way to move forward in a corporate sense. This is what is lacking by those who leave the Church over whatever reason – humility. There is an attitude that if the Fundamental Beliefs are not expressed in terms that THEY insist upon, then they are not having a bar of it. Preambles to documents are the most important part. They outline the intent, meaning and application of the document. The Preamble to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs states this: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. Notice several things here: First, the idea that the 28FB are a creed is outright rejected in this opening statement. Next, these statements of beliefs are a corporate document, not one individual opinion, meaning they require a degree of humility on the part of all Church members as to wording. Further, they “constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture”. Since the Bible is the “only creed” of Seventh-day Adventists, the implication is that all are to read and interpret the 28FB through the lens of how they read Scripture, not the other way around! Finally, these 28FB are not set in stone – they can be revised by the corporate church and acknowledge that a “fuller understanding” or “better language” may come through the leading of the Holy Spirit in the future. We saw that happen only in 2015! The irony I find, looking back, is that it was I who was treating the 28FB like a creed. This goes for all non-trinitarians I have spoken to. I was the one treating the wording of this statement like it was set in stone and had to be understood the way someone else intended. It wasn’t until I really comprehended the Preamble that I was able to accept with humility wording I wouldn’t personally choose and then read that wording in the light of the Scripture, letting Scripture define it, rather than other people’s understanding. Thus when I read in the 2nd statement “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.” I can either choose to anticipate how someone else reads this, or I can find a Scriptural way to understand it. Now I do the latter. The Bible uses “God” in both a quantitative way (referring to God the Father) and a qualitative way (referring to the essence of divinity shared by Father, Son and Holy Spirit). So when I read “one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, I can freely understand this as one qualitative essence of divinity. When I read “a unity of three coeternal Persons”, I can choose to understand “eternal” in the Hebrew sense of “olam” – unmeasured duration – and “Persons” in the economic sense that Ellen White uses the term. I am acting within the spirit and intent of the 28FB as set forth in the Preamble. By choosing to now call myself a “Triotarian” or an “economic trinitarian” I am emphasising the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is important to the Church. This opens doors to constructive conversation and allows me to work hand-in-hand with people I never would have had the opportunity to do so with. My great hope is that others who have felt they had no option for belonging than to consider themselves “non-trinitarians” would find the humility of not insisting on everything being according to their own demands, such as the wording of the 28FB but look for ways to build bridges rather than walls. The SDA Church needs the contributions of those who hold to a more historic view of the heavenly trio. Getting caught up over the “letter” of the 28FB is the wrong battle to fight. All it does is deprive the Church of our voices as we openly defy presenting a united front to the world. The “trinity” is not a settled matter in Seventh-day Adventism. There are numerous understandings of the trinity held by leaders in the Church and in time, this will be something that gets further discussed. My prayer is that more and more people on all sides would follow the spirit and example forged by David, Ty and myself in these emails and in the Trialogue video. God is working more within the SDA Church than He can possibly work within the fragmented factions of antitrinitarianism/nontrinitarianism. I spent over a decade within that so called “movement”. It isn’t going anywhere. There is far more infighting between different leaders/pockets of that movement than within the SDA Church. I have witnessed groups kick out members, anathematise opponents… my wife and I were even dragged out of a meeting because we were not welcome. Very little true evangelism takes place. Most effort is in preaching to the choir and seeking to persuade trinitarians to leave the Church and join them. Leaders within the movement live and travel around the world paid for by the tithe-pool they manage to carve out within their faction. Cult of personality tends to be more important than conviction of principle. Separation breeds separation. People who have divorced once are far more likely to experience subsequent divorces in future marriages. That is because they have created a precedent of running away from difficult interpersonal relationships. The same thing is true of separation movements. Once you separate over a difference of belief or expression of belief, you have laid the groundwork for repeating that process. You deny yourself the sanctifying influence of a community of faith that can balance out individualistic tendencies that can go to extremes. You also rob the wider community of any genuine insights, talents, gifts and effort you might have that can promote growth and maturity of the Body. The process of separation leads to smaller and smaller communities, until you are surrounded by people who only look at things in one way and strong personalities often take the lead and introduce stranger and stranger ideas. It’s no accident that this has manifested within antitrinitarian and nontrinitarian circles. All manner of ideas can be found among these groups. Some teach a flat earth and a geocentric cosmology. Some teach babies are born without the need of a Saviour. Some teach that God never kills and thus reinterpret copious Biblical texts (it was one of these groups that teach a non-violent God that ironically assaulted my wife and I and dragged us from their meeting place just for turning up). Some teach that you must keep the Feast days (and among those that do, they have various ways of calculating the timing of the Feasts!) while others teach that keeping them is an insult to God. Some teach a dispensational view of the Covenants. Some openly deny Ellen White’s inspiration (at least where it disagrees with their “new light”). Even on the nature of God there are many variations. Most hold a view of the Holy Spirit that is pantheistic. Some teach that Jesus gave up divinity during the incarnation while others teach that He was omniscient during the incarnation. Some teach that Jesus did not die the second death. Some have begun tearing out parts of the Bible, teaching that Matthew 28:19 is not genuine. If there was ever a group that appropriately fit the meaning of the term “Babylon” it would be the disparate and divided antitrinitarian and non-trinitarian “movement”. In truth, it is not a “movement” but a cacophony of voices with no hope of unity as most of the “leaders” (grifters?) of the various factions scramble to appropriate what little tithe is by convincing people to join THEIR version. There needs to be another way, and it is my hope and prayer that more people will rejoin the Church and use their influence in a positive, constructive, edifying way while also being open to grow and learn from others. This is the context to keep in mind as you read these emails. In the Blessed Hope Brendan Valiant

Hey Brendan,

This is Ty’s latest book. It’s on the Sonship of Christ. I suggested to him that he should let you read it pre-publication. So, if you got some time in the next week or two, give it a read and let him know what you think. He wants this book to be as strong and persuasive as possible, of course. So giving you an opportunity to scrutinize it is a brave and enviable move. I’ve CCed him on this so you can interact with him directly. Would be happy to be CCed on your feedback.

Best, David

Thanks David, and G'day Ty,

I am honoured to have the opportunity to give feedback before this goes to print. Thank you for thinking of me David and thank you Ty for being open to using me as a sounding board. There is a sense in which this could be a platform for dialogue on the topic and I hope that I can provide a window into how others might view some of these points, without the combative temperament of antitrins and nontrins.

I propose to take the book chapter or section of related chapters at a time and give feedback as I read through, as I will be doing this in between other things on my schedule. I imagine some feedback might be short, other feedback might refer to other resources. Since I've given it the brief once-over, I will here make some opening thoughts about the whole book in light of the opening chapters: "Kids Know Stuff", "Two Identities" and "Reading Scripture On Its Own Terms".

Kids Know Stuff

 First of all (and going "big picture" here), I am in a bit of a unique position having read an earlier draft that seems to reflect the first half of this book's content. That book flowed well. As I have made a quick review of this book, this doesn't seem to be one well-flowing volume. The first half, which deals with sonship, flows excellent and would be a perfect, self-contained study. Where you attempt to segue from Sonship into Trinity is where I feel like I'm reading a completely different book. Not just in content, but in tone and foundation. For example, the first half of this book, which reflects the original book is thoroughly Biblical. There isn't a single Ellen White quotation until page 59 of the pdf. The original book I read only had one quote from Ellen White that stuck out to my memory (there may have been others, but I only remember Letter 83, 1895). Tonally, the shift from this deep dive into the Bible to philosophical and theological imaginings begins as soon as you segue into the section "The Transcendent God". That second half of this book itself seems pieced together and doesn't flow like the first half. It really does reflect what you say in this introduction that the source material is from emails, etc. I just don't know whether your material has been done justice at this point by the way it has been connected. It looks like the last half of the book is an anthology of smaller booklets or first chapters of what could be larger volumes each covering themes such as a philosophical argument for Triunity, the attributes of God, the Character of God, EGW and the Trinity and the Trinity in Adventist history.  I love the title for the book. "Covenant" is something about which I've been studying passionately for a long time, so you had me at hello with this title.  To someone like me, when you say there is a 100,000 word version of the book, I wonder what might be missing. Perhaps you should also make available THAT book in case people are not convinced. I have noticed in my brief perusal that there is a lot of content I would hope to see covered that I believe is important and yet is missing.  It might just be me, but the "all you've been through" paragraph directed at the "Daughters of Eve" appears as if you're attempting to placate a portion of the population overly offended by the "patriarchy". Not sure it's necessary as third-wave feminists are unlikely to be interested in such a topic in the first place.  The introductory note about the little girl's question teases the false dichotomy that I notice is later developed in the section on "The Genius of Three". I will tackle that matter there, but I don't think it is necessarily the "right" question. I would counter with the question of whether you can be a "nice" person before you have ever manifested "niceness". Will develop this more in the appropriate place.

Two Identities

 I wonder whether you might plant the thought about it possibly being a "boring, hairsplitting theological exercise" by asking that question rather than being enthusiastic and passionate about the rewards. I feel like your style has the ability to carry a reader without anticipating these types of objections.  I appreciate the graciousness with which you have reached out to those who might not agree with you, Ty. This is commendable. However, I wonder if you might be using "loaded" words in your description of what "those" believe that can be taken down later. For example, I would not use a term like "derived" given that Ellen White calls Christ's life "underived", simply because it is "loaded". Moreover, I would use the word "eternal" yet mean something different to what you understand it to mean. Therefore I wouldn't deny Christ's "eternal preexistence". This constitutes a subtle strawman, although I don't think you intend it to be so. For the purposes of this section, I would suggest rewording the paragraphs in which you attempt to convey the alternate understanding thusly (see underlined edits): o On the rather compelling premise that Scripture calls Christ, “the Son of God,” various groups have arisen throughout church history insisting that He could not, while bearing a title like that, preexist without beginning together with the God whose “Son” He is. Logic, they insist, precludes a son from chronologically co- existing concurrent with a father. o Naturally, then, to be a “son” suggests a point of origin and a point of beginning. Since Jesus is called God’s “Son,” doesn’t it follow that He must have, in some way, generated from God and therefore had a starting point as a distinct person from the Father?  There is somewhat of a disconnect between your outreach, whereby you encourage openness on the part of your reader and your absolute insistence that the book contains that which is "so obviously the truth". I would hope to see an openness that begets openness. I hope you can see what I mean here.

Reading Scripture on its Own Terms

 I'm totally tracking with you in terms of methodology and how we should read the Bible. Are you open to the idea that to someone such as myself, I might feel that you are doing that which you argue should not be done? I am totally for a wide-angle view of Scripture and I eschew "proof-texting". That said, I think that there is room for finding the shortest path to link together the Biblical evidence to create a narrative. Surely you can admit that when you wax philosophical about how love requires three that you are yourself venturing into that which is not explicitly stated? I think we all need humility in such areas and to test out hypotheses, using Ockham's Razor to cut to the shortest narrative that links the facts.  Spelling error, page 7 "forrest" should be "forest"  I like how you've presented the proof-text battlefield. It truly is like a Biblical civil war where two sides assemble chosen verses to duke it out. I agree that the solution should be holistic and wholistic reading of Scripture. But not just in the big picture narrative, but in the sense that any formulated doctrine MUST be able to account for every Scripture (and for Adventists, every statement from Ellen White). I, personally, have reached a point where I've walked away from proof-text warfare and am more than happy to entertain that as long as someone bases their conceptualisation of the heavenly trio on the totality of the evidence, it doesn't matter if they put the pieces together in a slightly different way, as long as all the pieces are there. I'm not dogmatic that my arrangement of the pieces is infallible and I seek dialogue has transcended the pettiness of debate to where I hope to be comfortable and mature enough to explore someone else's conceptualisation to see if (1) they have any pieces I might be missing, (2) if I have any pieces they might be missing or (3) whether there might be growth, whether personal or mutual, through the interchange of how we arrange these ideas. That is all for now, I have to go to work. I will seek to get to the next few chapters of this in the next couple of days :-) blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Brendan,

Thanks you so much for taking the time to read the manuscript and give feedback. I’ve already made the word changes you’ve suggested.

As you send your feedback, I’ll carefully read what you say and then go back and work through the material to incorporate whatever makes sense to me.

Just so you know my angle on this, I will point out that this book is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject in prooftext fashion. I am intentionally not engaging in a process of systematically working through every Bible verse and every Ellen White quotation in order to make all the pieces fit. That is, in fact, the approach to the topic that has failed, in my opinion. All the piece don’t fit, because the process of revelation is developmental and progressive, not static. Along the way with all the prooftext battles. something hugely significant has been overlooked: the biblical narrative of sonship. I’m operating from the premise that the big picture—the narrative of scripture—answers the issue clearly. For someone to look at the narrative of sonship for what it so obviously says and then deny the narrative by pointing to an Ellen White quote that calls the Holy Spirit an “it” or another one that says Jesus is the “eternal Son,” reveals an intransigence of mind, and I’m not addressing those people. No matter what I interpret this or that Ellen White quote to mean, the narrative of Scripture says what it says. Therefore, any challenging and/or inscrutable quotations take a backseat to the narrative. I've read everything Ellen White says on the matter, and quite frankly she developed considerably over time. Many of our people hold a view of inspiration that forbids them from embracing that reality, but it is reality nonetheless. So we should not feel ourselves bound to any particular quotation or articulation that she offered during the course of her development. It is clear where she landed on the subject—unequivocally Trinitarian. So I don't need to dice and splice all of her statements on the subject.

To my knowledge, nobody has contributed the perspective I'm offering in the first half of the book. Which is to say, nobody to my knowledge has allowed the Old Testament narrative to define the sonship language we find in the New Testament. All of the antitrinitarian Adventist pioneers held their position based on an isolated reading of New Testament passages like John 3:16 and the word “begotten.” To my knowledge, all of the antitrinitarian advocates have followed the pioneer's lead in this regard. And as far as I can see, everyone who has attempted to respond to them, including the seminary scholars at Andrews, have simply fought in the same armor by lining up Bible verses and Ellen White statements and offering micro-interpretations of individual words. It's a complete dead-end discussion, because each side can simply choose which quotations to focus on and how to micromanage individual words. What I'm suggesting is that the narrative of scripture itself (not my special interpretation of verses and words) explains what it means when it says Jesus is God's son, only begotten son, firstborn son, beginning of the creation of God. The story means what it means and it doesn't mean what it doesn't mean, and when we actually read the whole thing, the meaning is obvious. So the first half of the book is, I think, a genuinely new contribution to the debate.

You are correct, the second half of the book does transition, but it does so intentionally and specifically in light of the narrative framework the first half of the book sets up—at least, that is the intent. Why do I find this necessary? Because I think there are some compelling deductive perspectives that contribute to the strength of the biblical narrative, so I am offering those in the Transcendence chapter and in The Genius of Three chapter. I believe they fit, because part of the point of the narrative approach to scripture is that it presents God in temporal terms. So the point needs to be made, to my mind, that God necessarily transcends the father-son categories. They do not constitute either in ultimate or an exhaustive revelation of the divine identity. So the material is vitally connected, at least in my train of thought.

The historical chapters—pioneers and Ellen White—are also relevant to the topic, and I address those aspects, again, with an eye single to the narrative of scripture.

So the material to my mind is connected and flows as a single volume. You may see this when you read the chapters. If not, please let me know.

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to go through the material.

Ty

Happy Sabbath! Thanks for clarifying, Ty. I am better able to appreciate where you're hoping to come from. On an abstract level, I agree with the motivation and desire to come at things from a fresh angle, however, my concerns are only further deepened by considering the implications of the process you are advocating. You say that you are "intentionally not engaging in a process of systematically working through every Bible verse" yet you juxtapose this approach with what you call "the big picture--the narrative of scripture". To me, systematics IS the "big picture" or "narrative of Scripture". If you are intentionally not considering every statement of fact, then your "big picture" may not be the complete or accurate picture.

Now I am sympathetic to some of your points. For example, I accept that there is such a thing as "progressive" revelation. I favour a systematic process whereby the development of revelation is factored in. However, this doesn't take the form of an evolutionary process in terms of the big picture Biblical narrative, but rather the process moves from original knowledge of God, to a loss of knowledge of God, to a rediscovery of that knowledge of God. This has happened cyclically in human history. Thus progressive revelation is really the rediscovery of old truths. Ellen White states this forcefully on several occasions.

I think we are agreed that systematic attempts have largely failed in dealing with this issue. However, that doesn't mean that a systematic process is in error. Rather the fault lies with the man, not the machine. I believe that application has not accurately been made. Now, I might point out, and David can testify to this, that I am far from in alignment with everything antitrins and nontrins say, teach or promote. I believe that all forms of separatism are contrary to the Gospel. I believe that their tunnel vision on this issue does disservice to the Gospel. I shudder at a lot of the things I read coming from these groups. There are some things wherein I hold to views that they haven't even looked at, such as a form of "open theism". All of this is why at David's encouragement I have renounced affiliation with these people, groups and labels. I now am happy to call myself a triotarian which I consider one of the variant versions of "trinitarianism" as there are a few versions of the "trinity" within both Christendom in general and Adventism in particular. This topic doesn't dominate my life, but I am committed, when it comes to discussing this topic, to stand side-by-side with those who I might not agree with and seek a collaborative sharing of ideas while leaving it up to the Holy Spirit to weave the tapestry of unity in the Body.

I agree we shouldn't be "bound to any particular quotation or articulation that she offered" (I would say the same for any specific Bible verse), however I believe that we cannot settle into a position that is incomplete and negates even a single statement. Early in my Christian walk i came across this quote from J. N. Andrews which I believe holds the ideal which we should strive towards, even if we often fall short:

"That view of the subject is certainly the true one which embraces all the testimony, and gives to each part its proper weight and bearing. All ground of controversy ceases to exist, when the just claims of all the contending parties are fairly allowed. Truth is not partial and sectarian. It embraces within itself all the facts that have any bearing upon the subject of inquiry in every case. We have the truth concerning any doctrine of the Bible when we are able to present a divine harmony of all the scripture testimony pertaining to that subject. Why should we not recognize these facts when searching out the testimony relating to the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem? Let us give all the facts recorded in the Bible concerning this subject their proper weight, and then accept the grand result as the truth of God." (J. N. Andrews, The Commandment to Restore and Rebuild Jerusalem, p. 7- 8, 1865)

Now, other considerations have their part in this, such as progressive or developmental revelation. This is part of the "proper weight and bearing". Just because you are not convinced this has been achieved shouldn't let us off the hook in renewing our investigation. At the very least, we should acknowledge that there are multiple attempts to arrive at a consistent, harmonious view on this subject and that so long as all can hold to their individual constructions with equal parts reverence, humility and certain tentativeness to our conclusions.

I keep coming back to my jigsaw puzzle analogy. The doctrine of Deity is a puzzle for which we haven't got the "box" to work from. We have God, but as you have articulated well in your introductory chapters, the Bible was not written as a systematic theology text. Your desire to find a "big picture" would be akin to doing the sides first. However, even if we do all the sides and get them aligned correct, we might have the puzzle upside down or on its side, and we still have to fill in the middle. The more detailed pieces are easiest to fit together. You can arrange colours together before attempting to connect them. We could do the same by looking at Scriptures that deal with the kenosis or with the attributes of God or character of God or the Sonship of Christ. If you've ever done a landscape puzzle with lots of blue sky, I'm sure you'll appreciate how difficult those parts are. This would be like looking at the topic of the Holy Spirit, which we are told has much that could be considered "mystery". At the end of the day, though, the fact that we don't have the "box" for this puzzle depicting how the picture is supposed to look combined with the sheer magnitude of the undertaking, how can we but look at these things with anything less than humility. Not only a humility before God, but an egalitarian humility that allows others to be contemplating the transcendent God within the sphere of their own "progressive" or "developmental" revelation. As long as a person is committed to factoring in every piece of the puzzle and seeking to assemble it to the best of their ability, while allowing for collaborative engagement, I believe there is room for unity. Not unanimity of conclusion, but uniformity of both methodology and commitment to growth.

I fully understand the danger of not being able to see the forest for the trees. This is why I think we need to be bifocal in our Bible study. We need to have an eye on big picture forest, for sure, but we can't neglect the study of the trees to know what TYPE of forest it is. I am concerned that you're in danger of overcompensating to the other extreme here. Each detail we learn from word studies, exegesis, Biblical theology, etc needs to be understood in the scope of the "big picture" systematics, while at the same time the systematic "big picture" needs to remain malleable to new facts or even the upending of our own assumptions on the lower levels. I call this process the "anatomy of the Word made flesh". In the study of anatomy, the human body is broken down into systems of organisation. Study of the cellular level requires different tools than study of the tissue level or the organ level. Yet the understanding of the lower levels of organisation shapes and informs the understanding of the larger levels, especially the big picture organism level. For example, only as recently as last year in October, lymph vessels were proven for the first time to be in the human brain. This is causing a complete revision of how the lymphatic system and nervous systems are viewed in the sense that there is now evidence of an overlap. As a result, our understanding of the human organism is undergoing some change.

Now, in getting down to the business of the next few chapters, I want to state that I can affirm everything you assert about Jesus' incarnational sonship. I just think that you have stacked the deck, choosing only a portion of the pieces of the overall puzzle. Christologically speaking, there are several theories as to when Christ became the "Son of God":

1. Christ was generated from the Father's substance through a process different to and prior to creation thus becoming "Son" 2. Christ was created out of a substance other than the Father and became a metaphorical "Son" (Arianism) 3. Christ is a metaphorical Son in His pre-existence in anticipation of a future reality of becoming a "Son" (see 4 or 6) 4. Christ became a "Son" at the incarnation 5. Christ became a "Son" at the baptism (Adoptionism) 6. Christ became a "Son" at the resurrection/instalment as High Priest

Now, I think we can safely strike numbers 2 and 5 from consideration as these are not held within Adventism by anyone that I am aware of or that is subject to our discussion. Within Adventism, those who are antitrin or nontrin affirm the first of these options, but they do not generally deny the incarnational or resurrection sonships of Christ. As far as the people I have spoken to within trinitarian Adventism, the resurrection sonship of Christ seems to receive the majority of the focus based upon the application of Psalm 2 to the resurrection found in Acts and Hebrews. The incarnational sonship has tended not to receive as much attention. Either way, any reference to a pre-incarnational "sonship" is considered to be metaphorical or anticipatory.

You are not the first to use the sonship of Israel or David or Solomon to make the case that Christ's Own sonship is metaphorical. I've seen this idea in multiple presentations of the subject, though not as well developed as you have presented it here. I have no problem with the metaphor of sonship or firstborn when applied to humanity meaning a Covenantal relationship. But every metaphor relies upon a deeper reality. I'm concerned that you've neglected "big picture" elements such as the pre-earth or immediate post-creation Conflict of the Ages scenes, Proverbs 8, and other essential passages. I'll deal with this as I continue to review your book. At the risk of being seen as overly dogmatic to single statements, I want to present two which I believe reveal a larger picture than what you are presenting in your book. Presenting these here will allow me to just reference the ideas as I continue.

"Christ brought men and women power to overcome. He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried. In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature. In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, 'The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race." (Signs of the Times, August 2, 1905)

If I understand your thesis correctly, then you are making the case that Jesus became the covenantal Son at the incarnation and prior to this, all reference to His sonship anticipated this. If this is the case, then He did not become the Son of God "in a new sense", but in fulfillment of the exact same sense that was already anticipated. While you could try and make a distinction without a difference between the anticipation and the reality, they are still the exact same thing.

"There is but one way of escape for the sinner. There is but one agency whereby he may be cleansed from sin. He must accept the propitiation that has been made by the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. The shed blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. 'For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' 'Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.' A complete offering has been made; for 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,'-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895)

This statement is far more problematic for your thesis. In this statement, Christ's sonship is CONTRASTED with the covenantal sonship of the forgiven sinner. Christ is not merely the example par excellence of covenantal sonship (though I don't deny that He is also this). Christ is God's "Son" in a way that no other being can hold claim to. It is different to that of the way that angels and originally Adam came into covenant relationship with God (creation) and it is different from the way that the redeemed come into covenant relationship with God (adoption). Christ's entry into covenant relationship with God was a completely different process to creation or adoption. We have clear, explicit, evidence that when humanity are said to be "begotten" by God that it is a metaphor ("born of the spirit" = "spiritually born"), yet metaphors only have meaning if there is a reality behind them. Jesus is "only begotten" whereas we are metaphorically begotten. Whether or not you see the word monogenes as meaning "unique" or "only begotten", if Jesus is just as metaphorically the Son of God as anyone else, then He isn't unique in that sonship! If Christ's own sonship, firstbornness, begottenness, heirship, etc is metaphorical, then things fall down. This statement is significant for other reasons. Ellen White was directly echoing and thereby endorsing the Christological presentation of Waggoner from the 1888 sermons as preserved in the book Christ and His Righteousness. This same argument was also popular among the Christian Connexion. I'm attaching a very small study I did of this years ago for you to look at (See Appendix A).

Now we can get to the chapters of your book relating to the Old Testament.

A Prophecy of Progeny

 Really like the point you have made that it is Adam and Eve created in God's image. Only these two.  At the risk of getting into a "chicken and the egg" situation, you state that Adam is "the original 'son of God' who gives meaning to the sonship identity that's woven throughout the rest of the story. I really don't think that you can substantiate that in light of pre-creation scenes in Proverbs 8, Patriarchs and Prophets, Great Controversy, etc. There the idea of sonship happens before Adam's sonship is ever brought to light. See the above thoughts from EGW I highlighted.  Glad you're highlighting the difference between creation and procreation. Two different forms of coming into existence. A lot of people intentionally and deceptively conflate these two things when it comes to falsely charging people who believe in an eternal Sonship with believing Christ was created.  Most of the Fall and Salvation plan point forms I can agree with, but again, it's kind of strange that you intimate that there was a need of "a new 'son of God' to replace Adam". Jesus wasn't a new son of God, He was already the Son of God. He later gained a new sense of that title, but He already held an existing, distinct sense of it prior to that new sense.  It's like 95% of this chapter is amazing Gospel, but the premise-forcing that you're doing by turning the "second Adam" into a "new 'son of God'" is jarring to this Bible student and I think it will be to many others, not just those who might agree with me on some things.  In school, specifically in mathematics, we are taught to show our working so that if there is a question about our final answer, we can retrace our steps and find where we went wrong. I believe that you are starting with a false premise by ignoring the pre-Creation sonship of Christ until later in your book rather than beginning the narrative there. When you say, "Once we have this initial piece of the biblical storyline clearly established in our minds, everything else along the way begins to make sense with profound clarity" I believe you are identifying your opening premise. It isn't that I disagree with the idea of Christ being the replacement Adam, or even a replacement "son of God" in the sense that Adam was a "son of God", for Hebrews says that Christ was incarnated into a human body prepared/made for Him. So I agree with what you affirm, but not with what you deny.

Israel, My Son

 Because of my position that I agree with you but am not seeing the story as limited to what you are presenting, I would change definite articles such as "the grand narrative arc of Scripture" to "a grand narrative arc of Scripture".  I feel you could make a cursory mention of Noah as he also received the same genetic covenant and he was also from the line of the "sons of God".  Does the "firstborn" motif begin with Abraham? Explicitly, yes, but isn't there a sense in which Adam and Eve hoped for the Saviour to be their own firstborn? I think there's at least a hint of this notion way back here. Ellen White also makes comment about Enoch reaching a "higher experience" after the birth of his own "first-born" son. What was it that enabled Enoch to enter a "higher experience"  In a point that I hope to develop later, I contend that Isaac IS the firstborn son of promise. The promise was not made to Abraham alone, but to Abraham and Sarah (Abram and Sarai). Will develop upon this when discussing "only begotten".  I think there's a bit of a leap from Israel being "firstborn" to being "only begotten". I can't see you actually establishing the second of these titles as applicable to the nation of Israel.  Back to what I've said previously about metaphor, I feel like you're missing the point that "firstborn" as a metaphor requires an underlying reality upon which it must be founded. Here are some narratively significant statements:

"The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the First-born of heaven to save the sinner. This gift was to be acknowledged in every household by the consecration of the first-born son. He was to be devoted to the priesthood, as a representative of Christ among men. In the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the dedication of the first-born was again commanded. While the children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, the Lord directed Moses to go to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say, 'Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, even My first-born: and I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born.' Exodus 4:22, 23." (Desire of Ages, p. 51)

In this statement, Ellen White shows that the dedication of the firstborn was from earliest times. I can think of no earlier time than the antediluvian period. She also calls Christ the firstborn of Heaven - a reality upon which the later metaphor was founded.

"The writer of these words plainly shows that Jesus Christ is one with the Father. Christ is called the Word. He is the first-begotten of the Father. By Him God has spoken unto us in these last days." (Ms 111, 1903)

Ellen White here ties John 1:1-4 with Hebrews 1:1-6. Christ's being the "first-begotten of the Father" is the same as Christ being the Word. She goes on to write words later preserved in 9T, after quoting the passage from Hebrews, "God is the Father of Christ; and Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the councils of God are opened unto His Son."

 While you are making much of the Pentateuchal sonship metaphor, I'd like to highlight that Christ's sonship is very clearly outlined in the Pentateuch. When Jacob "adopts" Manasseh and Ephraim, he states, "let my name be named on (in) them" (Genesis 48:16). This is sonship language, and even today and in many cultures, both primitive and advanced, children take the name of their father. So it is interesting that the words spoken of the Angel in Exodus 23 are in the present tense sonship language, "My name is in Him". See, Ty, there is another, parallel narrative that runs through Scripture of a unique sonship belonging only to One Being.  Also, the Fatherhood of God is implied prior to Deuteronomy when the Bible speaks of "sons of God" in Genesis 6. As you've pointed out, Luke retroactively applies the label "son of God" to Adam. Thus the Fatherhood of God is not introduced in Deuteronomy, but repeated.

David, My Son

 Again, no problem with the metaphor of "begotten", "son" or "firstborn" applied to David. However, I feel you're again using the "bait and switch" by insisting that this is the "origin of the terminology" after specifically referencing "only begotten son".  I feel that you're only getting, and therefore giving, half the picture when speaking of these two Psalms. You acknowledge that these apply both to David and to the Messiah. I would actually contend that Psalm 2 is a coronation Psalm and thus would apply to any of those who ascended the throne after David (in ideal, not in reality). Now it can apply to all of us who are "kings and priests to God". That said, it is the Messianic part where I feel part of the narrative is lacking. I want to look specifically at Psalm 2 as its structure and narrative are very important to showing the parallel narrative I have been talking about. Firstly, and most obviously, the entire psalm is composed with parallelism both synonymous (mostly) and antithetical, with the exception of one narrative line in the middle - "I will tell of the decree". Here is the arrangement:

Why do the nations rage ______and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, ______and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD ______and against his Anointed, saying, "Let us burst their bonds apart ______and cast away their cords from us."

He who sits in the heavens laughs; ______the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, ______and terrify them in his fury, saying, "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, ______my holy hill."

I will tell of the decree:

The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; ______today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, ______and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron ______and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Now therefore, O kings, be wise; ______be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, ______and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, ______and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. ______Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

You will also notice that the psalm contains four stanzas, each consisting of three verses. The first and last stanza contain 4 parallels, while the middle two contain only three parallels. Finally, there is a chiastic structure to the Psalm. The simplest way of considering the chiastic structure is this. Stanzas one and four deal with things on Earth, while stanzas two and three deal with things in Heaven. A more technical way of seeing the chiasm is this:

__A1-Heathen Rage (verse 1) ____A2-Acts of disobedience (verses 2 &3)

______B1-God Judges (verses 4 & 5) ______B2-God Sets Son (verse 6) ______B2'-Son quotes God (verse 7) ______B1'-Son Judges (verses 8 & 9)

__A1'-Heathen Learn (verse 10) ____A2'-Acts of Obedience (verses 11 & 12)

There are many linguistic connections and wordplays to substantiate this chiastic structure, for more information read 'Chiastic Psalms: A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 1-50' By Robert L. Alden in Journal of the Evangelical Society (JETS), Volume 17, pp. 11-28, with discussion of Psalm 2 on pages 14-15.

What we see then, from a linguistic structural analysis is that this royal coronation psalm speaks both of things on Earth and things in Heaven. This psalm was written by David (see Acts 4:25), and yet David, the first king of Judah, reaches backwards and upwards to establish the act of coronation in the past. It is true that the application must be "metaphorical" when applied to earthly kings, when it comes to terms such as sonship or begetting. However, there are clear indications that the coronation of earthly kings is a shadow of a prior heavenly reality.

The central point of the psalm and the only narrative portion states, "I will tell of the decree". This statement involves a repetition of a prior decree. In fact, according to the literary structure of the Psalm, this original decree takes place in Heaven, with that reality forming the basis for earthly coronations. Thus, a metaphorical application to Davidic kings as "sons" or "begotten" does not rule out a literal reality in Heaven. In fact, the Psalm appears to be arguing the Davidic metaphor on the very basis of a literal reality! The further you go back towards the beginning of the world, the more can be seen the importance of literal sonship, especially in the role of the firstborn. The firstborn took the role of heir to the family and priesthood. Only later did the role of the firstborn pass to such as the Levites or the Davidic line. At this time, the ideas of "son" "begotten" and "firstborn" became metaphoric, yet they were based on a prior reality.

Proverbs 8:22-31 and Psalm 2 share several connections. Firstly, there is the idea of anointing in Psalm 2:2 and Proverbs 8:23. While it isn't the same word, they are synonyms. Again, synonyms are used for begetting, in Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 8:24-25. Sonship language is used through both passages. If there was any historical reality which formed the basis of Psalm 2, it would be the one outlined in Proverbs 8.

 This dual imagery of sonship and anointing is likewise found in Psalm 89, thus tying those metaphors to the historical reality presented in Proverbs 8.

Solomon, My Son

 Spelling error, "He is my some" should be "he is my son".  You throw away the line that "God's character is incompatible with war" here. Having perused the book, I know there's a chapter on this, but I want to point out for now that God commands warfare at times and Moses called God "a Man-of-war" or to convert it idiomatically as a "Warrior".  Not much more to add in this chapter as I already agree with the covenant sense of sonship for both humanity and Christ, I just don't believe that this sense exhausts the meaning of "Son" when applied to Christ.

Covenant Identity

 Love the thoughts here about the importance of the Covenant motif in general.  I would perhaps clarify "omni-directional love" to "outflowing omni-directional love". The only direction that Covenant love doesn't flow is inward.  Will deal with the philosophical interpretation of "God is Love" in the specific chapter relating to it. Agree with God's covenant identity being love though.  Agree with the "Covenant of Creation" though I do see more to this than what you might see.  These words in "Covenant of Peace" appear very much to intimate that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are roles that could have been interchanged between the "three members of the Godhead". To my reading of Scripture, the counsel of peace was between "both", not "three". I'm aware of Ellen White's statement about the "Godhead... gave themselves", yet there is never any depiction of the Holy Spirit together with Father and Son as parts of this counsel/council/covenant in the myriad references. Will deal with that proof-text later.  Question, was God in empathetic solidarity with humanity before Christ became human? I'm curious because I don't see the incarnation as something God needed to do to become empathetic but to SHOW empathy. Isaiah 63:9 indicates that "in all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence saved them".  Again this "Covenant Son" section seems to shoehorn all of Christ's sonship into the incarnation, saying that He was "entering the world as the Son of God in Adam's lineage." I don't have a problem with the words, because I agree with that narrative... This book would be useful to all if it affirmed this without denying the other narrative (or even better if it showed how the covenantal sonship sits atop the reality of divine ontological sonship).  I'm wondering if you were trying to force the number of categories to be 7. To my mind, the "Covenant Community" is not different to the "Covenant People". The Church was grafted into Israel and IS Israel.  "If we understand this single idea, we understand the basic internal logic of the entire Bible. Every promise and prophecy, every story and song, every poem and parable of the book serves this grand narrative arc." Does it? I am at a loss to see how the following narrative can fit a post-incarnation only sonship superimposition:

"Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, 'He is in close converse with his Father.' The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see his person; and his countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that he had been pleading with his Father, and had obtained his consent to give his life a ransom, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon himself to open a way that man might find pardon for transgressing God's command; that man, by taking hold of the merits of Christ's blood, could find pardon for past transgressions, keep God's law, and by their obedience be brought back to the garden from which our first parents were driven, and again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life that Adam and Eve forfeited all right to. Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sung a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sung a note higher than they had done before, for the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up his dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels, and praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus; that he would consent to leave the bosom of his Father, and choose a life of suffering and anguish, and die an ignominious death to give life to others. Said the angel, 'Think ye that the Father yielded up his dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.' It was even a struggle with the God of heaven whether to let guilty man perish, or to give his darling Son to die for them. Angels were so interested for man's salvation that there could be found among them those who would yield their glory and give their life for perishing man. But, said my accompanying angel, 'That would avail nothing.' The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercessions of his Son would pay the debt, and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery." (Experience and Views, pp. 47-48)

That will be enough for now as Sabbath draws to a close and I need to go to work as soon as we close Sabbath here. I had not thought to write as much, but I wanted to interact with your clarifications and give you adequate reasons for my questions. I hope I've been clearer on the methodological concerns I have. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Haha, complete breakdown of communication here. Sorry man, my bad. In my haste, I did not communicate clearly.

When I said the book will not systematically work through every Bible verse and Ellen White quote, I did not mean that I am "intentionally not considering every statement of fact,” nor that "a systematic process is in error.” Of course I'm “considering” everything written on the subject in both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. But, as I said, "this book is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject in prooftext fashion.”

I'm looking forward to examining in detail all the points you make below. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. While I cannot see my way clear to accept that God, apart from and before creation, entails an eternal ontological reality of fatherhood and sonship, I am greatly benefited by hearing the reasons you offer in support of the proposal. I am edified. As you continue reading the manuscript, you will encounter my reasons for finding the idea untenable, as well as what I think is taking place prior to the incarnation.

Peace!

Ty

Ahhh, ok, thank you for the clarification. That does alleviate many of my concerns that you did consider everything that you have in front of you. That's why in my first email I said I'd love to read "that book", the one that you cut down to make this one.

Again, I can understand that space constraints can lead to hard choices on what to include or not include. When David initially reached out he said you want the book to be as strong and persuasive as possible. It might surprise you to hear that I share this wish. I believe that it is in the best interest for all viewpoints to put forth their most persuasive ideas as I'm what you would call a philosophical and intellectual libertarian capitalist. I believe that all positions deserve the chance to put their best case forward in a free marketplace of ideas. I just cannot see how your book is not setting itself up for rebuttal by not including the statements that others find so powerful. For your continued edification, I will continue to highlight some of these statements without which I believe you may fall short of being as persuasive as you hope.

I think that we invest too much time in worrying about conclusions and in our choice of words embedding ourselves in entrenched positions. When you say, " I cannot see my way clear to accept that God, apart from and before creation, entails an eternal ontological reality of fatherhood and sonship", I'm fine with that. I would say a similar thing, but with a crucial thought included. I try to intentionally leave an open door on subjects and would probably say that I cannot yet see my way clear to ignore an eternal ontological reality of fatherhood and sonship apart from and before creation. As much as I might think I've arrived on any topic in which I've invested large amounts of time in studying, if history has taught us anything it is that people can make false calculations in their initial premises which may not be substantiated. I need to consciously be open to this and I sense a kinship on this in your willingness to open your book for critique.

Based on what I suspect the words mean to you, I probably wouldn't see my way clear to accept that God, apart from and before creation, entails an eternal ontological reality of fatherhood and sonship. However, I would ask that you put the battle over end conclusions on stasis whenever considering individual points. I do believe that most trinitarians make unwitting assumptions when they think of words like "God", "eternal", etc. Based on the definitions behind these things, I see how they preclude what I hold. But I know that you hold to a form of open theism. This means that on some level you've wrestled with the classic theistic meaning of "omniscience" and found that there are assumptions that unsupported by revelation. It is when we (to return to the mathematical analogy) "show our working" that these things become apparent. I'll do my best to show my working in my responsive reading of your book as you have made transparent your working.

I will give a few days before I get to the next chapter reviews so you can digest the points already made. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

I like you. I sure hope I get the opportunity to meet you face-to-face and converse sometime in the future. I’ve always wanted to meet a "philosophical and intellectual libertarian capitalist.” I’m a rational-relational existential realist. Things are usually exactly what they appear to be, unless they’re not.

I'm taking all your concerns and cautions onboard and pondering them very carefully.

The respect and affection is mutual. We have met briefly, when I asked if you would convey some 3D models to James Rafferty to use in his prophecy series and again when I dropped the box off for you. Thank you for doing that, by the way.

I love your chosen nomenclature. I actually came up with my description on the fly. Like Sherlock Holmes (consulting detective), I have an affinity for coining self-applicable appellations where existing terms fail. I generally call my field of specialty "Bible Forensics" because I have spent a lot of time applying the principles of scientific methodology to the study of the Scripture. I see a lot of teaching of what to think out there in the world, I believe that it is more important to teach people how to think.

Will send the next batch of chapter thoughts in the next few days.

blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

I didn't expect to write as much as I have below... but I know that nontrins and antitrins are terrible at presenting their positions so I thought I would just present the complementary, parallel narrative alongside my reading of your book as if you had never seen what I have to present. In some instances, I'm certain this would be new as I haven't seen many people take up on it.

The Grand Reenactment

 "Christ passed over the same experiential ground Israel traversed, but He was true to the covenant in place of Israel’s failure." This nugget is the best thing I've read in a while! Love it!  Sorry to be picky, but Jesus is the modern English transliteration of the Greek Iesous which is the transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua... to say that Jesus is the Greek equivalent to Joshua when Joshua itself is an English transliteration... Gah... I'll let it pass.  There are only nine beatitudes. Ivor Myers parallels the nine beatitudes to the nine blessings pronounced on Mount Gerizim in Deuteronomy as opposed to the cursings pronounced on Mount Ebal.  Also was the Sermon on the Mount given at the Mount of Olives? I don't think this mountain is ever identified, and I'm sure I've never heard it equated with Olivet.  Spelling error - "ever people group" should be "every people group"  I love this chapter so much and it should be read and studied by all who seek to understand Covenant better. It is sad that it is diminished by the last statement "This, then, is the sense in which the New Testament calls Jesus, 'the Son of God.'" I have already addressed how there is more than one "sense" in which Jesus is the Son of God and I feel like points like this will cause people who are aware of such statements to lose sight of the weightier Gospel presentation you have made because of this unfounded and superfluous conclusion.

Matthew's Gospel--Son of David, Son of Abraham

 In the discussion of Jesus' lineage, it might be important to note that "David" means "Beloved" and "Abraham" means "Father of many". Therefore, the highlighting of these two names in that opening verse is a highlighting of Christ's character as the "Beloved" Son of the "Father of many". This strengthen's the case you're making.  Fully concur with disdain for chapter/verse headings... also dislike the arbitrary ordering of the books, especially of the NT. I would prefer Mark to be first, Paul's letters to be in chronological order as best we can ascertain and John's gospel to be at the end with his epistles and Revelation.  "The Son of God, the Son of David - same difference for Matthew, because he knows his Hebrew Bible." These sorts of statements have not been established.  Loving this chapter... I think you'd appreciate the paper "Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthew" by Peter J. Leihart.  Spelling error - In the last paragraph, unless you are suggesting Jesus was a cancer specialist you might want to change "oncological" to "ontological". (I'm sure Jesus IS a cancer specialist though).  I think here is as good a place as any to point out something about the "Son of God" motif. You say " Jesus is the Son of God is the sense that He fulfilled the entire narrative plot line of the Old Testament by successfully living out the purpose God had for humanity all along. This. Is. The. Point. Of. The. Bible." You go on to say " It is evident, then, and will become increasingly more evident as we proceed, that when the New Testament writers call Jesus “the Son of God,” they are not trying to tell us anything about His oncological origins (FOOTNOTE). They are not attempting to inform us about His metaphysical nature (FOOTNOTE). They are not aiming to educate us regarding how He came into existence way back in eternity past. Rather, they are telling us that Jesus is the son of promise in the Abrahamic, Davidic lineage. According to Matthew, Jesus is “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” and as such He is the long-awaited Son of God who would be true to the covenant."

I get what you are saying and again, I affirm that Jesus IS the Son in this sense. However, there are a few things you've not brought out that are typical of the synoptists. First of all, the concept of a "Son of God" was not new to the first century Jews. While post second- temple Judaism has sought to scrub any evidence that the Jews believed in a "Son of God" (with other cover-ups such as moving Daniel from the prophets to the writings, erasing time so that the 70 weeks don't point to Jesus and pronouncing a curse upon those who seek to calculate the time period), this was apparently taken for granted as reflected in the gospels. There the "Son of God" is referenced matter of factly by:

o Angels - (Luke 1:32) o Satan - (Matthew 4:3; 4:6) o Demons - (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11) o Disciples - (Matthew 14:33; John 6:69) o Peter - (Matthew 16:16) o Nathanael - (John 1:51) o Healed blind man - (John 9:35) o Martha - (John 11:27) o High Priest - (Matthew 26:63) o Chief Priests - (John 19:7) o Hecklers - (Matthew 27:40) o Centurion (probably from overhearing the hecklers - (Matthew 27:54)

These references show that there was no controversy over an entity known as the "Son of God". It was used without qualification or controversy by enemies and supporters of Jesus. When it was asked by the High Priest, "are you... the Son of God", there was no question that such a Person existed in the Hebrew mind. In fact, the term "Son of God" can be seen to be paralleled to "Christ" on numerous occasions (High Priest, Martha, Peter) and "King of Israel" on one occasion (Nathanael). Where did the first century, pre-cover-up Jews get the idea of a Divine "Son of God"? How about the following places: o Genesis 1:26 - God is speaking to Someone already in His image when He says "Let Us make man in Our image". They subsequently create two individuals. o Genesis 3:8 - Immediately after the fall a Person known as "the Voice of the LORD GOD" appears. This entity is present at all subsequent theophanies under the guise of "Angel of the LORD", "Word of the LORD", Arm of the LORD", Hand of the LORD", etc. and speaks for God but as equal with God. o Genesis 19:24 - Two YHWHs are in this text - one in Heaven, the other on earth. o Genesis 22 - Abraham is ordered to sacrifice Isaac. This is a significant narrative that is picked up on in the New Testament where Jesus said that the Gospel was preached to Abraham and that Abraham saw His day and was glad. o Exodus 3 - The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush and tells Moses that His name is "I Am that I Am" and tells him to remove his shoes for the places is holy ground. o Exodus 23:20-23 - The Divine Angel that has appeared throughout Genesis and Exodus is referenced with the sonship language "My name is in Him" and has power of forgiveness or condemnation. o Joshua 5:13-15 - The same Person is now called Captain of the LORD's host. o Judges 6 - The Angel of the Lord receives an offering from Gideon. o Judges 13 - The Angel of the Lord receives worship, says His name is "Wonderful" o Psalm 2 - Israelite coronation rests upon a reality of an Anointed One Who is a Son of God, Begotten. o Psalm 45 - Two God's are spoken of, one is the God of the other. This Psalm in the LXX also indicates that a "Word" comes out of the "Heart". o Psalm 89 - These same threads are woven as in Psalm 2. o Psalm 110:1 - Two divine Personages in view on Throne, one a High Priest. o Proverbs 8:22-31 - The veil is drawn back upon a Person hypostasised as the Wisdom of God Who was begotten and anointed prior to the creation of the world, was a Partner in creation and mediator with creation. This passage serves as a backdrop for John 1:1- 18. o Proverbs 30:4 - The Creator and His "Son" are referenced once again. This passage is alluded to in John 3:11. o Isaiah 9:6 - Prophecy of a Son Who would be given with titles such as "Wonderful Counsellor", "Mighty God", "Everlasting Father", "Prince of Peace". o Isaiah 40 onwards - Titles include "Arm of the LORD", "Servant of the LORD", etc. o Daniel 3:25 - Nebuchadnezzar sees the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace. Ellen White's comments make it certain that it is "Son of God" not "son of the gods" and that Daniel and his companions knew and taught about the Son of God. o Daniel 7:13-14 - Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days to judge o Daniel 9:25 - "Messiah" the "Prince" o Micah 5:2 - Person Whose Origin is from Everlasting o Zechariah 3 - Angel of the LORD rebukes Satan in name of YHWH o Zechariah 6:12-13 - Counsel of Peace between "Both" o Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 - Though this is apocryphal, this passage contains a similar hypostasisation of Wisdom as found in Proverbs 8 and which contains phrases that seem to, along with Proverbs 8, form the basis of the prologue of Hebrews.

These evidences are only the most explicit. There are many other more implicit evidences of Two divine Individuals, One the Son of the First in the Old Testament such that the first century Jews understood that

1. God had a Son 2. That Son was a Divine Being equal with God.

This is clearly seen in the Johannine conflict narratives

John 5:16-18 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

This exchange sets the scene for the later conflict narratives. Jesus' words in verse 17 are hugely significant. The Jews understood that only God can work on the Sabbath (upholding all things) and Jesus was equating His work with that of the Father. He was claiming God as His Father in a way that was distinct from what they might later claim in chapter 8. They weren't confused by what Jesus was implying. They knew exactly what this meant because they knew God to have a Son that was a divine Personage. They knew this from the Scriptures already presented above.

John 7:25-36 - "Then said some of them of Jerusalem, 'Is not this He, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, He speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto Him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this Man whence He is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is." Then cried Jesus in the temple as He taught, saying, 'Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not. But I know Him: for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, 'When Christ cometh, will He do more miracles than these which this Man hath done?' The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning Him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take Him. Then said Jesus unto them, 'Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto Him that sent Me. Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find Me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.' Then said the Jews among themselves, 'Whither will He go, that we shall not find Him? will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that He said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?'"

In this passage, it is clear that there was a first century expectation that "the very Christ" would be Someone divine. They weren't confused over the existence of such a Person, but by the fact that Jesus seemed to them only a man, Whose earthly origin was known, and yet Whose actions were of divine origin.

John 8:12-59 - "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, 'I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.' The Pharisees therefore said unto Him, ‘Thou bearest record of Thyself; Thy record is not true.' Jesus answered and said unto them, 'Though I bear record of Myself, yet My record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, My judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.' Then said they unto Him, 'Where is Thy Father?' Jesus answered, 'Ye neither know Me, nor My Father: if ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also.' These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. Then said Jesus again unto them, 'I go My way, and ye shall seek Me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.' Then said the Jews, 'Will he kill Himself? because He saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.' And He said unto them, 'Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, 'Who art Thou?' And Jesus saith unto them, 'Even the Same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but He that sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him. They understood not that He spake to them of the Father. Then said Jesus unto them, 'When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things. And He that sent Me is with Me: the Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him. As He spake these words, many believed on Him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, 'If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, 'We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest Thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.' They answered and said unto Him, 'Abraham is our father.' Jesus saith unto them, 'If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill Me, a Man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father.' Then said they to Him, 'We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.' Jesus said unto them, 'If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye not understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not. Which of you convinceth Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.' Then answered the Jews, and said unto Him, 'Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?' Jesus answered, 'I have not a devil; but I honour My Father, and ye do dishonour Me. And I seek not Mine Own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death.' Then said the Jews unto Him, 'Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and Thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: Whom makest Thou Thyself? ' Jesus answered, 'If I honour Myself, My honour is nothing: it is My Father that honoureth Me; of Whom ye say, that He is your God: Yet ye have not known Him; but I know Him: and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know Him, and keep His saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.' Then said the Jews unto Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.' Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

This exchange is very interesting. The theme is fatherhood. Jesus claims that His Father testifies of Him, yet they didn't understand how His words could be true. He claims in this exchange to have "proceeded forth" from God. Further on in the exchange, though, some of those Pharisees "believed on Him". However, this wasn't a belief that translated to following Christ. They believed like the devil believes. They knew His words made sense, but they didn't humble themselves, for Jesus speaks to the same ones who believe in Him and says that they want to kill Him. Because they perceive Him making great claims about His Own Father, they claim Abraham as their father. Jesus says that they are the children of whom they serve. They then attempt to ridicule Jesus' human birth, intimating that there was something questionable about His birth, and even that for all they know He could be a Samaritan. At every point they are trying to trip Jesus up, but then He declares His supremacy over Abraham by using the divine name "I AM". It is at this point that He has stepped out of ambiguous language and made abundantly clear that He was claiming to be the divine Son of God. Which leads to the next conflict scene.

John 10:22-39 "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about Him, and said unto Him, 'How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.' Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'Many good works have I shewed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. Therefore they sought again to take Him: but He escaped out of their hand."

In this scene it is clear once again that by Jesus saying "I and My Father are one" that Jesus had made Himself equal with God. Jesus did not say He was God, or even that He was the Son of God. Yet Jesus understood His Own words to mean that He was the Son of God and the Jews understood that He was making Himself God. So, we have it that Jesus being "one" with the Father = Jesus being the Son of God (in Jesus mind) = Jesus being God (in the Jews mind). This further strengthens the idea that first century Judaism fully embraced a "Son of God" divine Personage. They knew of Two YHWHs and Two Elohims from the passages already referred to above.

 It is clear from the above that Jesus and the New Testament writers ARE highlighting a deeper sense of sonship than the secondary Covenant sense that you are highlighting. His ontological sonship is real, is rooted in the Old Testament, and provides the basis for His covenantal sonship. We will continue to see this as we progress.

Luke's Gospel--Son of Adam

 If I follow your logic, where it says in Luke 1 that Jesus "will be called" Son of the Highest and "will be called" Son of God that these were titles "conferred" and which Jesus did not have. Leaving aside the fact that Ellen White clearly states that in the incarnation Jesus received a "new sense", this logic is faulty because in Isaiah 9:6 we are told that His name "shall be called" such things as "mighty God". Are you saying that Jesus was not "mighty God" before Bethlehem? Surely not.  Most of what you have in this chapter provides no conflict, for again, there is no clash between us on covenantal sonship.  Matthew focuses on Jesus as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man and John as God. Therefore, Luke's emphasis is naturally going to be on the covenantal second Adamic sonship. So let's move to John.

John's Gospel--Only Begotten Son

 You reduce John 1:1-3 to "God... was... with God". Not that I am arguing with Jesus being God, but being so liberal with ellipses is probably not wise... it sets a dangerous precedent. I also think that it misses the nuance of these verses. The clause "the Word was God" is qualitative. As the NET note for this clause states:

Or "and what God was the Word was." Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god") here. However, Colwell's Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell's Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering "the word was God." From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in Joh_1:1 (i.e., John 1:1c) (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in Joh_1:1 (i.e., John 1:1c), that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English "the Word was divine" (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since "divine" as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation "what God was the Word was" is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by "what God was the Word was" would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation "the Word was fully God" was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which "became flesh and took up residence among us" in Joh_1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, "the Word was with God," shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

Essentially, then, John 1:1-2 uses the word "God" in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense. The Word was with the quantitative "God" and the Word was qualitatively "God". Ellen White essentially says the same thing when she writes, "The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality" (Ms 116, 1905). She clearly sees a distinction between a quantitative and qualitative use of "God".

 Have absolutely no problem with Jesus being "unmade". I just want to emphasise that I have not met anyone personally within the spectrum of Adventist thought that would say that Jesus is part of the "made" category of reality.  You say, after quoting John 1:10-14, "Here, for the first time, Jesus is called, 'the only begotten of the Father.' If we didn’t know the backstory upon which John is drawing, we might conclude that he is attempting to describe how Jesus came into existence sometime back in eternity past. But we know this is not at all what John has in mind. How do we know? Well, because John is drawing this language from the Old Testament, itself, so all we have to do is go back to the Old Testament to discover exactly what it means."

Goody! I was waiting to draw upon the links between the Johannine Gospel prologue (John 1:1-18) and a specific Old Testament passage. Your words here have invited me to do so and so I will happily oblige. Much has been made of the links between John 1:1-3 and the Genesis account. God creates by speaking, Jesus is the Word by which all things are made. Both use the phrase "in the beginning". Seems like a slam dunk and I agree with the connections. But there is another passage which is even more closely linked, both linguistically and thematically to this passage - Proverbs 8!

First of all, a few words about the passage. It has often been stated that this passage is only a "personification" of Wisdom. Proverbs does move from a treatise on wisdom, to a personification of wisdom but by chapter 8 we have moved to a new literary technique. Wisdom that had heretofore been only written "about" begins to speak and we see that Wisdom is a divine Personage. Richard Davidson calls this literary style "hypostasisation". The difference between personification and hypostasisation is this. In personification, an object, place or abstract is spoken of with personal attributes. In hypostasisation, a person is spoken of as if it is an object, place or abstract. For example, we might say of a dull or negative person entering a room "a dark cloud entered the room", or we might say of a person of low intelligence speaking "Ignorance opened his mouth". These are examples of hypostasisation.

Ellen White makes it clear that Jesus Himself is speaking in Proverbs 8 on multiple occasions, however we can see that it is a divine Personage from the very chapter. Note these attributes of Wisdom:

o source of revelation (v. 6-10, 19, 32, 34) o source of legitimate government (v. 15-16 o the One to be sought after, and found (v. 17) o the One who loves and is to be loved (v. 17) o the giver of wealth (v. 18-21) o the giver of security (v. 33) o the giver of life and death (v. 35-36)

Furthermore, Wisdom speaks in verse 12 using the same grammatical self-reference that is found by Divinity in passages such as Ezekiel 12:25; 35:12; Zechariah 10:6 and Malachi 3:6. Wisdom is also said to have wisdom (prudence), which would be redundant as a personification. Why, then, would we read about Christ as "Wisdom". If this is indeed a drawing back of the curtain to the pre-Genesis time, then it would be extremely rare in the Scriptures. The only other times we see anything similar are in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. There, Helel (Lucifer) is spoken of under the representation of the "king of Babylon" and "king of Tyre" respectively. Christ, however could not be likened to anything earthly (Isaiah 46:5) and so in the scene that opens our eyes to His pre-existence, Christ is hypostasised by a divine attribute - Wisdom. This attribute is very similar, semantically, to the concept of "Word" (compare Proverbs 3:19 and Psalm 33:6). So let's look at the parallels between Proverbs 8 and John's Prologue:

PROVERBS 8 JOHN 1 Called Wisdom (verse 12) Called Word (verse 1, 14) Beside YHWH (verse 27-30) With God (verse 1-2) “the beginning” (verse 22-23) “the beginning” (verse 1-2) Divine self-reference (verse 12) Qualitatively divine (verse 1) Co-creator (verse 30) Co-creator (verse 3) Born/Brought forth (twice in verses 24-25) Only begotten (twice in verse 14, 18) Mediator (verse 30-31) Mediator (verse 18) Source of Instruction (verse 33-34) Source of truth (verse 17) Source of life (verse 35) In Him was life (verse 4)

The connections are very strong, yet the links occur most strongly in the early and latter portions of the prologue. What is going on with that? Well, the prologue is a chiasm which looks like this:

A__The Word with God (1-2) B____Creation came through the Word (3) C______We have received life from the Word (4-5) D______John was sent to testify (6-8) E______Incarnation and response of the world (9-10) F______The Word and His Own (Israel) (11) G______Those who accepted the Word (12a) X______He gave authority to become children of God (12b) G'______Those who believed the Word (12c) F'______The Word and His Own (Believers) (13) E'______Incarnation and response of the community (14) D'______John the Baptist's testimony (15) C'_____We have received grace from the Word (16) B'___Grace and truth came through the Word (17) A'_The Word with God

In all of this, we see that the end arms of the Chiasm deal with the divinity and attributes of the Word. Each arm moves through the testimony of John, to the incarnation of the Word to the pivotal point of believers becoming Sons of God through Christ. Now, I am betting that you see evidence for your covenantal sonship here. That's because it abounds in this passage. But it rests upon a divine ontological sonship which lays the foundation for the covenantal sonship. John's gospel is summed up in these verses. Every theme comes back to these:

1. The Word existed before creation 2. The Word has the same qualities as God 3. The Word is a quantitatively distinct individual from God 4. The Word created all things 5. The Word is a Life-Source to mankind 6. The Word is a Light to mankind (superior to John the Baptist) 7. The Word is Who believers receive in fullness 8. The Word is the only begotten of the Father 9. The Word is the Source of truth and grace (superior to Moses) 10. The Word is the Revealer of the unseen God

There is one more thing that is important to note in this, and that is John's deliberate interplay of words. John exclusively calls Jesus "Son" (huios) while he calls the redeemed "Children" (tekna). The way in which Christ is a child of God is distinct from how Jesus is a Child of God. It is MORE than mere covenant. Again, John exclusively calls Jesus "only begotten" (monogenes) while he states that the redeemed are spiritually "born" (gennao). In fact, this contrast is not accidental. John calls Jesus monogenes 5 times in 3 passages. In each one, Jesus is only called monogenes AFTER John has spoken of us as spiritually being gennao.

o John 1:13 ("born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.") then John 1:14 ("only begotten of the Father) and 1:18 ("only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father") o John 3:3 ("born again"), 3:5 ("born of water and of Spirit"), etc and then 3:16 ("only begotten Son") and 3:18 ("only begotten Son of God") o 1 John 4:7 ("born of God") and then 1 John 4:9 ("only begotten Son").

Ty, I come back to the point from a previous email. Whether or not we believe monogenes should be translated "only begotten" or "unique", Jesus MUST be the Son of God in a way that no other being can lay claim to. Thus He must be MORE than just a covenantal Son. He can be that, but not JUST that. That must be the "new sense" and there must be an original sense.

There is another reason that I see Jesus as coming into existence prior to creation. John's testimony says "He is preferred before me". I have yet to see a good translation of this verse. The word "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". John chose to use this word rather than the past tense of esti (the verb to be). This word ginomai means to come into being. John is saying that the Word came into being before he did!

 You say, "In the biblical story, Israel was God’s only begotten son among all the nations of the earth..." I again don't think you've established that "only begotten" can apply to Israel. It seems you've just attributed this title because other titles fit.  I agree to a point when you say that John's intention "is not exploring Greek questions about God’s metaphysical nature, but Hebrew questions..." The thing is, Proverbs 8 is one of those narrative passages that establishes the divine identity of Christ. It is part of Israel's narrative that they KNEW God had a Son - the Angel of the LORD!  You say, " In John’s telling of the story, Jesus is 'the Son of God' in the sense that He is 'the King of Israel.'" Agreed! In the Jewish mindset, Israel had a divine King - the Angel of the LORD, the co-regent of YHWH. Nathanael knew that Jesus was this Person, the "Son of God" he had read about in his Old Testament Scriptures.  "Issac bears the title, 'only begotten son,' just as Israel as a nation and David as Israel’s king would later bear the same title". Yes, no and no. Isaac is called "only begotten" with the Hebrew equivalent for monogenes, but is not called GOD'S "only begotten" but Abraham's! Israel and David are never called by this term.  Now, we come to the meaning of "only begotten". Everyone points to Isaac being called Abraham's "only begotten" and like you conclude that "only begotten" can't mean "only begotten" in any generative sense because Abraham had sons to Hagar and Keturah. This is where simple rules of language are being ignored. Monogenes is an ADJECTIVE. It can be used as a SUBSTANTIVE (in place of a noun). However, adjectives are modified by nouns to which they are attached. So, I am the oldest of five children. There are four of us boys and then my sister is the youngest. In the most general sense, none of us could be called "monogenes" of our parents. However, my sister CAN be called their "monogenes DAUGHTER". This is because the word "daughter" classifies a more narrow part of the larger whole.

Now, when it comes to Isaac, he is not monogenes of ABRAHAM within the general context that you are correct, Abraham DID have other genetic progeny. However, Isaac IS the monogenes of BOTH Abraham and Sarah. Genesis 22 occurs after Hagar and Ishmael have left the household of Abraham and before Sarah died and Abraham married Keturah. Also, Ishmael was an illegitimate heir, genealogically speaking. He was born out of wedlock and would not have had part in the inheritance of Abraham under Hebraic thinking. Finally, the promise was made to both Abraham and Sarah. The first times God visits Abraham it is not explicit, but it was in the context of Abraham's monogamy to Sarah. Later on (Genesis 17) it is made explicit that the promised child is through Sarah. So within the partitive subset of the progeny of Abraham - those born biologically to Abraham and Sarah, those born prophetically according to God's promise, those born genealogically and able to claim inheritance - there is only one. Thus Isaac is grammatically able to be called "monogenes" in the sense of "only begotten". Hebrews 11 mentions the promise as made to Sarah (verse 11) and the genealogical inheritance (verse 18) showing that there monogenes is used in the partitive sense we have here established.

 You claim that John 3:16 becomes "dislodged" if we try to read into it some statement about Christ's pre-existent origin. Yet this is completely contrary to how Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus progresses. After the discussion about spiritual birth we read:

John 3:9-15 - "Nicodemus answered and said to Him, 'How can these things be?' Jesus answered and said to Him: 'You are the teacher of Israel, yet you don’t understand these things? Most assuredly I say to you, we speak what we know and testify to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I should tell you the heavenly? No one has gone up into Heaven except the One who came down out of Heaven—the Son of Man, who is in Heaven. Also, just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, just so the Son of Man must be lifted up,so that everyone who believes into Him should not perish but should have eternal life.'"

Jesus asks Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I should tell you the heavenly?" Then Jesus gives a clear allusion to something heavenly when He quotes language from Proverbs 30:4.

Proverbs 30:4 - "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if thou canst tell? "

Jesus has already drawn back the curtain and Nicodemus would not have missed the allusion. He states that He is the Son of man "who is in Heaven". I happen to think these words are original to John. Ellen White quotes them multiple times. Jesus stated that He was spiritually "with" the Father while on earth (John 8:16; 14:10-11; 16:32). Jesus goes on to state that He MUST be lifted up so that people might be saved. This shows that there is something more than moral influence atonement in the Gospel. Jesus isn't merely our example as a covenantal Son. He is our SUBSTITUTE as a divine, pre-existent Son. Jesus is the only begotten Son in terms of His substitution as verse 15 and the following verses say:

John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

God didn't send someone to become a Son. These verses plainly state that He sent Someone Who was already an "only begotten Son" before He got here.

Romans--God's Firstborn Son

 Are you now saying that Jesus wasn't the Son of God until the resurrection? That would seem to be what you're trying to draw out of Romans 1. If Jesus wasn't declared to be the Son of God until the resurrection, there goes your entire thesis. I have no problem with Jesus being the Son of God at both the incarnation and the resurrection. These are all different senses. Christ's three begettings parallel the three begettings of the redeemed.

1ST BIRTH 2ND BIRTH 3RD BIRTH CHRIST Born a Divine Born again as Born incorruptible Being divinity partaking as a glorified divine- sinful humanity human Being

In Heaven On earth With God REDEEMED Born in sinful Born again as sinful Born incorruptible humanity humanity partaking as human-divine of divinity humanity

On earth In heavenly places With God

The difference between us, Ty, is that I can say "Amen" to what you are asserting while seeing a bigger picture, a larger narrative, more pieces of the puzzle.

 Spelling error - "and introduces us" should be "and introduced us".  Love much of what you say up to the point where you go on a long journey to negate the meaning of "firstborn". While I'm sympathetic to the fact that "firstborn" CAN mean "preeminent", I just think that you go too far to demonise such things as parsing words and compiling verses. After all, that is what you have yourself done. Unless you were to write an entire Bible commentary, you have only presented the verses you found salient to the point you were making. I think I have dwelt enough on the need for balance between big picture and details, but it seems like you're swinging the pendulum too far in some of these statements.  Also, within the idea of "big picture", I'm yet to see you mention the Great Controversy at all. As Adventists, shouldn't our big picture start with those scenes? I have already given some statements which indicate Christ's sonship and even title "Firstborn" predate the earth's creation. However, here are some statements about the CAUSE and NATURE of the controversy which I believe are far from compatible with your idea of covenant-only sonship for Christ.

"Satan sought to undermine the confidence of the angels in God’s government. He desired the place occupied by Christ, having it in his mind, if he gained this position, to make an effort to take the place of God." (Ms 37, 1903)

Note: Place of Christ THEN Place of God.

"Satan worked in every possible way to come out victorious in standing in the highest place in the heavenly courts. How artful were his contrivances to win the game! He employed every artful intrigue and device to carry his science against God and His Son Jesus Christ." (Lt 311, 1905)

How does this narrative statement fit with a covenant-only sonship? It just doesn't make sense that Satan can have been against God and His Son before there was the need for there to be a Son... but just in case all your hopes rest upon prolepsis, this next narrative statement is definitive:

"Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got up a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth." (Ms86-1910}

Ty, I hope you can track with me here... If Lucifer's warfare was over Christ being the "only begotten Son of God", yet Christ was only the "only begotten Son of God" in a covenantal, metaphoric sense in anticipation of sin, then Satan's warfare was over the very thing that was put in place in case of his warfare! That means God could have just not engaged in what you consider to be a covenantal role-play anticipating sin in the first place because that very role-play was the cause of sin! And Satan's warfare was over a metaphor? Come on... I really want to stress this, because as it is, all someone would have to do to cast doubt upon your entire thesis would be to read Patriarchs and Prophets chapter 1 to someone...

 You say that Jesus isn't chronologically the "firstborn" of the dead. Actually, it depends which death. Jesus is the First to overcome the second death. He thus paid the price redeeming all who believe in Him from the same second death. Those who were raised prior to Jesus were raised from the first death. Even Moses' position was guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ as I understand it.  For this next one, I'm just going to give a responsive reading (in blue) to your words:

The only time Jesus was ever “born” was at the point of His incarnation via the womb of Mary (Except for that event where He was born before creation). Before that, He was nothing less than eternal God (In infinity but not in personality), having no point of beginning (Of His substance, sure). To say otherwise, is to break ranks with the biblical narrative and to do so without any biblical support (Except for all the support you haven't included in your book). As we’ve systematically noted so far in this (restricted) study, one- by-one, every New Testament usage of the title “son of God” with reference to Jesus is directly and deliberately derived from the Old Testament script (Correct, including Proverbs 8, 30:4, etc.).

 You say "Jesus is the Son of David. As the Son of David, He is the Son of God. They are one and the same role (Romans 1)". Ty, there are two types of "roles":

o Economic Roles - Roles relating to function that can be turned off and on as the economic function dictates. You can stop being a Pastor by ceasing the functions of that role, whether temporarily (when you come home at night) or permanently (when you retire). o Relational Roles - Roles relating to relationship. These roles cannot be switched on and off. They are permanent so long as the relationship exists.

"Son" is not an economic role. "Son" is a relational role. "Son of David" refers to Jesus' relational lineage through David. Therefore "Son of God" must refer to Jesus' relational lineage through God. In this, I agree that there is a sameness to the roles. However you have not established your conflation of the two so as to negate the words "of God".

 You say "all of this meaningful and beautiful gospel theology is lost if we push the sonship of Christ off into some unique identity that He alone possesses from eternity past". Let me say again, I do not push all of Christ's sonship into eternity past. I accept the covenantal sonship and you have a very strong presentation where you focus on that. I would contend that there is as much meaningful and beautiful gospel theology that is lost if we push all of the sonship of Christ into the incarnation/resurrection. If we neglect the covenantal sonship, we lose the efficacy of the Gospel, if we neglect the ontological sonship we lose the integrity of the Gospel. Now, it might surprise you to know that I believe that if one had to choose between losing the integrity or the efficacy, it is better to at least have the efficacy - the power to change lives. This is why I don't actually oppose the Church but seek to join in the dialogue on this topic. Functionally, I don't see any quarrel on the efficacy of the Gospel, for I affirm what you affirm about the covenantal sonship as well as the deity of Christ. Most of the integrity is intact, I believe, as long as there is an affirmation of the deity of Christ. Those things that are lost, I believe, are our legitimate claim to be "people of the book", as well as the obfuscation of certain passages. I think that there are certain extremes of trinitarianism such as the consubstantial trinity which I do not discern from your presentation and which I know David doesn't subscribe to. These I think go too far. I think we have much more in common than we are divided over, and much of it involves the mysteries of eternity. With shoes off our feet, I feel there is room to allow for people to be on both journeys that uphold the full deity of Christ, whether begotten or unbegotten as long as there is loving dialogue and continued mission on the weightier matters of the Gospel.

Hebrews--Our Eternal Brother

 You do that thing again with the ellipses, "last days... Son". Oi vey... You skip over such a large slice of history by asserting that Jesus is only Son in Hebrews by virtue of His atoning sacrifice. This is not how the Greek reads. It is the Son Who was "appointed heir of all things". It is the through the Son that God created the worlds. It is the Son Who is the brightness of the Father's glory. It is the Son Who is the Express Image of the Father's person. It is the Son Who upholds all things through the Father's powerful word. These were all true before the incarnation. These qualifications establish Who the Son is and why He was able to purge our sins! Let's look through them.

o Heir - The Son is "Heir". This is another language of inheritance. We read in the Bible and Ellen White of various things Christ was given. These quotes are in the context of preincarnation.

"Jehovah is the name given to Christ." (Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899)

"God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." (8T, p. 268. Immediately after Ellen White quotes Hebrews 1:1-5) o Channel of Creation - Jesus is not simply the Creator, but the Co-Creator. The Father is the one "of Whom" are all things and Christ is the one "by Whom" are all things (1 Corinthians 8:6).

o Brightness - This word means "effluence", a flowing out from, an off-flash. As previously mentioned this language is borrowed from Wisdom of Solomon, speaking of Wisdom which itself is clearly based upon the Wisdom literature of Proverbs:

"For she is the Brightness of the everlasting Light, the unspotted Mirror of the power of God, and the Image of His goodness." (Wisdom of Solomon 7:26)

o Express Image - This word would better translate as "precise reproduction". As with "Brightness" there is a sense of duplication. Christ is the imprint copy of an original - God. Thus He is God qualitatively (in infinity) but not quantitatively (in personality).

 You seem to think that "having become" refers to the time after the incarnation. Yet there is a chiasm here in this passage:

A The Son’s preeminence demonstrated in God’s final word in Him (1-2a) -B The Son’s exaltation as universal heir of all creation (2b) --C The Son’s agency in the creation of the ages (2c) ---X THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE SON(3a-b) --C’ The Son sustains all things by His word (3c) -B’ The Son’s exaltation after His purification for sins (3d-e) A’ The Son’s preeminence demonstrated in His name above the angels (4)

In this we see seven qualifications that serve as the basis for the entire argument of the book of Hebrews:

1. The Son as Heir of all things (2b) 2. The Son as Creator (2c) 3. The Son’s divine glory (3a) 4. The Son’s divine personhood (3b) 5. The Son as Sustainer (3:c) 6. The Son as Sacrifice (3d) 7. The Son in exaltation (3e)

Once again, the idea of eternal sonship underlies the entire Gospel mission of Christ. It is the center of this chiasm where we see the terms "Brightness" and "Express Image", both of which suggest generation. "Son" and "Begotten" are not the only words which suggest generation of Christ from God. There are many overlapping word-pictures, including "Word".

 Hebrews 1:5 you apply to the incarnation. Yet Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 5:5 apply it more to the resurrection and ascension. So what is going on? Is Scripture divided? Or are there two applications here? And if there are two, why can there not be three? I contend that the original of Psalm 2, as I have already established is representing a preexisting decree. "I will declare the decree" uses a Hebrew word that signifies a repetition of what has already been stated. So this statement can apply to all three begettings of Christ.  You say that "Each one is God to the other..." No, no, no. You are missing what is going on in this quotation from Psalm 45. Yes, the Father calls Jesus "God". But THEN, the Father calls Himself the God OF Christ. He never calls Christ HIS God, just God. Repeatedly throughout Scripture the Father is called the God of Christ. Look at many of the epistolary salutations, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Look at what was established immediately before Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God", Jesus had said to Mary that He had to ascend to "my Father... My God". In Revelation, Jesus speaks about the Philadelphians entering the temple of "My God" and receiving the name of "My God" and the city of "My God" that comes down from "My God". This is a one-way street, canonically speaking. There is nowhere where Jesus is called the "God of" the Father. Just sayin...  Most of the rest of the chapter is beautiful in terms of covenantal sonship that I can agree with. It would be belabouring the point to comment on every instance of unnecessary and unwarranted shoehorning of ALL sonship into this meaning.

Ty, this probably marks a good point to pause and send you a batch to digest seeing as this is about where the previous book left off and the next chapter begins what I feel is like the second volume with a different feel. I will call it "Deutero-Ty-Gibson" (bit of higher criticism humour for you). Some of this I hadn't intended to go through, but it felt like it became necessary as you were presenting only one of the narratives of Scripture. I feel like the case for the parallel narrative of divine sonship needed to be presented as you are frequently intimating it doesn't exist. Whether or not you agree with me, these are points that deserve consideration and if you want your book to be persuasive, I think these need to be addressed. I know there's a chapter coming up, and I'll probably get to it in the next batch, but I have peeked ahead and I don't see it resolving the many points raised here.

I hope to get to the next lot on or about Sabbath. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Wow, thank you. This is massive, so I will need a significant block of time to read and process all of it.

Ty

Dude, I wish you were my next door neighbor. I love your mind. God has really given you a gift for mental processing.

See my three comments in black below.

Anyway, I didn't expect to write as much as I have below... but I know that nontrins and antitrins are terrible at presenting their positions so I thought I would just present the complementary, parallel narrative alongside my reading of your book as if you had never seen what I have to present. In some instances, I'm certain this would be new as I haven't seen many people take up on it.

The Grand Reenactment

 "Christ passed over the same experiential ground Israel traversed, but He was true to the covenant in place of Israel’s failure." This nugget is the best thing I've read in a while! Love it!  Sorry to be picky, but Jesus is the modern English transliteration of the Greek Iesous which is the transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua... to say that Jesus is the Greek equivalent to Joshua when Joshua itself is an English transliteration... Gah... I'll let it pass.  There are only nine beatitudes. Ivor Myers parallels the nine beatitudes to the nine blessings pronounced on Mount Gerizim in Deuteronomy as opposed to the cursings pronounced on Mount Ebal.  Also was the Sermon on the Mount given at the Mount of Olives? I don't think this mountain is ever identified, and I'm sure I've never heard it equated with Olivet.  Spelling error - "ever people group" should be "every people group"  I love this chapter so much and it should be read and studied by all who seek to understand Covenant better. It is sad that it is diminished by the last statement "This, then, is the sense in which the New Testament calls Jesus, 'the Son of God.'" I have already addressed how there is more than one "sense" in which Jesus is the Son of God and I feel like points like this will cause people who are aware of such statements to lose sight of the weightier Gospel presentation you have made because of this unfounded and superfluous conclusion.

In a sentence, in what additional sense is Jesus the Son of God?

Matthew's Gospel--Son of David, Son of Abraham

 In the discussion of Jesus' lineage, it might be important to note that "David" means "Beloved" and "Abraham" means "Father of many". Therefore, the highlighting of these two names in that opening verse is a highlighting of Christ's character as the "Beloved" Son of the "Father of many". This strengthen's the case you're making.  Fully concur with disdain for chapter/verse headings... also dislike the arbitrary ordering of the books, especially of the NT. I would prefer Mark to be first, Paul's letters to be in chronological order as best we can ascertain and John's gospel to be at the end with his epistles and Revelation.  "The Son of God, the Son of David - same difference for Matthew, because he knows his Hebrew Bible." These sorts of statements have not been established.  Loving this chapter... I think you'd appreciate the paper "Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthew" by Peter J. Leihart.  Spelling error - In the last paragraph, unless you are suggesting Jesus was a cancer specialist you might want to change "oncological" to "ontological". (I'm sure Jesus IS a cancer specialist though).  I think here is as good a place as any to point out something about the "Son of God" motif. You say " Jesus is the Son of God is the sense that He fulfilled the entire narrative plot line of the Old Testament by successfully living out the purpose God had for humanity all along. This. Is. The. Point. Of. The. Bible." You go on to say " It is evident, then, and will become increasingly more evident as we proceed, that when the New Testament writers call Jesus “the Son of God,” they are not trying to tell us anything about His oncological origins (FOOTNOTE). They are not attempting to inform us about His metaphysical nature (FOOTNOTE). They are not aiming to educate us regarding how He came into existence way back in eternity past. Rather, they are telling us that Jesus is the son of promise in the Abrahamic, Davidic lineage. According to Matthew, Jesus is “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” and as such He is the long-awaited Son of God who would be true to the covenant."

I get what you are saying and again, I affirm that Jesus IS the Son in this sense. However, there are a few things you've not brought out that is typical of the synoptists. First of all, the concept of a "Son of God" was not new to the first century Jews. While post second-temple Judaism has sought to scrub any evidence that the Jews believed in a "Son of God" (with other cover-ups such as moving Daniel from the prophets to the writings, erasing time so that the 70 weeks don't point to Jesus and pronouncing a curse upon those who seek to calculate the time period), this was apparently taken for granted as reflected in the gospels. There the "Son of God" is referenced matter of factly by: o Angels - (Luke 1:32) o Satan - (Matthew 4:3; 4:6) o Demons - (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11) o Disciples - (Matthew 14:33; John 6:69) o Peter - (Matthew 16:16) o Nathanael - (John 1:51) o Healed blind man - (John 9:35) o Martha - (John 11:27) o High Priest - (Matthew 26:63) o Chief Priests - (John 19:7) o Hecklers - (Matthew 27:40) o Centurion (probably from overhearing the hecklers - (Matthew 27:54)

These references show that there was no controversy over an entity known as the "Son of God". It was used without qualification or controversy by enemies and supporters of Jesus. When it was asked by the High Priest, "are you... the Son of God", there was no question that such a Person existed in the Hebrew mind. In fact, the term "Son of God" can be seen to be paralleled to "Christ" on numerous occasions (High Priest, Martha, Peter) and "King of Israel" on one occasion (Nathanael). Where did the first century, pre-cover-up Jews get the idea of a Divine "Son of God"? How about the following places:

o Genesis 1:26 - God is speaking to Someone already in His image when He says "Let Us make man in Our image". They subsequently create two individuals. o Genesis 3:8 - Immediately after the fall a Person known as "the Voice of the LORD GOD" appears. This entity is present at all subsequent theophanies under the guise of "Angel of the LORD", "Word of the LORD", Arm of the LORD", Hand of the LORD", etc. and speaks for God but as equal with God. o Genesis 19:24 - Two YHWHs are in this text - one in Heaven, the other on earth.

This is just one of a number of passages in which two YHWHs are evident. Early Judaism, noting this passage and others, entertained a "two powers” conception of YHWH. They understood that there was an invisible, unapproachable YHWH in the heavens, and there was the visible, corporeal YHWH who interacts with humans. The definitive work on the subject was written in 1971 by a Jewish scholar by the names of Alan Segal, titled, Two Powers in Heaven. Segal traces the teaching back to about 200 years before the time of Christ. It is astounding to note that James White, in an effort to formulate an understanding of what the form in which God may have existed in prior to the father-son arrangement, referred to God as a "firm of equal powers.” Later in her ministry, Ellen White picked up this language and repeatedly referred to God as a plurality of “Powers.” When speaking of the cross event, she employed the terminology to speak of "the sundering of the divine Powers.” In my study I have traced all the same steps you have traced above regarding the two YHWHs. But I have not landed at exactly the same conclusion. Whereas you view the YHWH theophanies as indicative of an eternal ontological father-son reality, I see them as indicating a necessary mediatorial humility/condescension that bridges the ontological gulf between created beings and an uncreated God who necessarily transcends all material, sexual and procreative categories. The theophanies indicate a coming down on God's part, not a revelation of what God is in God's ultimate reality. This is why Ellen White speaks of Jesus being "set up” in the mediatorial position from eternity past. This is why Psalm 110 depicts God as occupying an eternal priesthood role—a priest forever. He is the eternal mediator of covenant reality between God and all created beings, including the angels, and not merely in a post-Fall sense. Mediation is a normal and necessary function of the Infinite communicating with the finite, the Uncreated God communicating with created beings.

I’m pretty excited to be in fellowship with you on this matter, because with your significant intellectual powers, once you see this one additional piece of the puzzle, I think you are going to see it in places I've never seen it and teach it back to me with even greater evidence and clarity :-)

That's all I have time for right now. I'll move through the rest of your email later.

Ty

That's very nice of you to say those things, I'm also enjoying reading your book and working through it. I'm privileged to be in the position of giving feedback. I don't believe I have any innate gifts of special intelligence. I have had to develop them through some very trying times and this is still very much a work in progress. You are welcome to move to Australia and then we could be neighbours. Failing that, we can put in word with the Architect of our future abode ;-)

Here are the responses to your three comments:

1. You asked "In a sentence, in what additional sense is Jesus the Son of God?" That's a tough ask... will do my best.

Christ is foundationally the Son of God in a real, generative, pre-creation sense by which He is very (qualitative) God nature of the very (quantitative) Most High God, being fully Divine, in substance without beginning yet in personality brought forth as the first act of the internal principle of Divine Love to be the forever Mediator expressing God's character to those subsequently created by God through Him; this real sonship being the initial cause of Helel's (Lucifer's) jealousy over His position yet also the means by which He could enter into the experience of created beings and represent a Covenantal sonship to redeem those who had been deceived and ultimately to voluntarily lay down His divine life in an event in which God suffered with His Son at .

(Ok, so I went for a long, run on sentence, but hopefully that covers most of it...)

2. I'm glad you're familiar with Segal's work. I wouldn't say it is THE definitive work on the subject. There is a lot of higher criticism and humanism that underlies his thinking as with many critical scholars. In his last work, published posthumously, he wrote, "The Bible can no longer simply be considered a document revealed by God at one time, pure and simple, perfect with no contradictions." (Sinning in the Hebrew Bible: How the Worst Stories Speak for its Truth, pp. 41- 42). Though he was believer, at least in the Old Testament (as a Jew), yet he still rested upon many of the assumptions of critical scholarship. Thus I would say that, taking the Scriptures as being written beginning with Moses, then we could trace the Two Powers much earlier than that. Michael Heiser has built upon the work of Segal, but sadly still from what seems to be a critical platform. The Biblical picture is of Two corporeal Beings. The Father is not invisible in the sense of incorporeal, but invisible in the sense of voluntarily veiled due to sin. The pure in heart will "see God", even though at present He cannot be seen.

You misquoted and misappropriated James White's quote. James White speaks of "the Father and the Son" (not "God") as a "firm of equal power" (not "powers" plural). Ellen White referred to Father, Son and Spirit as three "powers", but to my knowledge she did not so refer to "God". I do concur with the "sundering of divine powers" quote, one of my favourites. The context here is "God" and "His Son".

3. I think it is very positive that we have traced many of the same steps as each other. If we are both on the same page in terms of the information, then it makes it a shorter trip to figure out the specific points of divergence. I believe that Jesus HIMSELF, as the Son of God, bridges the ontological gap between an uncreated God and creation. You see only two categories - "that which is created" and "that which is uncreated". I believe that Christ's uniqueness is what bridges this gap. It isn't an arbitrary role that was entered into. By being an ontological Son, Jesus has all the necessary attributes of full Deity in terms of His substance, but because His personality has a sense of a beginning, He can relate to creation which also has a sense of a beginning. The "necessary mediatorial humility/condescension" we both agree upon. However, I see relationship as stemming out of being. I will explain this further when I discuss the philosophical problems with the "love requires three" logic that you use and which has become popular among many trinitarians.

I agree that God transcends "material" and "sexual" categories and depending on the meaning "procreative". I will deal with this, though when I get to your chapter on transcendence, as I think there are several subtle and not-so-subtle points of divergence between us at present. The theophanies, though, never involve God (the Father). They only ever involve Christ. The closest we get to God the Father manifesting Himself to the world is His words regarding Christ three times during the public ministry. The theophanies are a revelation of God. Full stop. They may be contextual, but each one gives more of the puzzle about God as a Person through the Mediator that shares His nature/character.

The setting up of Jesus was concurrent with His being brought forth. They are not two acts, they are one action with two results, Jesus was brought forth and anointed as part of the same event. That is how it is presented in Proverbs 8 through parallelism. Psalm 110 doesn't depict GOD as occupying an eternal priesthood role, but Christ. Of the Two powers, One is Priest and the Other is the One that established that Person's priesthood. Christ is the eternal Mediator. God is the One before Whom Christ mediates (the other party being creation). Christ was not arbitrarily appointed as Mediator. He is Mediator because He is uniquely qualified to be Mediator. Agree with you on the post-fall need for mediation. I'd also like to discuss with you sometime about post-fall Covenant.

I think you mistake my position when you say, "once you see this one additional piece of the puzzle, I think you are going to see it in places I've never seen it and teach it back to me with even greater evidence and clarity". I DO see the Covenantal sonship. I see it all throughout the Scriptures as the natural extension of Christ's ontological sonship. No one, narrow theory of sonship can explain ALL of the statements of Scripture or inspiration. Yet two (or three if the resurrection is distinguished from incarnation) complementary sonships together account for every single statement. This is why I rest in that. Trust me, I would have everything to gain if I were to see it your way, from a temporal perspective, even though functionally I am in the same Gospel place, because it would assuage some of the last concerns people have bout my past associations (though I have given ample evidence of my fidelity to the Remnant body). I would gladly accept a different view if it better accounted for all the evidence. One of the differences between us is that I also have the luxury of having been intimately acquainted with your view, as one who previously held a trinitarian understanding. I wonder whether you have ever embraced the hypotheses and theories that are foreign to your premises and conclusions to fully test them out? I'm not talking about a mere abstract exercise, but a full experiential immersion, walking a mile or so in an alternate viewpoint's shoes...

I'm working on the next three chapters after which I will probably take them one at a time, since they are much more meaty and almost like different books each one from that point onwards. Blessed Sabbath when it reaches you. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Hi Ty,

I hope your Sabbath and weekend have been blessed. I was laid up sick, so I have basically just rested and worked at this review when I was able to concentrate.

This is going to be the last "batch" of chapter reviews... after this I will take it one chapter at a time, as you seem to deal with much heavier material from here on out. The second half of the book has half the number of chapters as the first half. There were some points that needed to be set up for the next review, so that did lengthen this section as well. I hope, but cannot promise, that future reviews will be shorter. The truth is, there is a lot more content in each subsequent chapter and lots of little details I might address. Anyway, here goes:

The Son of Man (This chapter seems out of order in the table of contents, in case that's an error)

 I can't stress enough how much I love the way you open up the discussion of Daniel and the words you weave together to speak about the issue of governance. Exceptional!  Just a small point, but as I understand it, Nimrod rose to power before humanity dispersed into separate nations. I have understood Nimrod to have been behind Babel, before the dispersion... Open to different information on this...  I would read a whole book about this topic - "With Israel, God was essentially seeking to establish a non-monarchical community of covenantal love, in which human beings could grow into their potential for self-governance. In a world defined by intellectual ignorance, moral degradation, generational abuse, hierarchical dictatorship, self-serving social chaos, and theological darkness, God selected a people group, separated them from the world’s imploding systems, and established a social structure based on the impartial rule of law, grounded in the principle of love. The goal was that Israel would operate as a 'kingdom of priests' in order to mediate the knowledge of God’s ways to the surrounding nations and attract them into the covenant system of living (Exodus 19:5)."  Another small point, I don't recall the Roman Empire ever extending to India... Persia and Greece did, but not Rome. Rome never did subjugate the Parthian Empire or the Sassanid Empire that followed... so the cult of Caesar couldn't be considered to have been forced as far as India.  You point out that the Danielic "Son of Man" is also called the "Prince of the Covenant". As Michael He is also called "Prince" several times. A "Prince" is a Son of a King. Just wanted to point out here again the explicit pre-incarnation Sonship.  Love the quote from Ellen White. I just wonder why it took you until the middle of your book to address the Great Controversy in any real way, and you still haven't looked at the pre- creation scenes.  Again this! - "In Daniel’s framing of history, the principle of selfishness is embodied in the pride and violence that actuate the empires of our world. The principle of self-giving love, by contrast, is embodied in God’s Messiah, the Prince of the Covenant, who submitted to our violence without retaliation. By that one epic act of love, Jesus set in motion the one and only counter-narrative known to humanity. At the cross we see the master stroke of history, the genius maneuver of the ages. Jesus 'tricked' the powers of darkness by refusing to fight back as they took His life, thus keeping love intact in Himself to the point of death. His resurrection is proof of love’s triumph over evil. The kingdom of Christ is eternally sustainable, not because He uses more force than any other kingdom, but because He rules without force and thereby draws His subjects to Himself without ever resorting to coercion. Jesus didn’t come to merely win the game, but to change the game. He didn’t come to simply exert more power than all other rulers, but to exert a different kind of power. He came to win the game on different principles and on a different level. He came to conquer evil by love alone, or not at all."  I'm completely with you on the dearth of Christocentric, Agape-centric focus in our prophecy seminars. Would love to discuss some things I have seen in Daniel and Revelation that I think really speak to what you are getting at with this footnote.  It is immediately after reading the above that you write, "When the New Testament tells us that Jesus is 'the Son of God,' it is telling us that He is the new head of Adam’s race. When the New Testament tells us that he is 'the Son of Man,' it is telling us that He now occupies the throne of the eternal kingdom as a full-fledged member of the human race in Adam’s lineage." Here you tie both titles ("Son of God" and "Son of man") to the second Adamic heritage Christ assumed through the incarnation. This is problematic on a number of levels.

First of all, "Son of man" is a title for which there is a lot of debate. Putting aside the higher critical options, we should acknowledge that Biblically, it is used in the following ways:

1. Generically for humans/humanity 2. Specially for a special human in Covenant relationship (such as Ezekiel) 3. Messianically (in Daniel and the New Testament)

The first two afford no controversy, but what is its sense of meaning when applied Messianically? Some have considered it a self-referential, which doesn't make sense. Others have understood it as referring to the human nature Christ assumed. This option seems to be the most in line with the understanding. Ellen White appeared to endorse this option as well as the dichotomy between "Son of man" referring to Christ's humanity and "Son of God" referring to His divinity:

"By His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God. As the Son of man, He gave us an example of obedience; as the Son of God, He gives us power to obey." (Desire of Ages p. 24)

"In Christ were united the divine and the human. The Creator and the creature, the nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus—the Son of God, and the Son of man." (Ms 41, 1892)

"The Son of God became the Son of man. He was born of a woman. To Mary the angel said, 'Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.' For thirty years Jesus lived a quiet, busy life at His home in Nazareth. His hands were hardened with toil, and His brow was wet with sweat. He lived among the sorrowing and the poor and was one with them. He knows how to pity the poorest and the most sorrowful. Though He was the Son of God, the maker of the worlds and all things, yet He took the part of a servant, so that we might believe that He loved us and gave Himself to us and for us." (Ms 45, 1892)

"While upon this earth, the Son of God was the Son of man; yet there were times when His divinity flashed forth." (8T, p. 202)

So while you seem to be seeking to make "Son of man" a very similar meaning to "Son of God", it is clear that to Ellen White the one spoke of Christ's inheritance from humanity while the other His prior inheritance from divinity.

 You bring up Isaiah 9:6 which I spoke about in my previous email. If you were consistent with previous reasoning, then "His name shall be called" would mean that He was not "Mighty God" until after this event.  Love these contrasts between earthly kingdoms and Christ's kingdom: "They rule by war, He by love. They rule by taking, He by giving. They rule by coercion, He by covenant." If anything, I would change "war" to "force" or even "fear" (the absence of love). I believe that war is not something God instigates, but He does win when others instigate against Him. That is why Moses' song called God a Warrior. This will be the song of the Redeemed.

The Last Adam

 Love love love the first half of this chapter!  Possible spelling error - Should "no historical content" be "no historical context"?  Up until about the middle of this chapter, you have been fair and not resorted to mudslinging. "Anti-trinitarian" is a label not all associate with. Many reject that term. Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the tone earlier established to say something like "as interpreted by some Christians"? That way you're still extending the hand of dialogue. This is the first point at which it seems like you have dug a trench and it seems foreign to the olive branch of dialogue heretofore.  I'm willing to concede that "the Beginning of the Creation of God" and "Alpha", "Beginning" etc don't speak to whether or not Christ has an eternal origin. I don't think these phrases are here nor there (could go either way). This entire paragraph seems out of place in the chapter, breaking the Gospel presentation.  Again you've mentioned the Imago Dei. I want to spend a little bit of time on this to set up for later chapters. If we look at the overarching Imago Dei theme of Scripture, we see that yes, Adam was the son of God in a created sense. More than that, Adam was created in the IMAGE and LIKENESS of God, and the Hebrew words used indicate that this does not refer simply to moral or spiritual character but also to "form and feature" (Great Controversy, p. 645) as well. There is a corporeality to God and His Express Image that is implicit in the words "Let us make man in Our image after Our likeness". This means that the Bible does not "anthropomorphise God", but rather God has theomporphised humanity. It is not that God is "humanoid" in appearance, but that we are theoid.

Jesus when on earth said that we have neither heard God's "voice" nor seen His "shape", implying God has a shape. God is often depicted as having a form in vision. More importantly, God is said to dwell in a spatial location - on a throne in Heaven. Ellen White, in one of her earliest visions, asked Christ directly about whether God had a bodily form. Here is what she wrote of this account:

"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired his lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself. He said he had, but I could not behold it, for said he, if you should once behold the glory of his person you would cease to exist." (Experience and Views, p. 43)

"I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that he is a person. I asked him if his Father was a person, and had a form like himself. Said Jesus. 'I am in the express image of my Father's Person.'" (Experience and Views, p. 64)

This was an important component to early Adventist teaching and I will come back to this as I review some of your later chapters.

 Agree with your definition of "love" but I believe there are some nuances that I think are missed. I'll come back to this in a few chapters as well.  The whole talk of "power dynamics" seems very much like it is based upon liberal talking points. I know that here in Australia we're a bit behind the times in terms of a lot of coastal US liberalism. You might want to define this a bit better. You first of all speak of power dynamics as neutral, then you speak about some legitimate power dynamics ("male-female power dynamics, parent-child power dynamics" etc) which can be either functional or dysfunctional but you appear to speak negatively of them.  Sure, the Messianic "throne of David" motif isn't mentioned until after David, however there was kingship imagery before this. Genesis 49:10, Number 24:17. Cf. Isaiah 33:22.  Spelling error - "You want to king?" should be "You want a king?"  Spelling error - "of perhaps not so oddly" should be "or perhaps not so oddly"  Great points about resurrection and the reduction to proof of Christ's divinity.  Again "the anti-trinitarian advocate" seems out of place with the tone before now. You could put "some might use this passage as a prooftext" without using labels. I agree that it doesn't state anything about the pre-incarnation relationship between God and Christ. Other passages from Scripture and Ellen White do indicate that, but not this passage. Do you at least acknowledge a future eternal subordination of Christ to God.  With your contrasts beneath this, I would say that true love IS authority. Also, "domination" is very similar as a word to "dominion" which can be pure. Also you contrast "power over" to "power under" when you have just said that humanity is to rule under God but over the world. It's a bit confusing.  I would personally change "Jesus is doing what He’s doing as 'the last Adam,' which is to say, as 'the Son of God.'" to "Jesus is doing what He’s doing as 'the last Adam,' which is to say, as 'the Son of God' in a 'new sense.'" or simply to "Son of man" instead of "Son of God".  Spelling error - "is reaches it pinnacle here" should be "reaches its pinnacle here".  Again "became the Son of God" is not what Ellen White says. She says "became the Son of God in a new sense". If I can't let up on this point, others won't either.  This sentence is awkward... had to read a few times to get what you were saying - "A world in which the one who came all the way down from the top turned around and went all the way back up to the top and took down with him to the top as the only righteous way to occupy the top." Perhaps reword? Or leave out, it's basically repetition.  Spelling error - "hight" should be "high" or "height" (probably "high" because it is contrasted with "low")  Nice landing point for the chapter! It seems like this chapter is the most awkward so far... as if you compiled this from disparate conversations and pieced it together. Great material, but it does drag in places and feels a bit choppy...

The Covenant Pledge

 Ahhh, the chapter that argues for the prolepsis view as a way to counteract pre-incarnation sonship language... This will be fun!  Now we come to the point when you say: "But isn’t there some sense in which Jesus was the Son of God before His incarnation? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense of an eternal covenant pledge. No, in the sense of eternal, ontological identity." I want to make some introductory points before the chapter gets too involved and we have to talk about "time" and "eternity".

From this point onwards I'm going to deal with some pretty deep things. You may have seen/heard/read some of these ideas, but probably not in the way that I present it. My research isn't widely promulgated by antitrins or nontrins because they hate me for my loyalty to the Church. I never came to my belief through their material but through my own study, so I gladly was never really bound by what they say. I am going to ask you to do something that I know for a fact you have done before. To have even considered "Open Theism" you would have had to suspend the assumptions of classic theism and entertain a new hypothesis. As we talk about some of the things in this chapter and the next few, I ask that you please suspend your views for the purpose of exploring an alternative hypothesis. You don't have to accept my conclusions in the end, I just want you to be able to follow me through my reasoning and ascertain whether it is sound or not and whether it is based upon evidence or not.

I have been thinking more and more about the differences between us on the pre-incarnate sonship and the "so what?" question. Insofar as you are interested in uplifting the covenant sonship, we are in agreement, so there isn't really any contention there. There isn't even any contention over the full deity of Christ, just some differences over what "full deity" means (will get to this soon). So ultimately, what is the difference?

As I see it, Christ's covenantal sonship is the same as our own covenantal sonship. We are to enter into that sonship with Him. Spiritually, covenantally, Jesus is not "only begotten" or "unique" for He is just the First of all those who follow Him. However, for me, this covenant sonship sits atop a real, ontological sonship which gives force to the covenant sonship as well as holding integrity to pre-incarnation narrative, especially Great Controversy in Heaven scenes.

You extend into the past (pre-incarnation) this metaphorical, symbolic, covenantal sonship as mere prolepsis or anticipation of what would happen at the incarnation which makes Christ's "Son of God" title in the incarnation not a "new sense" but the realisation of the "old sense". These issues I have raised already as to how this contravenes clear testimony. Now here is the real issue. Whereas my view of covenant sonship rests upon a real, solid, ontological sonship, your view floats, suspended upon arbitrary chosen "roles". If followed to its ultimate conclusion, the plan of salvation devolves to a theatrical exercise. There is no real "Father" and "Son", these are just roles entered into to eventually bring about salvation in the event of sin occurring. This conclusion is inescapable in a covenant-Son-only view without an ontological, eternal Father-Son relationship as its foundation.

There's an even more disturbing conclusion that this leads to. Follow me here. Under this idea, Christ chose to enter into the role of "Son". He did this in anticipation of a plan of salvation for if/when sin arose. Sin arose with Helel (Lucifer) who was jealous of Christ's role as "Son". If you read the first chapters of Patriarchs and Prophets, Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1 or any of the other places Ellen White talks of this apostasy in heaven, she speaks of Lucifer being jealous specifically of Christ's place. So Christ, role-playing the part of "Son" for the purposes of eventual salvation from eventual sin, was in doing so the catalyst for the very sin that required the plan of salvation in the first place! I don't see any way around this reasoning. To my mind, if a Person Who took the role of "Father" and a Person Who took the role of "Son" had no discernible difference before taking these roles, why create the grounds for questioning in the first place? Why create a potential for jealousy? If They just appeared together everywhere as exactly the same there would have been no room for questioning at all?

I was speaking with my wife (who is much smarter than me - degree in linguistics and speaking multiple languages) about these thoughts and she gave me some interesting analogues to this idea from contemporary life. I'm sure you're aware of the novel idea that one's gender isn't based upon biological sex but is something that we get to choose. Gone, for many, is the binary allotment at birth as people choose from dozens of genders or even just make up more. My wife pointed out that the idea of covenant sonship without ontological sonship was similar to this. People are choosing gender based upon how they "feel", "think", "act" - all economic considerations. Economy is being divorced from ontology. Christ's covenantal sonship is an economic sonship. Yet if it is devoid of any ontological foundation it is entirely arbitrary that the One we know as "Son" was the "Son" and not the One we know as "Father". (I know you have a favourite EGW quote later in your book about this and I'll get to this in a moment).

This got me thinking to the idea of "Letter" and "Spirit". How many errors involve a splicing of ontological reality with spiritual meaning? Think past the sonship question and the gender question. Those who say we can keep any day or every day sacred do so because they have divorced the idea of Sabbath from the ontological day of Sabbath. Those who advocate immortality of the soul separate the spiritual self from the physical ontology. Those who teach the rapture teach an invisible, spiritual parousia without the physical presence of Christ.

These are the thoughts I have going into this chapter.

 Now, onto the everlasting covenant. Let me concede up front that I agree that the covenant of peace, the plan of salvation antedates creation. What I am going to say next is going to seem contradictory to you, but remember, I'm asking you to suspend those reactions and explore the evidence for my hypothesis. I believe that like Christ, the covenant is both "eternal" and yet has a "beginning". Before we get into this in detail though, it's time we talk about "time" and "eternity". Like the knowledge of God in classic theism, this is a subject upon which there are heavy assumptions made.

There are two major views of "eternity" and it's relationship to "time".

1. Atemporal Eternity (Eternity = Timelessness)

The first view is atemporality. This view holds that "eternity" is somehow a realm or dimension "outside of time". In this view, all that we know and experience as "time" is an eternal "now" to any being outside of time in "eternity". This view could be depicted by the following ascii diagram:

Eternity (Time)

2. Omnitemporal Eternity (Eternity = Infinity)

The second view is omnitemporality or sempiternity. This view holds that "eternity" is the infinite extension of time in either direction, forward or backwards. Eternity becomes "time without beginning and end". This view could be depicted by the following ascii diagram:

Eternity <--Time--> Eternity

I am going to add a third view to this mix, which I call the unmeasured or hidden view of eternity.

3. Unmeasured Eternity (Eternity = Immeasurability)

This third view is removed from the abstraction of the previous views and deals more with experiential concreteness. In this view "eternity" is unmeasured or immeasurable time. "Eternity" can refer to events that are so far back that they have no known date or nothing by which to date them. This view could be depicted by the following ascii diagram:

Eternity |--Time--| Eternity

Now we've spoken about "eternity" let's talk about "time". There are many several views about "time" whether in physics or philosophy or whatever. I'm going to give some possible definitions for time that each have their place:

1. Physical Definition: "Time" is part of the fabric of reality along with "space" and "substance". I am using "substance" rather than "matter" for reasons which I hope will become clear as we go. In this view, time is the sphere in which events unfold. (Quite a Greek view.)

2. Philosophical Definition: "Time" is unidirectional linear movement as opposed to "space" which is omnidirectional movement. In this view, "time" is the sequential unfolding of events. (Quite a Hebraic view.)

3. Practical Definition: "Time", is measured duration, requiring at least three vantage points of relativity - the observer and two other points of reference. In this view time is the measurement of events.

I see validity in all of these definitions depending on context. Most Christians say that God created "time". Yes and no. God is a Person with substance and emotions. I've already covered the form of God earlier in this email. As for emotions, I am pretty sure that you and I would be on the same page rejecting the classic theistic notion of impassibility. Having substance, He has the ability to move on an omnidirectional plane (space). Having substance and emotions He would also experience a unidirectional sequence of events (time). He did not create "time" in the sense of either the physical or philosophical meanings. However, before creation, there was no observers to measure anything. Specifically, the Biblical view of time relates to the sequences of day and night and the other motions of heavenly bodies created during creation week.

Christendom has a variety of views on God's relation to time and eternity. A few of these are as follows (I have come up with the naming conventions):

1. God is outside of time, created time and remains outside of time. (Atemporal Deity) 2. God is outside of time, created time and entered the infinity of time. (Atemporal- Omnitemporal Deity) 3. God is not outside of time but within all time (Omnitemporal Deity) 4. God is outside of our time, but dwells within His own sense of time (Transcendent Temporal Deity) 5. God is in our time (Immanent Temporal Deity)

The idea of a God that transcends time, space and substance or that fills time space and substance is an idea that is rooted in the legacy of theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm. Anselm probably said it most succinctly when He stated that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". That means that if you can imagine it, God is bigger. Since we can comprehend space, time and substance, God must be beyond these or at the very least fill these to infinity. I will deal with some of the problems of these in looking at another one of your chapters. For now, it is enough to remark that these views depersonalise God. God becomes an abstract and loses any approachability. This is taking transcendence too far.

My view of God and time is a combination of 4 and 5. I call my view the Hypertemporal view of Deity. In my view, God is a Fellow-Traveller through a unidirectional linear sequence of events such as we are. However, the divine EXPERIENCE of time is very different to our own finite experience of time. I have some Bible and sanctified speculation to back this up. First of all, we read in the Bible that 1000 years are like a day and a day is like 1000 years to God. This means that God is capable of accomplishing infinity within the moment. God doesn't dwell in the past, present or future, but in the now, in the moment. This is what I understand "I AM" to mean (more on that later perhaps).

As to HOW God can accomplish infinity in the moment has to do with a few clues I find in Scripture and Inspiration. 1 John 1:5 tells us that "God is light". This is not necessarily a statement of physical or material equivalency but obviously illustrative. According to relativity and proven by experimentation, time slows in motion. Light (whether wave, particle, combination or other) is the fastest measure of motion we have (and we have only ever measured the two-way speed). The experience of time would slow to almost nothing at the speed of light. God is in a place, but He is constantly at work, upholding all creation. Thus movement would be part of His nature and could explain His hypertemporal awareness and accomplishment. The second thing that effects the experience of time is mass. Ellen White gives one title for God and Christ which is "the Great Center". Not knowing anything about God's substance, but if there is any considerable "mass" to His being, then this might also influence His perception and relationship to time.

Having looked at theories of eternity, definitions of time and theories of how God relates to time we now turn to what the Bible and Inspiration say about time and eternity.

The main Hebrew word for "eternity" is olam. This word comes from a verbal root alam meaning "to conceal" or "to hide". Olam is described as referring to the "vanishing point" or that which is over the temporal horizon. This strongly favours the idea that of the three possible meanings (timelessness, infinity or immeasurability) that we are speaking of time that is unmeasured or immeasurable. When it comes to usage, the focus of this word is usually on future duration. However, it is also used of the past. Many of the things that are described as "olam" in the Bible are within human history. For example:

o "mighty men of old (olam)" - Genesis 6:4 o "everlasting (olam) hills" - Genesis 49:26; Deuteronomy 33:15; Habbakuk 3:6 o "remember the days of old (olam)" - Deuteronomy 32:7 o "Long ago (olam) your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates" - Joshua 24:2 o "these were the inhabitants of the land from of old (olam)" - 1 Samuel 27:8 o "the old (olam) way that wicked men have trod" - Job 22:15 o "days of old (olam)" - Psalm 77:5 o "those long (olam) dead" - Psalm 143:3; Lamentations 3:6 o "ancient (olam) landmark that your fathers have set" - Proverbs 22:28 o "It has been already in the ages (olam) before us" - Ecclesiastes 1:10 o "For a long time (olam) I have held my peace" - Isaiah 42:14 o "I appointed an ancient (olam) people" - Isaiah 44:7 o "as in the days of old (olam)" - Isaiah 51:9 o "ancient (olam) ruins" - Isaiah 58:12; 61:4 o "carried them all the days of old (olam)" - Isaiah 63:9, 11 o "long ago (olam) I broke your yoke" - Jeremiah 2:20 o "ask for the ancient (olam) paths" - Jeremiah 6:16 o "ancient (olam) roads" - Jeremiah 18:15 o "the prophets who preceded you and me from ancient (olam) times" - Jeremiah 28:8 o "down to the pit, to the people of old (olam)" - Ezekiel 26:20 o "ancient (olam) heights" - Ezekiel 36:2 o "rebuild it as in the days of old (olam)" - Amos 9:11 o "let them grace in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old (olam)" - Micah 7:14 o "the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old (olam)" - Malachi 3:4

So we can see, Ty, that olam is used for events that clearly fall within the realm of human history. The Greek aionion is the general word used to translate olam in the LXX and the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. Even when used of the future, it often indicates duration that is indefinite or unmeasured, such as the destruction of the wicked. It CAN as part of this definition of immeasurability refer to that which is infinite in duration either past or future, but it does not demand such a meaning. The context would need to determine such things. The main point is that "eternity" refers to the duration before or after measured "time".

This appears to have been Ellen White's understanding, for she frequently referred to decisions we make "for time and for eternity". Her clearest statement on time and eternity was this:

"In His teaching were embraced the things of time and the things of eternity--things seen, in their relation to things unseen, the passing incidents of common life and the solemn issues of the life to come." (Education, p. 82)

Here Ellen White makes a contrast between on the one hand "things of time", "things seen", "passing incidents of common life" to "things of eternity", "things unseen", "solemn issues of the life to come". This fits the understanding of olam that we have seen. Not only this, but Ellen White's peers had formulated foundational statements on the immeasurable meaning of eternity:

"But the probability is, that it denotes an indefinite period. For as 'time will be no longer,' when the seventh trump sounds, duration will be unmeasured; all will be eternity beyond that event." (Josiah Litch, An Address to the Public, and Especially the Clergy, p 33, 1841)

"Aionas, and aionon are derived from aion on which Greenfield says, 'Duration, finite or infinite: unlimited duration, eternity: a period of duration, past or future, time, age, lifetime; the world, universe.' From this we may learn that the term for ever and ever, does not in all cases signify eternal duration. Dr. Adam Clarke, in commenting on the words for ever and ever, gave us a rule to be guided by in ascertaining its extent of duration when applied to objects. It is this: that it signifies only, as long as a thing, considering the surrounding circumstances, can exist." (J. N. Loughborough, Man's Present Condition p. 178, 1855)

"TIME, as distinguished from eternity, may be defined as that part of duration which is measured by the Bible. From the earliest date in the book of Genesis to the resurrection of the unjust at the end of the millennium, the period of about 7000 years is measured off. Before the commencement of this great week of time, duration without beginning fills the past; and at the expiration of this period, unending duration opens before the people of God. Eternity is that word which embraces duration without beginning and without end. And that Being whose existence comprehends eternity, is he who only hath immortality, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God." (J. N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week, p. 9, 1873)

"To make this position of any force, the ground must be taken that Adam's first day was the first day of time. Then all that went before was eternity. God created the world and all things therein, not in the beginning, but in eternity. But time as distinguished from eternity is duration measured, eternity being unmeasured duration; and these days of creation are measured off to us, and hence belong to time and not to eternity." (Uriah Smith, The Bible Institute, p. 122, 1878)

Not one of these statements has to do with Christology, meaning that their view was grounded in a holistic big picture theology. Based on their view of creation, Sabbath, the state of the dead and the destruction of the wicked, they had arrived at these conclusions.

So all of that long-winded discussion has to be leading somewhere, right? Well, it does. According to the view wherein "eternity = immeasurability" is it possible for something to be olam/eternal and have a beginning? The answer must be the same as if something can be olam/eternal and have an end (like the destruction of the wicked).

This brings us back to the discussion of the covenant of grace. We see in Ellen White's discussions of the plan of redemption two seemingly contradictory things. First of all, it is described as being "from all eternity" giving the impression (had we not laid all the ground work above) that it was without beginning. But look at the words she uses with relation to this plan:

o "divine love had CONCEIVED a plan... had been LAID" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 63) o "ARRANGED with Christ" (Signs of the Times, August 24, 1891) o "covenant MADE... ENTERED INTO the solemn pledge" (Ms 111, 1897) o "was LAID before the foundation of the world" (Signs of the Times, December 23, 1897) o "the angels were not admitted to THE INTERVIEWS BETWEEN the Father and the Son when the plan of salvation was LAID" (Lt 232, 1903) o "the angels were not permitted to share THE COUNSELS BETWEEN the Father and the Son when the plan of salvation was LAID" (Ministry of Healing, p. 429) o "PLANNED before the foundation of the world" (Ms 139, 1907)

If it is not clear enough that these verbs indicate that the plan had a beginning, this next statement should:

"'Canst thou by searching find out God?' 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' The Lord existed before He purposed to create the world. He is 'from everlasting.' 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.'" (Ms 24, 1891)

Let's reason this out. Before God purposed to create the world, there would not have been the need for a plan of redemption. Therefore God existed before He both purposed to create the world and laid the plan of redemption. It is clear then that the plan of salvation had a beginning because "the Lord existed", that is, had some sense of existence "before" any purpose entered into His mind to create and have a contintency for sin. So let us come to that phrase that Ellen White uses regarding the plan of salvation - "from all eternity". As a test for which one best fits with this phrase we will substitute a synonym that best describes that meaning.

Atemporal Eternity (synonym = timelessness)

"The purpose and plan of grace existed from all timelessness."

Sempiternal Eternity (synonym = infinity)

"The purpose and plan of grace existed from all infinity."

Unmeasured Eternity (synonym = immeasurability)

"The purpose and plan of grace existed from all immeasurability."

Two things we can observe here. First, the word "all" is a superlative, no matter which definition we choose. It is like when we read that all Judea went to be baptised by John at the Jordan. Not every single human in Judea went to be baptised, it is a hyperbolic exaggeration – a normal figure of speech. The second thing we can see is that only one of these options fits with the verbal descriptions of the plan of salvation being formulated between God and Christ - immeasurability.

Thus we have established, outside of the contentious christological context, a precedent for something being "eternal" and also having a starting point. I also want to highlight a particular statement you have used in this chapter. Here it is below:

"The salvation of the human race has ever been the object of the councils of heaven. The covenant of mercy was made before the foundation of the world. It has existed from all eternity, and is called the everlasting covenant. So surely as there never was a time when God was not, so surely there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to manifest His grace to humanity." (Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 12, 1901)

Ellen White here ties two things together "so surely there never was a time when God was not" (she never writes these words about Christ) is equated to "so surely there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to manifest His grace to humanity". How long has humanity existed, Ty? It is my understanding that humanity has existed since the sixth day of creation. Yet this statement says "so surely there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to MANIFEST His grace to humanity." Humanity needs to exist for grace to be MANIFESTED to it. Either we need to make humanity to be without beginning OR we accept that Ellen White is using a figure of speech wherein SO LONG AS BOTH PARTIES EXIST the particulars of this sentence apply. That is, so long as humanity has existed (implied meaning) "there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to manifest His grace to humanity". Why is this important? Because the figure of speech is also used here:

"In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him." (Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900)

This statement is often used as a "proof-text" that Jesus is without beginning because of the words "never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God". Yet we have seen this figure of speech used in terms of the relationship between God and humanity, so it clearly cannot mean that. However, look beyond the sentence most people focus on to the ones before and after. The sentence before this has the peculiar phrase - "dateless ages". Which definition of "eternity" does that sound like? Now look at the last sentence. Where in Scripture is Ellen White alluding to when she uses the words "as one brought up with Him"? Hmmm... (Hint, she quotes it in the previous paragraph). Here's another peculiar statement:

"Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures." (Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899)

Ty, why does Ellen White not simply say "the existence of Christ before His incarnation is without beginning"? Instead, she uses "not measured by figures" and "not be reckoned by human computation". If ever there was a paraphrase that embraced the immeasurable view of eternity this would be it! Ellen White clearly understands a hidden view of eternity in these statements.

 Your analogies of "soldier" and "ambassador" fall flat because these are economic roles whereas "son" is a relational role. Economic roles are defined by activity. Even if a soldier is not fighting in war doesn't mean he isn't engaged in army activities. I was in the Navy and spent most of my time on land because I was an Electronic Warfare Linguist. I was posted to a joint Army-Navy-Air Force base where we spent our time listening... I have always been told I am a good listener. Anyway I was still engaged in economic activity of being in the defence force. I was trained to use weapons, but that wasn't my main activity. Yet relational roles like "son", "daughter", "husband", "wife", "father", "mother", "friend", etc, are not roles of activity, but are passive, deriving their meaning from inherent relationships. You cannot stop being a son to your father and mother. You cannot stop being a husband to your wife so long as you are married. You cannot stop being a dad to your children. Even if you stop "son-ing", "husband-ing" or "dad-ing", if the relationship exists and in the case of mutually entered into relationships has not ended, then you are passively in that role.

If there was ever a narrative situation that shoots across the bow of your thesis it is this:

Satan in Heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God's dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance, and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Jesus, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was his Son to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. The Father's will would be fulfilled in him. (Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, p. 17)

Again:

"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--'ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands' (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love." (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 36-37)

You have made in this chapter a lot out of the words Ellen White used that Christ was "appointed to the office of Mediator". Yet here Ellen White says that "it was ordained by himself [God] that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence." Why does Ellen White say that God "set forth the true position of His Son" if His true position was not a Son? Prolepsis just doesn't work in these narrative situations. It strains credulity too far.

Whew. That was a marathon. I hope you're still with me. As with previous, I'll leave you a bit of time to digest before I send out the next chapter. The next few chapters will be cool. I've already laid a foundation regarding God and Time which I can now refer back to when we look at transcendence. I also anticipate coming back to the topic of Christ's ontological sonship when I review your EGW and the trinity chapter (there are a couple of theology lecturers who no longer use "original, unborrowed, underived" as a proof-text after hearing my explanation of this). I'm very keen to give feedback on the "love requires three" reasoning as well.

By the way, if you ever want to Facetime or some other version of communication, I'm more than happy to do that.

blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

My oh my!

You said soooooo much here. I did suspend judgement while earnestly reading your treatise. Very stimulating!

To my mind, the fork in the road, it would seem, is regarding divine ontology.

I think that God, as God, transcends all material and generative categories, but condescends to inhabit our realities in order to communicate to and communion with us.

You, if I understand you correctly, are saying that God, as God, is ultimately composed of a Father and Son, as the definition of God's necessary being. The Father alone is eternal in the sense of having never had a beginning, while the Son, by virtue of the fact that he is a son, is eternal in the sense that he began to exist distinct from the Father at some point so long ago that it is immeasurable to our finite minds. You haven't mentioned how the Holy Spirit fits in to this divine ontology, but I'm sure you will at some point.

Looking forward to the next installment.

Ty

Regarding Litch… For what it’s worth, that is NOT what Scripture means by the phrase, “time will be no longer.” It means, rather, that all time prophecies have reached their end points.

Glad you're still with me and not overwhelmed. David should have given you the heads up that I am thorough when it comes to anything Biblical/historical. I hope that I'm being helpful.

I am with you on "time will be no longer". I wasn't quoting Josiah Litch as infallible, just as an example of early Adventist understanding of eternity as it relates to time. For all their progress, there were a lot of wacky ideas among the Millerites, but at least they tolerated differences within the context of individual growth towards a united mission.

I agree that ontology is the observable point of divergence. I wonder, though, whether we should focus on underlying, deeper issues. As you will see, I think there is an underlying difference in how we understand "transcendence". As my last email outlined, I have sought to question the prevailing assumptions underlying popular views of "eternity". There is much more that can be said on those things. I don't think you could hold to "open theism" and hold to anything other than a temporal view of God. Atemporality and Sempiternity would not work with open theism. Thus I think there may be a cognitive dissonance between your view of God's providence/foreknowledge and your assertion that God transcends "time".

You say "I think that God, as God, transcends all material and generative categories, but condescends to inhabit our realities in order to communicate to and communion with us." You might "think" this, but your entire treatise on this in the chapter I'll review below doesn't establish this from Scripture. Your starting premise is your conclusion. I would agree that God transcends "matter" as we know it, for I see matter as being included in the "things" that were created. I don't know what God's substance is, just that He has substance. That's why I avoid calling it anything like "material". So we would agree that God transcends "material" categories. However, it seems like an arbitrary premise (assumption) that God transcends "generative categories". Why? Would it detract from God if He did generate an equal out of Himself? Are you saying that would be impossible for an omnipotent God?

I don't think you do understand me correctly on one point. "God" is both a quantitative and qualitative term. Quantitatively, "God" refers to the Father. The Father is the Referent of the Biblical term "one God". Qualitatively, "God" can refer to Christ, the begotten Son, co-equal with the quantitative "God". It can also, by extension, refer to the activity carried out by God and Christ through the Holy Spirit, Their representative. You are correct that I haven't reflected on my pneumatology yet. I'll get to that when I look at your own chapter on the Holy Spirit (though I will touch on some first principles below).

I'm very happy to see that you've reflected the two meanings of "eternal". I was thinking about the idea of infinite eternity. If you divide infinity into two, how much do you have? The answer is you still have infinity. I think this ought to settle it, functionally. Let me ask you this... If we are busy working on building up the Church and carrying out the mandate of the 3 Angel's Messages, can this not be something we can have peace on and allow for growth on each side? As long as either party holds to the entirety of Scripture and Inspiration and pursues these things peace and in a balanced way, does the issue of whether Jesus's personality is infinite in terms of past existence or some fraction of infinity (remember we both hold that His substance is without beginning) really constitute something worth dividing over?

Anyway, I'll post below the next chapter review.

The Transcendence of God

 Ty, I have to level with you, after a thoroughly Biblical and mostly enjoyable first half of the book, this next section beginning with "The Transcendence of God" falls flat. This chapter and "The Genius of Three" are almost purely philosophical. One verse is quoted in the first of these chapters with an additional partial quote and 10 references. The second of these chapters has a sole verse and a partial second quote ("God is love").  "Each year I stand before a classroom full of new students and lead them through a simple exercise. I draw a large circle on the board. 'This circle represents the whole universe,' I explain. Then, in relation to the circle, I ask, 'Where is God?' The outcome is always the same. About half the students say, 'Everywhere in the circle,' and the other half say, 'Outside of the circle.' Both are correct, of course." I feel like you've set up the fallacy of the false dichotomy. I think the question is itself flawed and based upon false premises.

First of all, my personal belief is that there are multiple universes. I believe that all the stars of this universe were created on fourth day of creation week. Therefore our universe (or at the very least our galaxy) began at that time. I believe that the other worlds Ellen White speaks of antedate our own universe and are from their own universes. God's native realm ("the third Heaven") would seem to me to be the hub between the universes (possibly between galaxies?) like the "Wood between the Worlds" in C. S. Lewis' Narnia series.

Anyway, back to the question, I think that the flaw in the question "where is God" is that it assumes the answer is going to be either the entirety inside or outside of the circle (or both). Yet God has a bodily substance in the Bible as I've explored in my last email. God is in a specific place. Right now, He is in bodily in Heaven. At the end of the 1000 years, He will relocate to this planet. I actually presented your thought exercise to my wife Alina, and she independently concluded God was at a specific place within the circle at any given time.

But I think a better framing of the question would be to say of the circle "this circle represents all of reality". If asked "where is God?" in relation to reality, He would be within reality. He is not all of reality, but within it.

 I will get into this much more in depth when you discuss Kellogg in one of your last chapters, but for now I want to talk about pantheism. I guarantee that you will not have come across the information or viewpoint I hold because I have met hardly anyone who has studied this topic on the deep dive I have done. I plan to do a doctorate on this one day because it is probably the biggest crisis our church ever faced and yet I believe no one has been able to see through the dust that was kicked up at that time over the matter - neither trinitarians nor antitrinitarians.

Classic pantheism is the idea that all matter is partitive of "God". Kellogg did not teach this. Ellen White didn't even intimate that Kellogg taught this. She didn't say he was teaching pantheism but had "tendencies toward pantheism" that were "theories which are akin to pantheism" and "pantheistic theories". It was LIKE classic pantheism but not strictly the same.

Having read "The Living Temple" and other Kellogg writings as well as the sermons of Prescott and Waggoner from the 1901 GC Session (which were also warned against) and Waggoner's writings from as early as 1897 where he first showed pantheistic sentiments of his own, it is clear that Kellogg was teaching that God filled all SPACE rather than all MATTER. Kellogg saw God as manifest through gravity, holding particles of matter together and thus God was diffused throughout all the universe as an essence pervading all things.

I believe that the principles of pantheism that destroy the "personality of God" are perpetuated through any of the following ideas whether alone or in combination:

God is (or is in) all matter God is (or is in) all space God is (or is in) all time God is (or is in) all energy

Classic pantheism teaches the first of these. Kellogg taught the second and fourth in combination. All destroy the idea of an approachable Personage. I will come to this idea of "Personality of God" in the later chapter, so file it away for now.

Panentheism is like pantheism but with one major difference. God is not merely all that is, but is greater than all that is. So back to your circle question. If someone said that God is "everywhere in the circle" of the universe, then that would be pantheism. If you say that God is both inside and outside the circle, then that would be panentheism. If God is everywhere outside the circle but not in the circle, then I'm afraid He is beyond our ability to relate to. We've entered Platonic conceptualisations of God as perpetuated by Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm.

I do, however, agree with your clarification that God is present TO all of creation rather than present IN all of creation, but with caveats. Now that we've talked about pantheism, it is necessary to talk about omnipresence. Again, I'm asking you to suspend premises and theories you currently hold and investigate a new hypothesis with me like you must have done when you explored the Richard Rice/Gregory Boyd view of omniscience within the Openness paradigm.

The hypothesis I would like you to explore with me when it comes to omnipresence is that omnipresence is simply the combination of God's omniscience and omnipotence. To put it in simple terms, God is said to be present where He can see and act (which is everywhere). You reference Psalm 139. In that Psalm we read:

O LORD, You have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up;

You discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.

Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay Your hand upon me.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.

Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, You are there!

If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me.

If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night," even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.

In this song of praise to God, note the description and symbols of God's knowledge and action - "searched", "known", "know", "discern", "search out", "acquainted", "hem... in", "lay... hand", "hand shall lead me", "right hand shall hold me". Though the Psalm correctly acknowledges that God's knowledge is "from afar", that is, He is bodily in a certain place, it is clear that David sees God as being "present" by His "Spirit" wherever He can see and act. The Psalm says that God is in "sheol". This doesn't mean God is dead, but that God has power over death. Another place we see this clearly is in Revelation.

"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." - Revelation 5:6

In this verse, "seven eyes" and "seven horns" are together equal to "seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth". Now, we know that in Bible symbolism:

Seven = completion Eyes = Knowledge Horns = Power

Therefore

Seven eyes = complete knowledge (omniscience) Seven Horns = complete power (omnipotence)

Ergo the equation is simple:

Seven eyes (omniscience) + seven horns (omnipotence) = seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth (omnipresence)

I will further develop this and test this hypothesis in later chapter reviews. You are unlikely to have come across my pneumatology because this is one point on which I fundamentally differ from most antitrins and nontrins.

 I agree in principle with the idea of God's transcendence but cannot help but think that you have taken a lot from classic theism when you say that "in God's essential nature, God exceeds, surpasses, and exists without equivalency to, all creation". What I mean is this, the Bible teaches the transcendence of God, for example saying that God's "ways" and "thoughts" are above ours, as high as the heavens from the earth. Yet God still has "ways" and "thoughts". They may be "higher" then ours but they are on some level still of the same experiential order.

In this entire chapter, I do not see a balance between God's transcendence and His immanence. The Bible teaches that God has "secret things" which "belong" to Him alone. But this thought is balanced by "things which are revealed". God's revelation is primarily through Scripture, through nature and through God's interactions with humanity. This trinity of revelation tells us all we need to know of God's nature, attributes and character.

"The great storehouse of truth is the word of God-- the written word, the book of nature, and the book of experience in God's dealing with human life. Here are the treasures from which Christ's workers are to draw. In the search after truth they are to depend upon God, not upon human intelligences, the great men whose wisdom is foolishness with God. Through His own appointed channels the Lord will impart a knowledge of Himself to every seeker." (COL 125)

 You say, "God made time, space, and matter, therefore God transcends time, space, and matter." Where is this proved? I know of no explicit statement that "time" and "space" were created. You've simply lumped them together. I'm respectfully challenging your premise. Please refer to the previous email where I dealt with God's relationship with time.  I agree that "the moment God has been described on the human plane of reality, language has been employed that comes short of God's reality". Yet the purest form of revelation, the written word, was given by inspiration of God. Sure, I'm not going to insist on verbal inspiration, but there are direct statements by God through Christ all throughout Scripture and Inspiration.

Let's take "Father" and "Son" for a moment. These are human words, sure. However, they are words that describe concepts created by God. Then God has taken those terms and used them to describe Himself and Christ! It isn't we that have used those terms, it is He that has used them self-referentially. He didn't stop there. He has used birth language in a pre-incarnation setting to describe Christ's relationship with Himself.  You write, "If God made it, God transcends it. God made a world that operates and perpetuates by means of a system of material pro-generation, therefore God transcends all the categories of material pro-generation: male and female, father and mother, son and daughter." You are forgetting the fact that at least some of what you describe was creation of an image, a representation of Himself. Humanity, specifically the first two humans, was the complete image of God and the Person God was speaking to. God was clearly speaking to Someone ALREADY in His image, and apart from humanity, only Christ is described as the Image of God.

"And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred. He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of God." (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1, p. 17)

"After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, 'Let us make man in our image.'" (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, pp 33-34)

It is clear, apart from pre-incarnation Father-Son language that has nothing to do with the covenant of redemption, that Ellen White understood that God said these words to His Son. The completed image was TWO PEOPLE - male and female. Since you develop this topic further in this chapter, I'm now going to develop some points you are probably familiar with when it comes to analogy between Adam and Eve and God and Christ. David has said to me many times that the Adam and Eve analogy is weak and shouldn't be used by people who believe Christ is begotten. I am going to outline a very solid case, some of which David has conceded, for why Adam and Eve are the clearest picture of God and Christ's relationship. (By the way, David, there is FAR more Biblical and Inspired evidence for this analogy than there is for the purely speculative philosophical reasoning that love requires three.)

Ok, in my discussions with David on Adam and Eve, he has frequently said that there is NO explicit statement that Adam and Eve represent God and Christ. To which I have pointed out two witnesses. The first is the Image of God motif and the very clear statements in Genesis 1 that two people "male and female" were created in the "image" of God and His Son to Whom the words "let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness" were spoken. David has at times begrudgingly conceded this point. Then there is 1 Corinthians 11:3.

But I want you to understand that the Head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.

Whatever controversies may exist over the word "Head" and whether it means "source" or "authority" (or both), if we reduce to the lowest common denominator, this verse is telling us that on some level God's relationship to Christ = Christ's relationship to the Church = Husband's relationship to Wife.

Now, this passage is not speaking generally about ANY husband and wife relationship. It is clear that there is a specific husband and wife in view within the passage.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. - 1 Corinthians 11:7-9

Again, we can reduce all of the speculation as to whatever this passage is contextually going on about (though I believe Troy W. Martin's article "A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering" and his additional writings offer the most cogent and evidence-based reasoning) and see that Paul is focusing on the archetypical "husband" and "wife" - Adam and Eve. This is the only time when a woman was made out of a man. So let's modify our equation to be God's relationship to Christ = Christ's relationship to the Church = Adam's relationship to Eve.

So the explicit reason to compare Adam and Eve to God and Christ is based upon Genesis 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. I haven't even got to implicit and circumstantial evidence yet we have double the amount of explicit Scripture as what 1844 rests upon! See, David's challenge to produce explicit testimony is an attempt to draw people into the proof-text trap. While I can produce proof-texts, like you, I prefer big picture narrative. So we'll leave behind these explicit statements which give us the nod to look at the Adam and Eve creation narrative as revealing something about God and Christ. I will focus on some questions and a clear parallel.

Why do you think God chose to use a "unique" process whereby Eve was "only begotten" out of Adam in a way that no one subsequent to that event would ever experience? What was the reasoning behind that? Why did God not create them both simultaneously? Would this not have been a surer way to establish egalitarian equality? Why did God give Adam a sense of his solitary existence (without companion) by parading in front of him all the animals with their partners before creating Eve? What window into God's heart was He inviting Adam to look into as he reflected upon his and Eve's creation?

These are questions I have not even seen grappled with by those who reject the ontological begetting of Christ. Now, let's see some peculiar statements from Ellen White that parallel the three levels of equation we saw in 1 Corinthians 11:3

Adam and Eve

"He reasoned that Eve was a part of himself; and if she must die, he would die with her; for he could not bear the thought of separation from her." (Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, p. 39)

"Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator--all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 56)

Eve was literally a part of Adam, having come out of Adam's side while he was asleep. Ellen White uses this language in a spiritual sense using the simile "as" when referring to subsequent husbands and wives:

"The husband is to be kind and affectionate. He is to love his wife as a part of himself, and to cherish her as Christ does his Church." (Review and Herald, February 2, 1886)

Christ and the Church

"Christ's true followers will represent Him in character. They will turn aside from worldly policy, and every day will train themselves for service in God's cause. In active service they find peace and hope, efficiency and power. They breathe the atmosphere of heaven, the only atmosphere in which the soul can truly live. By obedience they are made partakers of the divine nature. The doing of the living principles of God's law makes them one with Christ; and because He lives, they will live also. At the last day He will raise them as a part of himself." (Review and Herald, June 18, 1901)

"The honor of God, the honor of Jesus Christ, is involved in the perfection of your character. Your work is to co-operate with Christ, that you may be complete in Him. In being united to Him by faith, believing and receiving Him, you become a part of Himself. Your character is His glory revealed in you." (Southern Review, October 25, 1898)

We are begotten out of Christ's side (His side was pierced at the Cross after He was asleep in death) to be partakers of His divine nature. This is a clear parallel between Adam and Eve and Christ and the Church. Yet there is one more level of parallel.

God and Christ

"Who can anticipate the gifts of infinite Love. 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' God’s love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lay hold of infinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father’s glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man. The windows of heaven were opened, and the showers of heavenly grace in healing streams came to our benighted world. O what love, what matchless, inexpressible love!" (Lt 36a, 1890)

Don't miss this. Ellen White was speaking of Christ as "part of" the Father not in a spiritual sense, but in response to her own question "what material did He use?".

If I was to ask you, "how old is Eve?" the answer would depend on whether I am referring to her personality or her substance. In terms of her personality, her separate existence as a discrete agency, she was a few hours younger than Adam. Yet when it comes to her substance, since she was "a part of" Adam, her age is the same as his age! The same question comes to us as we consider Christ. How old is Christ? Well, when it comes to His personality, which is distinct from God's personality, there was a beginning. Yet His substance, being the substance of God is as without beginning as the Father's substance is without beginning. Ellen White wrote that God and Christ were of "one substance, possessing the same attributes" (Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893). Thus it is (spoiler alert) that the life that is in Christ is "original, unborrowed, underived".

Now, this is important. If you define Deity as being "without beginning" then Christ qualifies according to my understanding, because His substance and nature are without beginning. We are actually on the same page, functionally, in this point. Yet Christ is also revealed, through explicit statements and through pictorials such as Adam and Eve to have been begotten or generated from the Father as to His personality. I'm going to list several of these word and narrative pictures to recap.

Word pictures:

1. Thought-Word

"He was the Word of God,--God's thought made audible." (Desire of Ages, p. 19)

"What speech is to thought, so is Christ to the invisible Father. He is the manifestation of the Father, and is called the Word of God." (MS 77, 1899)

"Who is Christ?--He is the only begotten Son of the living God. He is to the Father as a word that expresses the thought,--as a thought made audible. Christ is the word of God. Christ said to Philip, 'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.' His words were the echo of God's words. Christ was the likeness of God, the brightness of his glory, the express image of his person." (Youth's Instructor, June 28, 1894)

2. Wisdom brought forth (Proverbs 8:22-31)

As already mentioned many times the abundance of birthing language in this passage regarding the birthing of Christ hypostasised as Wisdom is impossible to ignore

3. Heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2)

Christ was appointed Heir of all things before He became to earth. This statement occurs before it says "through Whom He made the worlds". This is Jesus' first estate - "Heir of all things".

4. Express Image of Father's Person (Hebrews 1:3)

Have already discussed previously how the word for "express Image" refers to a precise Reproduction. The word refers to an imprint left by an original engraving. God is the Original, Christ is the copy.

5. Brightness/Reflection of Father's Glory (Hebrews 1:3)

Again, this word means a Reflection of an original. Together with the above, we have two reinforced word-pictures of Christ being a duplicate of the Father.

6. Origins from days of eternity (Micah 5:2)

This word means "origin" and many translations have it this way.

7. Only begotten (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; frequently throughout Ellen White)

Again, this is clear birth language. Sorry to say, but it doesn't actually mean "unique" when it comes to persons. When used of persons, it is ALWAYS referring to the child of a parent. Sometimes it is modified by context, such as Isaac who was the only born child to Abraham and Sarah, even though Abraham had other children outside of that relationship. Sometimes it is used in the sense that a child is loved LIKE an only born even though they may have siblings (Josephus uses it like this once). In any case, it is never used outside of the parent-child relationship dynamic. Other -genes ending words usually mean something- born. I could write a thesis on this topic as I've really looked through every extant use in Greek literature from Classical times to Patristic times.

8. Son of God (All through Scripture/Inspiration)

Spoken on this enough.

9. First-born of heaven (Desire of Ages, p. 51)

Ditto above.

10. Darling Son (EW 127; Lt 35a, 1877; MS 16, 1887)

Darling DOES mean unique. There IS something unique about Jesus' sonship. It's not on the level of those special creations (angels, Adam, leaders of other unfallen worlds). It is also not on the metaphorical/symbolic level of adoption through which the redeemed become sons and daughters of God. All that is left is "begotten".

11. Proceeded forth (John 8:42; 16:27-28; 17:8)

This language is also little appreciated in discussions on this topic. The word "exerchomai" refers to a coming out from within something. Jesus says He proceeded forth from God. He uses two words "exerchomai" and "erchomai" to represent two actions. He proceeded forth and then was sent.

12. Laughter/Delight (Psalm 2; Proverbs 8)

I've never seen anyone else use this, but this one comes back to the idea that Jesus is the "Word" of God. What type of word? Well, another verbal utterance is laughter. I have seen a link between Jesus as Wisdom being called the "delight" of YHWH and a hint perhaps at the laughter of YHWH in Psalm 2.

13. Firstborn over creation (Colossians 1:15)

Colossians gives Jesus the title "Firstborn" in two contexts, "Firstborn over creation" and "Firstborn of the dead". These are not the same situation. I believe that the first refers to His first estate.

14. Prince

Son of a king. Pretty simple.

Narrative pictures:

1. Adam and Eve

Have explored this above, though there are more parallels that can be raised.

2. Abraham and Isaac (Guest starring Eliezer)

There is so much that reflects God and Christ in the Abraham and Isaac story. Isaac means laughter, which is a joyful verbal utterance. Then Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. Hebrews says that the sacrificing of Isaac was a parable. In the first half of that story, Isaac represents Christ, right up to the point that the ram is found then the ram represents Christ. Eliezer (means God is my Helper), the servant of Abraham, represents the Holy Spirit when he prepares a bride for the Son.

These are only the most explicit word and narrative pictures that God has chosen to use in Scripture and Inspiration to speak to Christ's relationship to Himself. Each one indicates a reproduction, a generation, a coming out from the Father by the Son.

 You write, "If God is eternally self-existing, it is immediately evident that God necessarily transcends all the categories of procreation." This is the closest you come to giving a reason for saying that God transcends generative categories. So let's explore the first part of this sentence as your opening premise:

God is eternally self-existing.

I don't dispute this about God, or even about Christ. I just think there are premises which underly your reasoning. Let's peel back the layers and see what those premises might be. I think I would be representing your thought if I were to present it as follows:

Premise 1: "Eternal" means without beginning. Premise 2: "Self-existent" means without origin. Premise 3: Christ is eternal and self-existent Conclusion: Therefore Christ is without beginning or origin.

Now, I don't dispute premise 3. Christ IS described as "eternal" and "self-existent". However, I dispute the first two premises. I've already given very clear indication that "eternal" simply means immeasurable. Beyond that, Christ is described as being before all things for He created all things. That means that He predates any act of creation. As for the second term, it is not a BIBLICAL term, but rather is a term we find in Ellen White.

This term is used to refer to God a few times:

"As a priest, Christ is now set down with the Father in his throne. [Revelation 3:21.] Upon the throne with the eternal, self-existent One, is he who 'hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,' who 'was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,' that he might be 'able to succor them that are tempted.'" (Great Controversy, p. 416)

"The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36)

"In the creation of man was manifest the agency of a personal God. When God had made man in His image, the human form was perfect in all its arrangements, but it was without life. Then a personal, self-existing God breathed into that form the breath of life, and man became a living, intelligent being. All parts of the human organism were set in action. The heart, the arteries, the veins, the tongue, the hands, the feet, the senses, the faculties of the mind, all began their work, and all were placed under law. Man became a living soul. Through Christ the Word, a personal God created man and endowed him with intelligence and power." (Ministry of Healing, p. 415)

"Jehovah, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the Source and Sustainer of all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 305)

"God desires His people to look to Him for guidance, that they may be led by His Spirit. He is the eternal, self-existent source of all life, physical and spiritual." (Lt 19, 1901)

"In every case, clear, powerful light has been given that God is the eternal, self-existent One. From my girlhood I have been given plain instruction that God is a person, and that Christ is 'the express image of His person.' God always has been. That which concerns us is not the how or the wherefore." (Ms 137, 1903)

Notice how Christ is distinguished as a distinct entity from "God" in these statements as with the vast majority of Scripture and Inspiration. That is because Christ is not God quantitatively. He is not the person that is God. He is God in infinity, but not in personality. Especially in the last statement is Christ distinguished as "the express image of His person" while "God" is said to have always been. Ellen White never says this of Christ.

"Self-existent" is also used for Christ:

"It was the Source of all mercy and pardon, peace and grace, the self-existent, eternal, unchangeable One, who visited His exiled servant on the Isle that is called Patmos." (Ms 81, 1900)

"Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.' Micah 5:2, margin." (Desire of Ages, pp. 469-470)

"'Before Abraham was, I am.' Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. The message He gave to Moses to give to the children of Israel was, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' The prophet Micah writes of Him, 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, tho thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of Thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'" (Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900)

But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, 'Whom shall I send?' he could reply, 'Here am I; send me.'" (Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900)

"He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had come. When God asked, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?' Christ alone of the angelic host could reply, 'Here am I; send Me.' (Ms 101, p. 1897)

Though once using "self-existent One" as she called the Father, she favoured distinguishing Christ as the "self-existent Son". Now, I want to highlight the last two statements from Youth's Instructor and the Manuscript it was clearly derived from. Notice how "self-existent" and "self-existing" are interchangeable? There's a very strong clue about the meaning of "self-existent" in Ellen White's usage. Self-existing denotes a continuation of one's existence. In your mind, "self-existent" pertains to a lack of origin. In Ellen White's mind, "self-existent" denoted that which did not continue to draw its life from another source. Now, in case you think that my argument from the parallel of "self-existent" with "self-existing" is tenuous, look at the next quote:

"There is much talk of the Lord in nature, as if God were bound by the laws of nature to be nature’s servant. Do men know what they are talking about? Do they suppose that nature has a self- existent power without the continual agency of the Father? Many theories would lead minds to suppose that nature was a self-sustaining agency apart from Deity, having its own inherent power with which to work. But the Lord does not exert His laws to supersede the laws of nature. He does His work through the laws and the properties of His instruments, and nature obeys a 'thus saith the Lord.' The God of nature is perpetually at work. His infinite power works unseen, but manifestations appear in the effects which the work produces. The same God who guides the planets works in the fruit orchard and the vegetable garden. He never made one thorn, one thistle or tare. These are Satan’s productions, which he plants among the precious things. It is through God’s immediate agency that every bud bursts into blossom. When He was in the world, in the form of humanity, Christ said, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.'" (Ms 115, 1898)

Now, in this quote Ellen White isn't speaking of God or Christ, so we have a neutral context for determining her meaning. She gives us clear definition that "self-existent" means "without [extrinsic] continual agency", in this case of the continual agency of the Father. She goes on to use a synonym "self-sustaining" in the very next sentence. In fact, the entire context shows that the perpetual work of God on behalf of nature is the opposite of the idea of nature having a self-existent power.

Therefore, for Christ to be self-existent/self-existing is for Him to be self-sustaining, not forever drawing His life from God the Father. It doesn't mean "without origin". It means "without extrinsic continual agency". And in fact, the Bible teaches that Jesus has self- existent life, but that this life was GIVEN to Him.

"For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself." (John 5:26)

"Life in Himself" sounds very much like self-sustaining life. Now, the usual attempt to dodge this statement by those who deny Christ's ontological sonship is to say "that's referring to the incarnation" before they scurry away hoping that their premise isn't examined further. Well, I'm going to look at this idea more closely when I get to your chapter "Cutting deep into God" because there are some elements of the Kenosis that I think we differ on from my earlier reading. I believe that this statement is akenotic (a term I coined to describe Christological statements that are irrespective of the incarnation. I believe that Christ was given life in Himself at His first estate. He has had life in Himself before, during and since the incarnation. It makes no sense that He was given it only in the incarnation if He already had it. The only times He did not have "self-existence" was before He was brought forth out of the Father and thus given it in the first place and when He laid it down at the Cross.

Think about this for a moment. Saying "it's incarnational" doesn't make sense. If Christ laid aside His "life in Himself" to become human, when was He "given" it back? He is saying in John 5:26 that He has been given it already. When did He get it back if He laid it down? It doesn't make sense! Many of the Johannine statements of Christ are not specific to the incarnation. When He speaks of Himself, He is speaking akenotically. He speaks of His relationship with God as it has always been!

Let me give another example. Jesus says in John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I." This word "greater" can mean either in magnitude (i.e. larger) or in age (i.e. elder). Now, the simplistic response I hear is "this refers to the incarnation!" But I don't believe Jesus gave up being equal with God during the incarnation. Ellen White says that Jesus "did not cease to be God when He became man" (Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899). In my view, Christ has always been equal with God from the moment He was begotten. He simultaneously was exalted as equal with God by virtue of His being begotten. He didn't cease to be equal with God while on earth during the incarnation and He remains equal with God right now. So the incarnation cannot solve these sorts of statements. There's an entire, vast catalogue of verses that get swept under the carpet as inconvenient truths when they fly in the face of our preconceived ideas. This is something that affects all of us and true courage requires us to face those statements that are troubling and honestly wrestle with them, not to force them to fit our picture, but to fashion our picture to conform to the entirety of the evidence.

Anyway, will return to the incarnation in that later chapter. I hope I have established that "self-existent" does not mean "without origin".

 You derive much out of the Biblical expression "God is not a man". This entire chapter reminds me of the theologian who was tasked with "setting me straight" when I first questioned the tenets of the trinity. He used a similar approach taking statements where God refers to Himself as a Father, a Mother, a Son, a Lover, a Hen, etc. You have given many other examples. Anyway, this theologian, now the local Union President, spent several hours with these examples, insisting that because God often uses symbols, that even "Father" and "Son" are mere symbols and don't really mean anything except for experiential intimacy, as you have done. His focus on the trascendence of God was to stress that we cannot really know what God is like. Then after having spent hours setting this framework of God's mystery, he tried to tell me that God is a trinity. I pointed out to him that after telling me that we can't know God according to all the things the Bible says about God he was dreaming if he thought that he could sell me any positive affirmation that God is anything! That is, if God transcends all that we can comprehend, then He has just as much a chance of being a flying spaghetti monster as He has of being anything else we might conceive of. This is the problem with a view of transcendence that ignores the direct revelation of God. You can't tell people that God is so mysterious that He cannot be understood and then insist with any certainty that He is XYZ. You've pulled the rug out from under yourself.

I can agree that God is not physically male or female. I can agree that He is not a LITERAL "Father" and Christ is not a LITERAL "Son". I have never believed that and I think that nontrins and antitrins who use such loaded terms set themselves up for contradiction. "Where is the Mother then?" is the usual jeer. So if I don't see Christ as a "Literal" Son and yet I don't see Him as a "metaphoric" Son, then how do I see Him? Well, I believe that He is a REAL Son. In the DARCOM series, there are excellent articles that deal with the Heavenly Sanctuary. I can't remember which one it was, but one argued that the Heavenly Sanctuary is not a LITERAL Sanctuary and it is not a METAPHORICAL Sanctuary but it is a REAL Sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary involved a burnt sacrifice on a literal altar. Since Christ was not a literal lamb burnt on a literal altar, the antitype cannot be literal. Yet Christ's death was REAL. It wasn't a metaphor - it actually happened. And from this, the author argues that there are realities in the Heavenly Sanctuary which fulfill the literalness of the furniture and construction of the earthly sanctuaries.

In the same way:

Christ is not a LITERAL "Son". He doesn't have a literal heavenly "Mother". But He is a REAL Son.

Christ is not LITERALLY "Begotten". God doesn't have a a literal womb. But He is REALLY Begotten.

It isn't over-extending the analogy to claim that Christ is "begotten" because He is a "Son". The God Who created reproduction SELF-REFERENTIALLY USED FATHER-SON AND BEGOTTEN LANGUAGE! And as we saw above, there are over a dozen terms that reinforce the idea that Christ was originally part of the Father and proceeded forth out of the Father. So I hope you can understand where people are coming from who don't arrive at the same conclusion you have arrived at. They are simply going by what they know.

 You write, "There is a silly arrogance on display when an itty bitty human being claims to know, within the limited parameters of time-space-matter categories, that Christ began to exist at some point (time) distinct from the Father (space) as His ontological son (matter). What!? How could we possibly know any such thing—especially when nothing of the sort is revealed to us in Scripture?"

Couldn't this cut both ways? Couldn't we say that it is arrogant for itty bitty humans to claim to know ANYTHING about God? But Ty, as I have shown you repeatedly, there is revelation of Christ's eternal begottenness in Scripture. Look at one of those earlier quotes from Ellen White and how she quotes the marginal reading of Micah 5:2 "days of eternity". Ellen White connected Micah 5:2, a verse which she well knew spoke of the "goings forth" or "origin" of Christ happening in the eons of eternity, with Proverbs 8, John 1:1 and other passages. Go and look up how she uses it, it will fascinate you. All of the above you have claimed without ever proving that God transcends space and time. Now, I would like to know whether you believe God has His Own form/substance and whether Christ has His Own form/substance. If you believe that They Each have Their Own form/substance as Ellen White plainly teaches, it being revealed to her in her earliest visions, then at once God is spacial. Form requires spaciality. And moreover, if there is a distinction of form/substance between God and Christ then there is another need for spaciality. I just don't know that you've dug beneath the ideals of classic theism which rests upon neoplatonic ideals espoused by Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm.

 You say "If we strip away all material and pro-generative categories that compose reality as we know it, what do we end up with? If we eliminate all contingent forms of existence— everything subject to process and change, succession and growth, being or not being, creation and procreation— what remains? In other words, what is the raw, necessary, essential, eternal, unalterable, and unmade thing that transcends all things that are made?"

Ty, here's a question for you. What if there are pro-generative categories that transcend those that "compose reality as we know it"? Are you saying that there is no way God can possess pro-generative capability that transcends those that we know of? Would that not be arrogant? Your thought experiment where you want us to pretend to be Albert Einstein requires me to strip away "space" and "time", yet you have not proved these are even created!

 I agree that if we strip away all that is, we are left with Deity. I even agree that God is love and that love is "absolute other-centeredness". I don't know that it could be said that "God is love" equates to "God is perfect relational bliss", I think that "perfect relational bliss" is the result of love, not love in and of itself. I will deal with that in the next email where I look at that chapter.

I hope that this review process continues to be useful to your book. This chapter really could do with a complete overhaul in terms of Biblical or Inspired words in lieu of human reasoning. If you ask the wrong questions you're unlikely to get the correct answers. I'm not convinced you ask the right questions here in this chapter. You do ask convenient questions which will generally lead to convenient answers for your belief system. But I challenge you to lift up the veil and explore the assumptions behind your premises.

Happy Sabbath when it reaches you. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Hi Ty,

I had some time to get this next chapter reviewed and thought you might like to read it alongside the previous review as there is a bit of thematic crossover. I feel like after these, we're on the homeward stretch. There's a return to more solid evidence such as Bible, Ellen White and Historical Theology in the ensuing chapters and some juicy topics such as the Incarnation and Pneumatology, so will have to go slower once we get to them.

The Genius of Three

 This chapter rests entirely upon three words, "God is love", not even an entire verse. Given that this phrase constitutes the foundation of your entire argument for your version of the trinity (three beings, unbegotten Christ), I found it strange that you had not asked and explored the question "what is love?" This newer reasoning, that love requires plurality or triunity is relatively new but has caught on quickly. It has become sort of a "go-to" for those who believe in either tritheistic or consubstantial views of the trinity. Perhaps it is because it bypasses Scripture and doesn't require analysing passages that are troubling. Perhaps it is because it seems plausible enough that if no one questions the underlying assumptions, it carries the day with most people. I'm one of those people who questions underlying assumptions, so I'll do that here.

Because every point you make pivots from this foundation, I thought I would do a search through the entire book to look at everything you say that defines your notion of "love".

o In the chapter "Covenant Identity" I noticed something that I didn't pay attention to before. You give one verse from the ESV of Hosea and two verses from the NIV of Isaiah and list three things about what covenant means:

. steadfast love . unfailing love . faithful love

What I hadn't noticed before is that all three of these descriptions are translations of the same Hebrew word - chesed. I think that it should be noted in the text, maybe as a footnote, that these are three translations of one word, otherwise it might give the impression of three different underlying Hebrew words.

Anyway, have no problem with these translations giving a dynamic picture of love. But it still doesn't tell us what love IS. Yet even in that early chapter, you build your entire case from an undefined love beyond three translations of chesed.

o In the chapter "Son of Man" you use the term "self-giving love". This is a good description of what love is, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter. The same is true with later terms in this chapter such as "self-sacrificing love". o In the same chapter, you use the phrase "principle of love". This I want to come back to, for I don't think you see the significance of these words. o In the chapter "The Last Adam" you write "Love may be defined as relational integrity in which the individual self acts with preference for the well-being of others before one's self..." I don't think you have captured what love is at its core, you've captured what love looks like IN ACTION. There is a reason I'm engaging in such pedantry and I hope it will come clear in a moment. You go on to say "Love is other- centeredness" and "Therefore, love may be defined as power exercised for the freedom and well-being of others." I think "other-centeredness" is accurate as to the core of what love is, while the second sentence describes what love looks like. o You speak later on of "love as the only real power". Love this point. o You write in the chapter previous to this one, "The Transcendence of God", that "God is love, and love, by its very nature, desires relationship." I think there needs to be care taken in these words. God doesn't desire relationship in a selfish way. He doesn't desire relationship for Himself to be fulfilled. This would contradict the divine attribute of aseity - God doesn't need anything. It appears that you are moving in this direction when you say "Love wants to be known". I feel this misses the mark of what God's love is about. I will come to this later. o I think you are spot on when you say "God is love. God is absolute other- centeredness" but then you miss the mark when you say "Stripped down to God's pure Godness, God is perfect, relational bliss." You seem to give a parallel to these words when you say, "God is love, and that means God, in God's pure Godness, is an eternal interaction of ceaseless love". Why do I have a problem with these statements? It is because you are defining love as an action when from my study of this topic, love is not the action, love is something deeper than action. o Coming to the chapter under consideration, you write, "Love, by definition, is a relational dynamic, so if there were no other person with whom to relate, love could not happen." Where is this definition coming from? The Dictionary of Convenient Definitions? I really want to stress that when you are making a premise the foundation of all your subsequent reasoning, that premise needs to be unimpeachable.

 So what is love? I am going to look at three considerations, Biblical statements, the writings of Ellen White and the meaning of Agape within the context of Greek views on love.

1 Corinthians 13 is probably a song as there is much that is lyrical about it. These words are not a systematic definition of love, but a description of the various ways love manifests. Yet here we see passive and active elements to "love". Love is "patient", has integrity ("not envious"), other-centered ("not self-serving"), etc. I want to ask a question. If love has a manifestation apart from action, does it actually need anyone else? In other words, can agape exist only in a single person? Let's keep exploring.

The other major statement about the nature of love is this: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear" (1 John 4:18). Love is perfect wholeness of identity.

Ellen White has much to say about love. I have spent a bit of time collating her statements on this topic. Here is just a portion of what she says, strung together to present a cohesive narrative.

Perhaps the most important motif of Ellen White’s writings was the Biblical expression that “God is Love”. This sentiment bookends her Conflict of the Ages series as the first and last words of her opus magnus (PP 33; GC 678). This “Great and Blessed Truth that God is love” (ST Nov 15, 1899) was more than illustrative, for she wrote emphatically that “God is love; God is, in Himself, in His essence, love” (TM 265) adding that “’God is love,’ and in all His works, in all His dealings with mankind, His character is revealed” (Ms 21, 1900). She believed that “God is love, God is life” (RH Feb 26, 1895) and “God is love, and love is life” (COL 258) and saying that “Love is power” (RH May 11, 1886) and that “Love is the agency through which God works… It is the power by which he expels sin from the soul” (RH June 27, 1893). She speaks of “love which proceeds from God” (Ms 78, 1901) and plainly stated that “This love is the Spirit of God” (YI Dec 23, 1897) which pervades “heaven, where all is love and unity” (4T 223).

Ellen White wrote that love, at its core, is a principle, calling it the “heavenly principle of eternal love” (YI Dec 23, 1897) and saying that “The love of a holy God is an amazing principle” (RH June 17, 1890), “The love of God is something more than a mere negation; it is a positive and active principle, a living spring, ever flowing to bless others” (MB 58). To her, “True love is a high and holy principle” (PP 176), “a pure and holy principle” (2T 473), the “one comprehensive principle… This love is not an impulse, but a divine principle, a permanent power” (AA 551), “a living principle” (Lt 25a, 1895), “a living principle, a permanent power” (Lt 63, 1896), “the ruling principle” (SA 175), “an inwrought principle” (RH August 12, 1884), “a principle that emanates from God… the abiding principle” (Lt 26, 1894), “This pure and holy principle… Divine love has a powerful, purifying influence” (2T 169), “an active principle, a purifying agency” (RH April 30, 1895). She was clear that “True love is not merely a sentiment or an emotion” (AUCR June 1, 1900), “Pure and holy affection is not a feeling, but a principle” (MH 358), “Pure love is not an impulse, a spasmodic feeling, but a principle that is divine, a permanent power. We imbibe it fresh from the current of love that flows from the heart of God” (Lt 28, 1896) and that “The love of Christ is not a fitful feeling, but a living principle, which is to be made manifest as an abiding power in the heart” (AA 516).

Ellen White saw this as a principle that leads to action, saying, “Love must be the principle of action. Love is the underlying principle of God's government in heaven and earth” (COL 49), “Love should be revealed in action” (PP 144), “it is a principle manifest in works, in noble and unselfish deeds” (Lt 53, 1900), “an active, living, working principle” (Lt 7, 1900), “a strong, fixed principle, revealed in word and action” (Ms 138 1897), “Love is the great principle that actuates unfallen beings” (Lt 134, 1902), “All that we do should flow from a deep, abiding principle of love” (RH April 3, 1900), “It is a living principle, a principle that is manifest in action. True love, wherever it exists, will control the life. Thus it is with the love of God. "God is love;" and in all His works, in all His dealings with mankind, His character is revealed” (AUCR June 1, 1900). Writing more fully on the subject she stated, “When the heavenly principle of eternal love fills the heart, it will flow out to others, not merely because favors are received of them, but because love is the principle of action and modifies the character, governs the impulses, controls the passions, subdues enmity, and elevates and ennobles the affections. This love is not contracted so as merely to include ‘me and mine,’ but is as broad as the world and as high as heaven, and is in harmony with that of the angel workers” (4T 223).

Ellen White gives us a much greater picture of what love is, from core to its conclusion. Love is, at its core, not a verbal action of relationship, but a principle of powerful integrity of character. Love WILL lead to action, but love is not itself action. With this one consideration, your entire thesis falls apart. God COULD be "love" without anyone to share that with. He just wouldn't be KNOWN as "love" without this principle being manifest in action. And wouldn't you know it, Proverbs 8 tells us what the very first action of God was:

"The LORD possessed Me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old." (Proverbs 8:22).

Ellen White is clear that this is referring to Christ. I have given clear evidence that this passage forms the basis of the Johannine Prologue. There shouldn't be any doubt about this by this stage. This word "possessed", like many Hebrew words, has a wide semantic range. It can include "created" (which is where a lot of Arian confusion came from), "purchased" or even "begotten". It speaks of an acquisition without explicit reference to how the acquisition is made. Thankfully, it is not the only word used in this passage. The first time we see this root in the Bible it is used for the birth of Cain, where Eve says "I have gotten a man from the LORD". Thus the first usage is in the context of begetting. The important point I want to draw attention to is that Christ as Wisdom says that YHWH's acquisition of Him was "the first of His acts of old". Please don't miss this - the first action of a God of principled love was so powerful a manifestation of that love that it was another Person sharing His nature and character!

So having looked at the Bible and Ellen White, I want to turn to the meaning of the word Agape and also look at some of the philosophy that eventually came to be part of Classic Theism's understanding of Agape.

As you know there are four primary Greek words for "love" - Agape, Philia, Eros and Storge. Storge and Eros aren't used in the Bible. Storge is probably the most general word for love. It can be used specially of parental or familial love to generic love for country. Eros referred to sexual passion and intimacy, but came to have a much more philosophical depth of meaning to it. Philia was a special love of friendship. In the Bible, this is the special love God has with His people who love Him in return. Agape is, as you have said, an other- centered, unconditional love and is the general love God has for the world.

As mentioned earlier, Eros had a deeper meaning in Greek philosophy. Plato advocated for an ideal form of divine Eros as the foundation for human relationships. This Platonic Eros, contrasted with the vulgar form of Eros, was a yearning for beauty. Plato started with the idea of Eros as love of a specific beautiful person, then expanded it to the attraction to inner beauty, beautiful people in general and then to beauty itself. Thus Eros became a yearning for a higher level of goodness. Eros seeks value, desires meaning. Eros would create because it wants to be known.

This is all to be contrasted with the Biblical view of Agape. Agape, rather than seeking value, invests value. Rather than desiring meaning, imparts meaning. Agape would never create because it wants to be known. Agape would create so that it could know. Agape could exist to itself without need, desire or want and the first action of Agape would be the investing or divesting of self to create value, identity and worth. Thus Wisdom is the first act of the God of Agape. Here is a good discussion of the differences between Agape and Eros:

"Agape is often contrasted with eros, which is not found in the New Testament though it is prominent in Greek philosophy. Eros can refer to a vulgar, carnal love, but in the context of Hellenic thought it takes the form of spiritual love that aspires to procure the highest good. Eros is the desire to possess and enjoy; agape is the willingness to serve without reservations. Eros is an ascending love that proceeds from the earthly to the heavenly. Agape is a descending love that proceeds from the heavenly to the sinful. Eros is attracted to that which has the greatest value; agape goes out to the least worthy. Eros discovers value wheras agape creates value. Agape is a gift love whereas eros is a need love. Eros springs from from a deficiency that must be satisfied. Agape is the overflowing abundance of divine grace." (God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness and Love, D. Bloesch, 2006, p. 147.)

Later Christian philosophy chiefly through Augustine combined the Platonic ideas of Eros with the Biblical Agape and this became the Latin Caritas. The Reformation, in some ways, was a rediscovery of Agape. Some of the statements you have made about "love" where you say it "wants to be known" or speak of it requiring plurality seem to be more built upon a platform of Eros than of Agape.

 In reviewing the previous parts of the book I found another mistake. In the chapter "Covenant Identity" you give the wrong verse reference. Hosea 6:5 should be Hosea 6:6-7.

 You write, "What is the minimum numeric value of love?" Is it 42? Nope. Not the great question of life, the universe and everything then... In all seriousness though, it is a loaded, leading question. Perhaps a more foundational question would be this: "Does love have a numeric value?" I'm not sure that it does have a number, at least any number other than 1. Based upon what we have looked at above, love is a principle, not an action. It leads to action, but it is not action. Furthermore, the character of Agape love is to invest outward to others. Therefore since the love is invested outward, the recipient of that love doesn't have a new love, they only have they love they have received. If they then reflect that love outward, it is the same love that was passed to them, being passed onwards. Thus there is but 1 "love" that exists. 1 is the minimum and only numeric value of love. It has to start SOMEWHERE. I was surprised recently to learn that 1 is not a prime number. The number 1 is called the "Identity". Anyway, let's illustrate this from a very underappreciated statement from Ellen White:

"All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life." (Desire of Ages, p. 21)

We see in this statement that the Father's life flows out through the Son to all creation then returns through the Son in praise and joyous service to the Father "the great Source of all". Did you catch that? The Father is "the great Source of all". I accept this without question, whereas you would seek to exclude Christ from the "all". It doesn't say "the great Source of all THINGS". Christ is not a thing and such a statement would exclude Him. But He is part of "all". So the Father's first act was Christ, His internal character of love overflowing to the point where He generated out of Himself and simultaneously invested value into that new Being. Then together, These Two began the process of creation whereby they invested love and value in angels and other created worlds until they came to our own. As the love that originates with the Father is passed on, it is also passed back to God through Christ.

This is why God and Christ are "One" - in mind, purpose and character. It is because the love of God was duplicated in Christ. It is also why Christ prays for the same "oneness" for His disciples and all of us (John 17). It is not a separate oneness, but the same oneness, part of the self-same outworking of Agape that comes from the great Source of all. It is not a consubstantial oneness.

This is also why Christ's life is "original, unborrowed, underived". Ellen White's words are "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived" (Desire of Ages, p. 530). It doesn't say that Christ has independent, unoriginated life. It says that "IN" Him there is a life that is "original, unborrowed, underived". Note the statement from page 21 of Desire of Ages again. What does it say? "...THROUGH THE BELOVED SON, THE FATHER'S LIFE FLOWS..." The life that is "IN CHRIST" is the Father's. It is this that is "original, unborrowed, underived. It is the UNIT or IDENTIY of life and love - the One life. It is the same life that Ellen White says we can receive. She actually says we can receive this original, unborrowed, underived life!

"'In him was life; and the life was the light of men' (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself" (John 10:18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. 'This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent' (John 17:3). This is the open fountain of life for the world." (Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897)

See Ty! It isn't "inherent in man", but we "can possess it only through Christ" where "it is given him as a free gift". Wow! We can possess original, unborrowed, underived life because God wants to share it. Let that sink in!!!

So coming back to your thought question, it is inherently flawed. God's love doesn't "need". God's love overflows. And the first overflowing of that love became the Person of Christ! And their love together overflowed through the Spirit to become you, and me, and all of creation. Not because they wanted, or needed. But because love couldn't help itself - because love is love. Love begets, creates, invests value. Not out of want, but out of will. Not out of need, but out of nature. Not out of desire, but out of design.

 As for the substance of your question, you lead people to the idea that selfless love requires a minimum of three. Your reasoning is essentially that two people might have love with each other, but it is only when there is a third to share among that love is truly revealed, where each person can submit to the other two loving each other. Through the surrogate of "one student" you summarise the idea saying "With just two people, no sharing of one another with anyone else is necessary, so you can easily be possessive and selfish. You need a third person in order to be selfless." Then you say "If there are two people, each one has an object for their love and each one is the subject of the another’s love. But no sharing of each one’s object of love is necessary. In order to experience a selfless sense of self, each one needs a third party to which attention may be deferred."

Ty... have you thought through the implications of this? I am told, in the Bible, to "love" (Agape) my wife. Does this mean that if we don't or can't have children that we can never actually have Agape for one another? Do we need someone else in our relationship in order to selflessly share each other with that other person and that other person with each other? What if we cannot have children? Do we introduce someone else into our relationship? And what about equal power dynamics? You are in the process of arguing for three equal entities. How can a child satisfy this idea of three co-equal beings? Does this mean marriage should include a third equal participant? This is truly dangerous ground. You might think my reasoning here is absurd, but that is the point of reductio ad absurdum reasoning - it can highlight where the logic breaks down. I haven't even had to extend it further than how God extends things. Two people - Adam and Eve - constituted the completed Imago Dei. God cannot be the third equal in our relationships, for He is above us. Children cannot because there is a differential in the power dynamic. No, this method by which you prove "three" as the "minimum numerical value" of "love" is nothing more than contrived, convoluted and self-contradictory reasoning.

More to the point, if this reasoning is so powerful, why does it not rest upon a single line of thought from Scripture or Inspiration? There is nothing explicit or implicit in Scripture. You'd have to get extremely artful at proof-texting to string such together, and it's rather telling that you have more lines of quotation from a Harry Nilsson song (Aussie singer John Farnham did a better rendition) than you do from the Bible to support your contention.

 If we were to go to the Bible to enquire "How do we know that God is love?" we would not receive answers relating to a numerical "three". There is an ontological answer, but it is not this. Shall I tell you what it is? You won't like it... Well, it's right there in a passage that you only quote three words from. Let's see how we can know that God is love:

"Dear ones, we must love one another, because the love is of God and everyone who loves has been begotten by God and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, because God is love. God’s love was made real within us by this: God sent His only begotten Son into the world in order that we might live through Him. In this is the love, not that we loved God but that He loved us—He even sent His Son as the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:7-10)

Do you see that? The answer to the question "how do we know God is love" is answered by the fact that "God sent His only begotten Son into the world". If God didn't have an only begotten Son to send, Someone Who was a Son in a unique, ontological way that no one else was... If He sent an individual to BECOME an only begotten Son in the same metaphorical way that others are adopted into covenantal sonship... If you mess with what this verse is saying in any way, you are messing with the revelation of divine Agape. The manifestation of divine Agape is predicated on the ontological relationship between God and Christ, the fact that God gave the fullness of His divine love as embodied in His first act - the outflowing of His heart that is the Word, His only begotten Son.

 You write, "If God’s essential identity is traceable to a state of solitary selfhood—one— which would be the case if Jesus in any sense had a point of beginning and if the Holy Spirit does not eternally exist with distinct personhood, then love is not essential to God’s identity. If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not eternally co-existent, it cannot be said with any coherence that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8)."

You have not established this except through a specific line of reasoning whereby your conclusions are the same as your premises and which is devoid of any Biblical or Inspired processes. The song in 1 Corinthians 13 says "love is patient". This means that God could have patiently existed forever as the embodied Principle of love until that love overflowed into Christ as the first of His acts. And because half of infinity is still infinity, Christ's beginning as a Person fades into immeasurable eternity. Your entire thesis is predicated on the fact that love must always be acting or else it isn't love. You haven't articulated yourself in this way, but this is the underlying foundation.

 You write, "There is a pure, self-evident genius to the fact that the Bible identifies God as Three who are One, as a triune fellowship rather than as an absolute singularity, or even as a dualism. Scripture’s revelation of God as a perfectly selfless relational unit of three is convincing evidence that the Bible is, in fact, the revelation of the one and only true God, whose essential nature is pure love. The doctrine of the Trinity is not an arbitrary construct, but rather it is inherently, intuitively, inescapably logical to the very outworking of the very notion of love. What all of this means is that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t merely philosophical idea imposed upon reality, but rather it is embedded within the very fabric of reality itself as we experience it. We know threeness is the minimum relational dynamic of love."

"The Bible identifies God as Three who are One"? Really? Did I miss a chapter where you actually presented this? You've presented your own philosophical outline of triunity, but you have not established any divine threeness in the whole text of your book thus far. This is out of nowhere. I'm not denying a threeness to God. I'll get to this in a couple of chapter reviews, but for now, you've not come anywhere close to having earned this sentiment.

Rather than set forth any Scripture for the threeness of God, we instead get an entire discussion of Vitaly Efimov's trios of particles. You present Efimov's hypothesis, now proved, that from the quantum level there is triadic arrangement of particles as evidence of a divine triunity. To make this connection, you scrape the bottom of the proof-text barrel by using Romans 1:20. Ty, I don't know if you realise what you're guilty of here in terms of inconsistent thinking... You've spent a long time over several chapters telling the reader that "Beyond that, everything we say about God is metaphoric. Man, woman, father, mother, son, wind, dove, bread, flower, rain—whatever falls within the parameters of creation—are only penultimate approximations of God... Everything beyond this— everything material, temporal, and pro-generative—is the appropriation of language and forms that we can relate to and through which we can grasp different dimensions of God’s love." Ty, which is it? Can we know God from what He has made? Or can we not? It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too! Now what Efimov found, the Bible doesn't explicitly indicate as being representative of God. The Adam and Eve and then Father and Son imagery is explicitly referenced as part of the Imago Dei. In fact, Romans 1 indicates that this Imago Dei is in view, because the context of this pericope is the ungodly acts of the wicked. Chief among these is the debasing of the image of God through homosexuality, which destroys what God intended to represent in Eden.

But there's another issue that's deeper than this. You're attempting to use science to explain the things of God. This is something we should have learned a lesson from. We should be removing our shoes from our feet before we venture into such things and even then, we shouldn't be relying upon quantum mechanics about which we have the barest of rudimentary knowledge. During the Kellogg crisis some were using the book of a Methodist minister to push scientific ideas about God. Ellen White interacted with this book when she wrote:

"I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: 'The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.' 'The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.' Another representation: 'The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.' All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight." (Special Testimonies, Series B, Number 7, p. 62)

I will revisit this soon, but this counsel should give you reason to eliminate the sections of this chapter dealing with scientific ideas.

 You bring up subatomic matter as another example of threeness. Actually, this one I will engage with this not because I want to go against what I said before, but because I want to highlight the subjectivity of these types of comparisons. If you want to talk about the atom, the proton, neutron and electron are not co-equal. In fact, they are very different on an ontological level. The proton and neutron are the most similar and these TWO form an intimate bond as part of the nucleus. The electrons are negatively charged and orbit the nucleus. These subatomic particles are not interchangeable. The proton could not form the function of the electron or the neutron and vice versa. If we look deeper at the atomic analogy, then it looks more and more like Two Beings ruling together, one Sovereign (positively charged) while the glory of the positive electron encircles both. I am hoping that you will see that threeness in nature, if you look closely, might not support what YOU believe about the threeness of God. How about we stick to Scripture and Inspiration?  Possible spelling error - Should "first grad arithmetic" be "first grade arithmetic"?  This discussion about maths further contributes to the problems mentioned above with regards to science. I would really rather see you give the usual suspect Bible proof-texts for the trinity than take your reader down the rabbit hole of philosophy and scientific speculation that you've engaged in.

I hope that you're not too offended by my bluntness on this chapter. I think you might even lose some of your sympathetic audience (those predisposed to your position) by the entire form of this chapter. You'll definitely lose any readers who might be coming from an alternate platform or who might be on the fence, especially if anyone points out the things I have pointed out about the philosophical assumptions, etc. I do appreciate your reasoning, if I accept your assumptions. I can at least concede this much. It's just that I can't see that you've established those premises.

Anyway, I hope you've had a blessed Sabbath. I will leave you with a description of the trinity by Jonathan Edwards and John Piper that I personally can find acceptable and which I think springs from some of what I have shared above. In his book Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God, John Piper quotes Edwards who wrote:

"The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's infinite love to and delight in himself. And I believe the whole divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the divine idea and divine love, and that therefore each of them are properly distinct persons."

Piper then goes on to write:

"In other words, God the Father has an eternal image and idea of himself that is so full it is another Person standing forth - distinct as the father's idea, yet one in divine essence. And God the Father and the Son have had an eternal joy in each other's excellence that carries so fully what they are that another Person stands forth, the Holy Spirit - distinct as the Father and Son's delight in each other, yet one in divine essence."

I find a lot to appreciate in the descriptions by Edwards and Piper in light of how I understand the Biblical trinity of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Brendan,

No, I’m not overwhelmed, and yes it is helpful.

Your say that God transcends matter as we know it. Can we not say the same thing about time— that God transcends time as we know it? Paul speak of God existing and intending our redemption “before time began.” So, apparently, yes, we can say that God transcends time as we know it.

I believe you are correct when you say that there is a sense in which we can say that God is temporal. I also believe it is correct to say that God transcends time, as we know it. I've believed both of these things for at least 20 years.

This is the short way I've explained it to people:

Eternity is time without end, not timelessness. So, then, as far back as you can go in the past you will only ever encounter an unfolding of history or a succession of events. Therefore, time is a primary constituent of God's own reality. So in that sense, God does not transcend time, in as much as it is an intrinsic part of His very mode of being. And yet, if eternity is time without end, then a contingent being can occupy eternity from the point it begins to exist into eternity future—as Ellen White says, we may have a life that "measures with the life of God”—but only God inhabits eternity past, and as such occupies a relation to eternal time that we do not, and as such transcends time as we know it.

Yes, I believe that God has a form or a substance and therefore that God occupies space. I have no way of knowing that this manner of existing is innate to God's ultimate being or missional/mediatorial within the parameters of the creation-redemption enterprise. I am inclined to believe the latter. Furthermore, what it means for God to have substance in space, as opposed to what it means for us, I don’t know.

I'm not saying it would be impossible for God to generate an equal, I'm saying the generated thing would not be the thing you’re calling it—namely, an equal, if by equal you mean an equivalency of divine nature (fully God/divine) and yet a genuinely distinct personal identity that once did not exist and then was brought into existence. That is, I think, the definition of creation, no matter what else you want to call it. If the generated thing is equivalent with God in divine nature but not distinct in personality, clearly we do not have an actual distinct person. And if the generated thing is genuinely a distinct person, then that distinct person is a created being, in as much as it did not exist as a distinct person and now it does. In other words, the thing you're describing—a generated God—is, to my mind, a non-thing, like a square circle or two adjacent mountains with no valley between.

Yes, God has used birth language pre-incarnation, but we don't need to dig very deep to discover a rather overt explanation for such usage, which is what this whole book is about. The New Testament calls Jesus God's only begotten son, God’s firstborn son, and the beginning of the creation of God. And all of this language in the New Testament is grounded in and derived from the Old Testament narrative of Adam, Israel, and David. I am not aware of a single New Testament sonship statement with regards to Christ that is not grounded in the Old Testament narrative.

As far as I can see, you are employing a few Ellen White statements, and a whole lot of the very intelligent reasoning, to formulate an overall picture that extends its reach way beyond what the New Testament actually says.

You're not saying anything that differs in substance from the non-Trinitarian position, but you are articulating the highest IQ version of the position I've ever encountered. If anyone can convince the church to move in the non-Trinitarian direction, I think it would be you. Ha ha ha. You are impressive, to say the least. You are able to get a lot of miles out of words, phrases, and verses. But in my opinion there are fundamental and foundational flaws in your thinking, flaws that would be surmounted if you would pan out and let the big picture of Scripture have its weight.

The Bible is saaaaaaaaaaaaaying something: Adam, the son of God, failed in his vocation, so God set in motion a plan through human lineage to enter the human realm and be the son Adam failed to be. That plan involved a succession of sons—isaac, Jacob, Israel, David, Solomon—through which God, very God, became flesh and dwelt among us to actualize the sonship of humanity. Every New Testament reference to Jesus as the son of God is grounded in that overarching narrative. To use any of them to speculate regarding His ancient ontology, may be intellectually stimulating and creatively enjoyable, but not biblical.

Regarding your response to my statement regarding the arrogance of itty-bitting humans, yes, it could cut both ways, but it doesn't in the sense that you're suggesting, as far as I can see at least. I'm simply saying that an itty-bitty human being can't possibly know that Christ began to exist at some point distinct from the Father as an ontological son. I am not saying that we can't know “anything" about God. We can, in fact, know a great deal about God—namely, what God has revealed about Himself. And I'm pretty certain that what God has revealed about Himself has mostly to do with His character—how God thinks and feels and relates—and not so much about God's nature—what God is or what it means for God to have always existed. I say that God has always existed, and I believe it to be true, but I do not know what it means. I say that God is temporal, substantial, and spacial, but I do not know what that means for God in God’s complete otherness distinct from creation. What I do know, because God has revealed it to me, is that God is love, and that love is a relational dynamic, and therefore that in some way God has always existed in a relational dynamic of other-centeredness.

I have no idea what to make of your fine parsing of the difference between Jesus being a real son, but not a literal son; really being begotten, but not literally being begotten; and the Father being a real Father, but not a literal Father.

Taken as a whole, all you're describing below is the non-Trinitarian position, but in more sophisticated terms than they are accustomed to employing.

You ask, is this really something worth dividing over?

It's a fair question. I think the Seventh-day Adventist church in general would tolerate the humble, non-divisive posture and attitude you’ve described, if that's what we were dealing with. You may be that kind of non-Trinitarian (and I believe you are), and as such I would guess you could exist within the Seventh-day Adventist church without any threat to your membership or your participation in the execution of the mission. So I think there is tolerance on the denomination’s side in that sense. But on the non-Trinitarian side, at least as I have encountered it, there is a rabid fundamentalism about the issue that regards it as the definitive truth that divides the faithful from the unfaithful, idolaters from the worshipers of the one true God. And that equates to a divisiveness that is destructive to the overall mission of the church. So the denomination has no choice but to engage in disciplinary action in these cases.

Ty

Ty,

I'm glad that I'm being helpful. I notice you're only responding here to the "Transcendence of God" chapter. Have you also had a chance to read through my thoughts on the "Genius of Three" chapter? I feel some of that is pertinent to what you have written here.

I never said that God transcends matter "as we know it". I believe He transcends matter full stop. Matter, I believe, is that which was created ex nihilo. God's substance is something entirely different.

I could say that God transcends time "as we know it" if we are referring to the definition of time which constitutes the observation of cycles by which time is counted. God's reality transcends that. He doesn't need any time-keeping. I see your own terminology of how you say God transcends time "as we know it" as referring to the experience of time. In the sense where God has experienced eternity past, then yes, He does transcend our experience of time. But as you have stated, temporality is a part of God's reality. Thus in the purest form where "time" is boiled down to the succession of events, God does not transcend time.

As for the verse you allude to, this is another case of convenient translations. The words "before time began" in the Greek are πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων in both Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9. This literally means "before eternal times". So we have at once an absurdity. Whether you believe "eternity" is timelessness, infinity or immeasurability, you can't have "before" make any sense. "Before timeless times", "before infinite times" and "before immeasurable times" each make zero sense if you pursue a literal reading. Unless... We're dealing with a superlative. Then, this becomes hyperbolic, poetic language, intended to signify divine majesty. One thing is certain, though: the translation "before time began" is not tenable from the Greek.

The reasons that I believe God's form/substance is innate to God's reality are:

1. God created man in His (and Christ's) image and according to Ellen White this includes "form and feature". If God only manifested an image and then created man in that image... I just couldn't see that as fitting with the narrative of the Imago Dei.

2. The "Personality of God" was an integral part of early Adventist doctrinal foundation. It's very overlooked today. It was a repudiation of the credal formulations which stated that God is "without body or parts". This was a specific point at which early Adventists rejected prevailing trinitarian dogma.

God having substance in space simply means He is able to move and interact on the omnidirectional plane of reality while His temporality means that He unidirectionally experiences a sequence of events. These are parts of God's "personality" - His personability. Christ shares these attributes of existence.

You ARE saying it would be impossible for God to generate an equal because you have once again adhering to unsubstantiated convenient definitions. You define "God" or "Godness" as being "without beginning". Thus a begotten or generated God-being is to you is as oxymoronic as a "square circle". Yet the problem lies not in the concept, but in your definition. See the premises I challenged in the previous emails. God is eternal, but there is nothing to require eternal to always mean the infinite extension of time.

As for your contention that coming into existence = creation, I think C. S. Lewis explains the difference between begetting and creation better than anyone, so I will post his words here for you to see the distinction:

"We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set-or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God." (Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 1, Making and Begetting)

The crucial difference is about substance. That which is created and that which is begotten both involve a coming into existence. However, that which is begotten is of the same substance of that which begets. That which is created is of a different substance than that which creates. Christ is very God of very God.

I want to make another point here. When looking at history, we need to have an explanation for aberrations or the growth of error and heresy. Leaving aside triunity, the idea of the ontological begottenness of Christ is something that was largely unquestioned up until the last century within Christendom. What I mean is this. Before the last century, specifically the faulty research that redefined monogenes (popularised by Dale Moody) as "unique", the idea of Christ being begotten was not really questioned. Go to the earliest centuries of the Church. While there were questions about the nature of Christ whether it was indivisible substance (homoousios), same substance (homoiousios), like substance (homoios) or different substance (heteroousios), all agreed that Christ was generated. Not one voice spoke out against this view. It features in some way in all the early creeds.

C. S. Lewis, John Piper and Jonathan Edwards clearly have the same idea. However their view would differ from mine in one key way. These men believe in the "eternal generation" of Christ. The doctrine of "eternal generation" is the idea that Christ is always in the process of being begotten. He has never not been in this state. My view is that the begetting was a single event in eternity past. So how did the eternal generation idea come about? This is easy to explain. I have discussed with you the difference between the Hebraic concept of olam and the Greek ideas of eternity. Olam is immeasurability, whereas Greek philosophical eternity was seen as either timelessness or infinity of time. The confusion arose when certain Alexandrian theologians began to marry the Greek concept of eternity with the Biblical teaching that Christ is begotten. This appears to have occurred as a result of the loss of Hebraic mindset. The earliest theologians who started this process were Clement and Origen of Alexandria. This one "innovation" is likely the major cause of all the christological controversies that followed.

Other early Christians such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, etc. all taught that Christ was begotten as a single event. They did not teach eternal generation. By the time the fourth century came around, the new theology of Clement and Origen came to a head with the old teaching of a singular begetting in eternity. Arius, a disciple of Lucian of Antioch championed the original view. Alexander and then Athanasias championed the new theology. We know much of the rest of the story, but one thing is lacking in the entire history of the Christological controversies. There was never a voice that argued that Christ was NOT ontologically begotten.

Arius wasn't "Arian". From my research, Arius taught that Christ was begotten. I'm attaching a document I submitted for my theology course at Avondale which examined the primary and secondary evidence for Arius' beliefs (See Appendix B). After Arius there were those who took things to the extreme, but Arius didn't believe in a created Christ (neither did Uriah Smith, but I'll get to him later).

You say that all the language of sonship is grounded in the Old Testament narrative of Adam, Israel and David. Yet "only begotten" is not among that language. This word, whether you define it as only born or unique, doesn't fit your thesis. Proverbs 8 doesn't fit your thesis. Proverbs 8 is the passage which underlies the prologue of John! You are deliberately ignoring this rich narrative component of the Old Testament that predates ANY of God's mediatorial/missional acts. You are premise-forcing everything into one understanding. I understand Christ's covenantal sonship, affirming what you see. Yet this is secondary to His ontological sonship which provides the foundation for mediation and covenant.

As for my use of Ellen White, much of what she says DOES extend its reach beyond what the Bible says. She opens the curtain to scenes before the creation of this earth that are only hinted at in Scripture. If I present statements from her which contradict the picture you present, then it should cause a revision of your views. It seems like you're pitting her against the New Testament (which is really against what you want to see in the New Testament).

I actually say much that differs with the non-trinitarian position, but for the most part I have been dealing with christology. A trinitarian can believe in Christ's begetting without being "non-trinitarian". In fact, up until relatively recently, all trinitarians believed in the eternal generation. When we look at pneumatology, I am very different from most non-trinitarians. And I am unashamedly able to assent to a certain triunity within Deity. Most non-trinitarians downplay or deny any triunity.

I don't see it as my mission to convince the Church to move in the non-trinitarian direction. I WOULD like to see the position I hold have a seat at the table of dialogue and discourse within the acceptable range of views in Adventism, especially given that it was part of the early formation of our Church. I hope you can admit that someone like me might have something to offer. You would have to concede that we might not be done yet with our growth on the nature and character of God, especially given your own belief in Open Theism, something which has yet to establish any sense of orthodoxy within Adventism. I will discuss the history of our Church more at the relevant chapter.

I have panned out. I see the big picture, including covenantal sonship. It's like you think that I can't see the view you hold just because I do not make it all-encompassing in my own formulation. As I have repeatedly stated, I not only see covenant sonship, but it is incorporated into my big picture. I simply don't believe that covenant sonship can account for every data point, nor does it exhaust the Biblical imagery. I guess you can say that my big picture is bigger than yours. Maybe it is you that needs to pan out a little bit more.

They say that the strength of a chain is in its weakest link. The weak link in your chain is the existence of pre-incarnation sonship narratives. You acknowledge that there pre- incarnational sonship language exists, because you have tried to account for it with prolepsis. But this is insufficient to explain all the data points for pre-incarnational Sonship. It defies explanation of the Great Controversy scenes, of Proverbs 8, of monogenes whether you take it to mean "unique" or "only begotten", of Ellen White's statement that Jesus became the Son of God in a new sense at the incarnation, of Ellen White's indication that Jesus' begotten sonship is distinct from our adopted sonship or the angels' created sonship, etc. etc. etc. Your hypothesis cannot explain these, so your book ignores all of them. Step back, pan out a little more and you'll "get it".

You accept that we can know what God has revealed about Himself and God has revealed that apart from and before all that is, He has a Son - a generated equal. I am glad you acknowledge that God "has always been" and that He "is temporal, substantial and spacial". You don't have to know what these things mean. Perhaps that is the difference between you and me. I don't feel the need to know what these things mean. I am happy enough to believe that they are so because they are revealed. It is also why I can accept that God generated an equal out of Himself before anything was created - the first act of love. I don't need to know what it means, just to accept Him at His Word. And it isn't merely that which is intellectually stimulating and creatively enjoyable... it is Biblical. No human originated the idea that Christ is ontologically begotten. It is revealed in Scripture. Love as action requiring plurality is not in Scripture or Inspiration. Love as a principle that leads to action IS in Scripture and so is the fact that Christ IS the first act of God.

I think that one of the problems here is that you are seeing "trinitarianism" as inextricably linked to the idea that Christ is "without beginning". I challenge this assumption. I believe that someone can hold to a certain triunity to God while still believing in Christ as ontologically begotten. In fact, as I have mentioned above, it has been the prevailing viewpoint through all iterations up until the novelty of the unbegotten idea has taken hold in the last hundred years. As we will see when we look at the history of the SDA doctrine of God, it is this conflation of the trinity with Christology that caused so many problems in the first instance. This is why I ask you to suspend judgement. Whenever we are caught up worrying about the wider implications of any specific topic under consideration we place ourselves in the position whereby we might subconsciously subvert our deductive reasoning because it might not fit the "big picture" we have heretofore concluded. I sometimes feel that you have almost canonised your covenant-sonship-only viewpoint that you are almost inoculated against any evidence for ontological sonship underlying that covenantal sonship. We should try to avoid especially that demagoguery which assumes no alteration will be required to our own viewpoint at the onset of discussion while expecting others to fall in line to how we see things (i.e. statements like "as soon as you see it...").

In the end, I am not describing the non-Trinitarian position, simply the view that Christ is ontologically begotten. This can plug into any wider theology proper over whether there is a triunity about God or not. I happen to believe that there is a triunity to deity, though even there, it is very different to how others view triunity. There are various categories for how divine triunity is understood. These are summarised below: 1. Consubstantial triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three persons sharing one indivisible substance. 2. Modalistic triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three modes or roles occupied by one individual. 3. Tritheistic triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three beings who share the same nature, purpose, etc. 4. Economic triunity - The "trinity" describes three different economic offices of divine activity.

From the sounds of things, you are of the third category (though I invite correction). You may balk at the term "tritheistic", but it is an accurate depiction of probably the majority of Seventh-day Adventist trinitarians. Only among the theologian class of our Church, who tend to be heavily influenced by evangelical authors, does the consubstantial trinitarian concept find the greatest ground, as it is not easy for Ellen White's expressions to make sense in light of that viewpoint. I am of the fourth category, which I will go into further when we arrive at your chapter on the Holy Spirit.

A true "non-trinitarian" or "anti-trinitarian" might be understood to outright reject any sort of triunity to deity. This would include massive swathes of belief systems from unitarianism, arianism, even atheism. And within these categories of triune conceptualisation, someone might believe in an ontological Son or they might not. They might believe in the Holy Spirit having a form or they might not. It's overly simplistic to think that just because I espouse an ontological begotten Son that I am not trinitarian. David helped me to see and overcome that simplistic viewpoint.

As to the difference between "literal", "real" and "metaphorical", let me try again to explain. As I see it, we are dealing with three different means of interpreting a Biblical symbol. In this view, "literal" is a rigid over-extension of an analogy, "metaphorical" is any interpretation without any anchor and "real" is an interpretation that only extends the analogy as far as the Bible takes it. I'm going to give the example of Christ as the "Lamb" and then Christ as the "Son".

Literal Lamb - If we were to interpret Jesus as the "Lamb" literally, then we would expect Him to be a wooly quadruped, literally slain by having His throat slit and roasted over the alter of burnt offering. Metaphorical Lamb - If we interpret Jesus as a metaphorical "Lamb" we could pick and choose just how far to take the analogy without reference to the text or the reality of literal Lambs. Real Lamb - If we interpret Jesus as the "Lamb" in a real sense, we will carefully follow the Biblical details. We will see that it refers to His meekness, to the fact that He is represented by the sacrificial system, etc. We will also look for overlapping analogies, such as the "Dove" symbol that also applies to Christ

Literal Son - If we were to interpret Jesus as the literal "Son of God", then we would expect there to be not just a divine Father but also a "Mother", and a means of procreation akin to what we see in humanity. Metaphorical Son - If we interpret Jesus as the "Son of God" metaphorically, then we are at liberty to pick and choose what this means without any reference to real Sons or human procreation. Real Son - If we interpret Jesus as the real "Son of God", we will meticulously examine the Biblical evidence to follow how far Scripture takes the analogy, including "begotten", "heir", "given", etc. We will also look for complementary analogies such as "Express Image" and "Word" which also indicate generation and duplication

To give you an idea of where I am coming from, I'll quote the section from DARCOM that I got these three levels of interpretation from. This is from DARCOM, Volume 4 ("Issues in the Book of Hebrews"), Chapter III ("The Heavenly Sanctuary - Figurative or Real?").

"How shall we regard the references to the heavenly sanctuary in the book of Hebrews? Does the heavenly sanctuary have an objective existence, or is it only an idea? The writer suggests that references to the heavenly sanctuary have been regarded in one of three ways: 1. In a metaphorical manner. This view denies any objective reality; concrete terms are given spiritualized meanings. 2. In a literalistic manner. This perspective would argue that each term has "hard value." The heavenly reality is construed in all aspects to be exactly like the earthly structure. 3. In a literalizing manner. In this view "the reality of the heavenly sanctuary and ministry [is] maintained as safeguarding the objectivity of the work of Christ, but precise details of that sanctuary would not be clear to us." This view affirms the reality of the heavenly sanctuary, but confesses that we have little data about the appearance of the celestial entity. Most Adventists would accept the latter view." (William G. Johnson, DARCOM, Vol. 4, p. 35)

In summarising these three choices when it comes to the Heavenly Sanctuary, Johnsson writes:

"Finally, as seems clear, a realistic literal interpretation of the cultic language of Hebrews is called for by the evidence of the text. How literalistic should we be? For example, when we read of the "blood" of Christ, are we to understand His actual blood being offered in the heavenly sanctuary? We are led, therefore, to see three possible ways of interpreting Hebrews: (1) metaphorical or spiritual, which is deficient, as we have tried to show in this chapter; (2) literalistic, in which each term has hard value—for the heavenly sanctuary, the earthly would be a miniature in all respects; and (3) literalizing, in which the reality of the heavenly sanctuary and ministry would be maintained as safeguarding the objectivity of the work of Christ, but precise details of that sanctuary would not be clear to us." (Ibid, pp. 50-51)

Because Johnsson uses the two very, very similar terms "literalistic" and "literalising", I have chosen for years to substitute "real" in place "literalising" which Johnsson does use interchangeably with that word. So in taking this to the topic of the ontological Sonship, I know from Scripture that Jesus WAS begotten. I don't know WHEN or HOW He was begotten nor do I trouble myself with those considerations. I know that it must be of a nature that as you say transcends generative categories as we know them. Father-Son imagery is simply one approximation (among many) chosen self-referentially by God and Christ to describe Their ontological, preexistent relationship.

I am glad to hear you say that you favour tolerance on this topic. I agree with you that disciplinary action is justified in instances where there is divisiveness that is destructive to the mission and message of the Church. However, I believe that for the most part, the Church has not engaged in such discipline in a restorative way, but in a punitive way. I believe that letting people know that they have a seat at the table of dialogue as well as a welcome to cooperate in mission on topics that all are agreed upon would go a long way to easing the divide. I have made the offer many times to Church leaders to stand alongside them in putting down dissent on this topic, showing a united front as an example for how we can co-exist and even grow the Church. Unlike other, more practical beliefs, how we close our eyes and conceptualise God is between each of us and God. At our most honest, all of us would agree that we are beholding the mysterious. Dogmatism is therefore unwise and unwarranted.

I will send the next chapter on the incarnation as soon as I know you've had a chance to go through the review on the "Genius of Three" chapter. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

G'day Ty,

I hope your Sabbath and weekend have been blessed. I haven't heard whether you had caught up with either the previous email or the review on the "Genius of Three" chapter.

I have the chapter on the incarnation reviewed which I am ready to send when I know you're caught up and whether you wanted to make any points on the previous emails. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

I haven’t been able to catch up. I’ve been engaged in an extremely busy speaking schedule with back to back trips from one place to the next. Just landed in Chicago to catch a connection to another city where I’ll be speaking for a camp meeting, which is only in the evenings and will therefore allow opportunity for me to catch up during the day.

Ty

That's alright, I had a feeling it was something like that which is why I didn't stress too much when my computer crashed and I lost the work I had been doing on the next chapter! That was a tough reminder to save my work...Glad Jesus is better at saving than I am...

I'll keep this review until you've caught up and when I have time I can work on the chapter on the Holy Spirit. I am certain you will find the material in these next reviews very titillating.

Will keep your travels and speaking engagements in prayer.

blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Brendan!

No, man, I’m not offended in the least by your bluntness. We are talking about ideas, not whether you think my kids are ugly or my teeth are a shade too yellow for your liking. None of this is personal. You are blunt, but I don’t think you are rude. With regards to ideas, I am a work in progress, fully aware that most of what there is to know, I don’t know, and that the mere turn of a sentence formulated in a way on a day when I happen to be in a specific frame of mind due to the way the lady at the grocery store spoke to me yesterday, could open my mind to see things I’ve never seen before. So, yeah, your bluntness does not bother me in the least.

Now, then, your blunt assessment of this chapter is very revealing. It tells me exactly where you are coming from.

Much of what you say here regarding the nature of love, I have agreed with and have taught for years. But I interpret the data differently than you do.

I do not see a sharp distinction between what love is and what love does. In fact, love is, to my mind, inconceivable unless it is in motion. So, yes, love is something: love is other-centeredness, as you seem to agree. But love is what it is precisely because love does what it does.

Love is what love does.

To say that it is other-centeredness apart from being other-centered, is, to my mind, philosophical non-sense. It equates to Aristotle’s notion of God as “the unmoved mover,” which, in Augustine’s hands because divine impassibility.

Love is a continuum, in my view. It cannot be a continuum in your system because the premise you are serving won’t allow for it ti be. If you change your premise from divine aseity to an innate divine relationally, a gorgeous beauty emerges in that vacant spot in the chair across from “God.”

Your idea that love is, if I understand you correctly, a state of being/mind for God that ultimately must be defined by self-existence with reference to self, as possessing no need/desire, seems to me to be an idea you hold by sheer force of will, out of theological need. You want it to be true to support your prime idea—namely, that God is, ultimately, an absolute solitary one—so you see support for it. I’m beginning with a different premise that feeds my perceptions. One must choose one’s premise and follow where it leads. I choose the premise that “God is love” in an eternally active, relational sense. My prime idea is that God is an absolute oneness, not an absolute one.

That pretty much defines the core of our difference, I think. Each of us is working from a foundational idea that generates outcomes. You can apparently conceive of love without outward motion toward another, and I cannot.

Ty

I'm glad we can speak frankly! I personally don't like wasting time beating around the bush. I am also very open to correction. I have been corrected on my views many times. If I wasn't open to correction, I wouldn't have married an Armenian! I am open to even correction on this topic. I just require much more evidence than what I have found in your book, especially in this section.

I also hope your speaking engagements have been fruitful. Have been keeping that in prayer.

I think we have a chicken and egg scenario, or a question of cause or effect. You say "Love is what love does", and thereby seem to my mind to be saying that action must either precede or be simultaneous with being. This is the reverse not just of what I have presented, but of what Ellen White explicitly states. She says that love is a principle that leads to and is revealed by action. She states that love is an active principle, but not the action itself.

It is not out of theological need, but out of consistency, that I hold my belief. I have the same view of "love" as I do about "righteousness" and "sin". You also misunderstand if you think that my view is not "relational". For example, those who focus on sin or holiness being action have serious soteriological problems. If sin is action, then the solution is a change of action. But the Scripture reveals that sin, primarily, is a state of disconnection of a relationship with God... that LEADS TO sinful actions. The equation of sin with action is the root of legalism. Jesus didn't come to change what we do, He came to change what we are - our nature.

There are two levels of "relationship" when we come to looking at principles such as love, sin, righteousness, etc. Of course we can view them in terms of connection or disconnection with God, but that is only one layer. God is also the objective Standard of love and righteousness. Inside of Himself, in His character, He IS the objective Standard. He doesn't need to measure His standard by someone or something else. Because He IS the Standard, He didn't need perpetual action to know He is that Standard. But from His very first action (Christ) that Standard would be clearly manifested.

I'm not denying God is relational or actively loving. My entire point is that the very first act of love was the generation of Christ. Not out of need, but because love is investment. God invested another of His own nature out of Himself. Together, They repeated this by investing Together in creation ex nihilo. In fact, my view of love is the epitome of "other- centredness", because the first "Other" came OUT of God's "centredness". And out of the centredness of These Two, all other others were conceived.

I wish you were self-reflectively honest with the fact that you hold your own viewpoint out of sheer force of will. There is not a single text or statement upon which you can base your central premise and the chapter "the genius of three" upon. You extrapolate out of three words "God is love" without defining love or agape from the Bible or Ellen White. I have been amazed that Bible-believing Christians and especially Ellen White informed Adventists have bought into this sophism. Your chapter on this subject is just another exhibit in how Scripturally deficient this case is.

You say that this nuance of principle before action is to your mind "philosophical nonsense". Perhaps that is because once again you are seeking to resolve the issue of mechanics. I'm happy enough to let what is revealed be truth. I don't need to be able to explain the "how", I have faith in the "what". It is not that I "conceive of love without outward motion". In fact, I wonder if you have taken in my entire review, because I clearly state repeatedly that Christ IS the outward motion of God's internal love. And this is based upon Scripture. The Scriptures which most clearly describe the love of God consistently and invariably do so in relation to Christ as the only begotten Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-10). If love did not have outward motion, we would not be around to conceive of it! Love's outward motion is generative!!! That is agape rather than eros.

And you are mistaken that you think that love cannot be a continuum in my view. It is. Check out these parallels.

Love the principle ---> Generates and is revealed by ---> Love the action

God the Father ---> Generates and is revealed by ---> Christ the Son

In fact, this illustrates a clear Biblical theme which is completely absent from the forced egalitarian overemphasis of tritheistic or consubstantial trinitarianism which rejects any notion of Christ's generation in eternity. God is consistently described as the SOURCE/ORIGIN/CAUSE and Christ is consistently described in relation to God as the EFFECT/MEDIUM/AGENT. This applies to God's ongoing creative and redemptive acts. God is the Source of all and Christ is the means through which He accomplishes all things.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

"He is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17)

"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

"The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34)

"Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36)

"So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life." (Desire of Ages, p. 21)

Etcetera, etcetera. This relationship of Cause and Effector is constant throughout what God has revealed. These are not arbitrary roles, but they reflect the ontological relationship between God and Christ. To deny this is exegetical and hermeneutic suicide.

I agree we have different premises. So let's sweep aside the structures we both have built upon these premises. What INSPIRED evidence do you have to define "love" as needing plurality? What INSPIRED evidence do you have to define "love" as inherently active? What INSPIRED evidence do you have to build this entire, massive structure of tritheistic trinitarianism upon? Because I'm looking for a "weight of evidence" to either countermand or harmonise the plethora of Scripture and Inspiration I've shared with you so far about love being first and foremost an inner principle and Christ being the first action revealing that principle.

While you're at it, some thoughts to ponder.

Can someone have love without action? Can a quadraplegic or coma patient who might be aware but trapped inside their own body and unable to act have love? Can someone stranded in the middle of nowhere have love? Can I have love when I'm asleep or unconscious?

Also, my prime idea is not that "God is, ultimately, an absolutely solitary one". My prime idea is that God is, ultimately, an absolute Source of all. Christ originated from within the divine substance, sharing every single attribute. We were conceived in the divine mind and in Him we live and move and have our being. There is a vast difference between "solitary one" and "Source of all". A solitary one would not necessarily flow out in love. A Source would reproduce love. You have to create the premise that God transcends generative categories in totality, yet generative categories as we know them are themselves manifestations of reproductive love. You're shutting out what real love is through the sophism you've bought into and which can't find one iota of support from Scripture.

I realise that this premise is not often challenged. Most people who believe in the ontological sonship, whether some form of trinitarian or nontrin/antitrin don't really know how to deconstruct philosophical arguments like I have done. They tend to just present the Scripture and Ellen White that contradicts this view. I'm trying to go a step further to lift the curtain on the wizard and tell you that the emperor has no clothes (to mix fictional metaphors). If this is the foundational premise, I hope you find a new one. Even if, hypothetically, your structure was correct, why base it on the sand of specious philosophy? There's a reason this casuistic reasoning is novel and cannot be found in antiquity. It's because no one challenged the idea that Christ was ontologically generated. They understood it differently after the Alexandrian theologians co-opted Greek views of eternity, but they never questioned the vast weight of Scripture that taught ontological sonship for Christ. They never conceived of such strange fire as this Biblically-devoid notion.

Ultimately, the choice is between whether God is the "I Am" or the "I Do" or "I Need". God, as a Source, as a generative Cause, is love. His actions (including Christ - the express Image, Firstborn, only begotten Son), only manifest His inner Being.

I'm going to post below my review of the chapter on the Incarnation for you. The Holy Spirit chapter review is in progress at the moment and might take the longest...

Cutting Deep Into God

 Ty, I must admit that your attempt to derive the trinity from the covenant God made in Genesis 15 is very novel. It is also extremely contrived and not a little misleading. You highlight that God had asked Abraham to cut in half three animals, but you only mention three out of the five sacrifices. Abraham sacrificed not just a cow, a goat and a ram, but also a turtledove and a pigeon. Five animals in all. Are you going to argue for a pentad? But the arrangement was not five, they were arranged as four couplets. Two halves of the cow, two halves of the goat, two halves of the ram and two birds. Does this make a quartet?

You have engaged in a midrashic interpretation of this passage. I have no problem with drashic interpretation (Ivor Myers does it all the time). However, if you are going to dabble in drash, you can’t be found guilty of omitting details such as the two birds. The five animals represent the entirety of the range of sacrifices later found in Leviticus. The three mammals are specified as being three years old – mature. The picture we have is that the covenant that is being made with Abraham is comprehensive and complete. There is nothing that specifies the number of participants and if it did it might be more problematic to you once the avian couplet is factored in.

To give you an example of an alternate drashic interpretation (not that I necessarily agree with it), I submit the following commentary from Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) in the 11th century:

“Since the idol-worshipping nations are likened to bulls, rams, and goats, as it is said (Ps. 22:13): ‘Many bulls surrounded me, etc.,’ and Scripture states (Dan. 8:20): ‘The ram that you saw, the one with horns, represents the kings of Media and Persia,’ and Scripture states (ibid. verse 21): ‘And the he-goat is the king of Greece.’ And the Israelites are likened to young doves, as it is said (Song of Songs 2:14): ‘My dove, in the clefts of the rock.’ Therefore, he divided the animals, as an allusion that the nations will gradually perish. ‘But he did not divide the bird,’ as an allusion that Israel will exist forever. [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 28; Targum. Ps. 22: 13]”

At least Rashi has additional Biblical evidence on which to make his case! As I was researching about this passage after you had highlighted it, I saw in one paper by G. J. Wenham (JSOT 22, 1982) the following words, “Speculation without methodological control can lead to wild exegesis…” I did not find any commentary attempt to draw a trinity from this passage, though there were a number of odd interpretations such as the one above with Rashi.

Now, as for my view, G. F Hasel makes the case that this sacrifice should be seen as a “covenant ratification sacrifice” and because the passing through of the disjecta membra is unilateral by God (actually Christ as representative of God) it should be seen as a “promissory covenant” or a “royal grant covenant”. I would agree with you that the symbology is that God was pledging Himself and even signifying the cutting of divine life – specifically that of the Lamb/Dove of God, His Son. But there is more to the picture here. Not only do these sacrificial animals represent Christ, they are also clean animals that represent Israel who are made clean by God’s sacrificial covenant. Christ’s passing through the pieces as a smoking pot and flaming torch represent God’s promise to be in the midst of Israel – which He did as a pillar of cloud (smoke) and pillar of fire! The four couplets do not signify four participants but rather the number four, as it often does, represents universality. God’s covenant is universally available to all who are made clean by the sacrifice He has guaranteed.

If you were to seek any numerical indication on the number of participants of this covenant, you would not look at the number of mammals, animals or couplets, but the number of theophanic elements that pass through the midst of these. There are only two, as mentioned before. The first is a smoking pot. God the Father is represented often as being concealed or clothed in smoke or cloud. Christ, on the other hand, is the visible image of the invisible God. He is better represented by the visible flaming torch.

 From this highly specious attempt to see a trinity where one does not exist in the text, you jump immediately to the “three” statements of Ellen White. Now, I want to point out for a moment that you are using these in precisely the proof-text way that you have denounced in the opening of your book. I wonder if you realise that you’ve abandoned your caution once it has become convenient to your case?

Now, I don’t actually have a problem with the majority of these statements. I accept everything that she herself penned. The statements in “Sermons and Talks” should be accepted insomuch as similar statements can also be found in what she wrote or reviewed. In all the “three” statements you list, there is one exception to this idea. I question that she ever said the words “three holiest beings”. I am attaching a research document I have written which examines five separate manuscripts based upon a single talk from before the General Conference of 1901. The five manuscripts do not agree with each other 100% and in fact contain some significant variants. They illustrate the caution that is needed when it comes to the process of stenography and transcription (See Appendix C).

There is no evidence that Ellen White reviewed the manuscript in which the statement “three holiest beings” appears (no personal notations appear). According to one of the forms of shorthand in use at the time, “person” and “being” might vary solely in the length of some of the lines. Thus there may have been an error in interpreting the shorthand by whoever later transcribed it. I believe that the safe practice, which she herself asserted, is to refer to her words as either personally written or published in her lifetime. In addition to the above, I want to also mention that “dignitaries” is not capitalised in the original manuscript. I would suggest using the original manuscript format and designation rather than the posthumous compilation references.

 Coming back to the discrepancy between your initial aversion to proof-texting and your abandonment of that principle in light of partial statements from Ellen White, I want to take an aside for a moment and deconstruct the hermeneutic by which these statements are interpreted and indeed the flaw in most trinitarian Bible studies.

Triunity as it relates to divinity is not something which can be discounted without rejecting large swathes of Biblical and Inspired evidence. However, there is no unity in how triunity is understood in terms of its final conceptualisation. As I have previously outlined, there are four different views of triunity that people hold to. I will relist these below

1. Consubstantial triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three persons sharing one indivisible substance. 2. Modalistic triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three modes or roles occupied by one individual. 3. Tritheistic triunity - The "trinity" is comprised of three beings who share the same nature, purpose, etc. 4. Economic triunity - The "trinity" describes three different economic offices of divine activity. So let’s go back to the “three” statements. It is clear that on the face of it, these statements are entirely unhelpful in directing which of these views of triunity we are to choose from. In fact, even a modalist might be able to function within such expressions. And this very fact illustrates the problems you have attempted to fend off by opposing proof-texting in the beginning of your book. A list such as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” or a grouping of “three _____” does nothing to define or describe the interrelatedness of the “three” under question. Yet consubstantial and tritheistic trinitarians alike take these statements as tacit support for their particular dogmas. This is classic eisegesis, reading the entire doctrine into single phrases. Constubstanitalists and tritheists each take great liberties in their various interpretations.

Let’s take a step out of heavenly trio and look at an earthly one. In the gospels we often read the list of “Peter, James and John”. Each of these were equally part of what scholars call the “inner circle” of Jesus’ disciples. We read in one place that James and John are brothers. If we were to use the over-application of egalitarian hermeneutics that consubstantial and tritheistic trinitarians use, we would conclude that Peter must also be their brother. Now, you would agree with me that this is ridiculous, but it is illustrative of the rational process of most trinitarians.

Most trinitarians focus the majority of their attention on the triadic lists or groupings and neglect or outright ignore the passages which highlight the relationship between the Father and Son, Father and Spirit, Son and Spirit as well as what is uniquely applied to any of these individually. The hermeneutic of interchangeability is applied, such that whatever is said of Father, Son or Spirit is taken to be true of any of the others. Individual identity and relational dynamics are obscured by forcing all statements to fit a philosophical construct.

I believe that what is needed is a ground-up approach to the heavenly trio. This would start with looking at what is revealed (1) independently of the Father, Son and Spirit and (2) dynamically about the relationships between any two of these identities. Only then can we have a safe view of the “three”. It’s like you’ve got an upside down pyramid. The “three” statements should be the capstone of the doctrine of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, yet most trinitarians attempt to make them the foundation of their doctrine.

In my personal experience, as soon as I began to question the construction of trinitarian hermeneutics (at least the popularly held versions in Adventism), I was immediately sent these “three” statements you have listed, specifically the compilations in Evangelism as well as SDA Bible Commentary, Volume 7A. All other methodology was bypassed and these statements were used to try and get me to abandon anything I could see in other statements, narratives, etc. The attitude was “shut up and submit”. I later found that these statements were first compiled and arranged for this exact purpose of putting down “dissent” by the adherents of the economic trinity that still persisted into the 1940s. The point is, if you want to discourage proof-texting, it has to be absolute. You can’t be exemplifying it when it is convenient!

 It seems a strange thing to go from very clear, systematic chapters to these last three that are highly speculative. You make such gigantic leaps in this chapter so far, from an eccentric interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant to reverting proof-texting with the “three” statements, to returning to such assertions as “Within the realm of their own divine reality— above, before, and beyond all of our material and reproductive categories—they are the ‘three living persons of the heavenly trio.’ God is three personal beings who are one in love."

Again, I want to state that just because deity transcends OUR reproductive categories doesn’t mean that it does not possess its own, transcendent reproductive category. However, the last statement “God is three personal beings” is a notion so completely foreign to the usage of the Hebrew “Elohim” in the Old Testament, the Greek “Theos” in the New Testament and the English “God” in Ellen White’s writings. In no passage can you find “God” so used. This is absolutely unfounded. “God” is used in a quantitative way and a qualitative way. In the quantitative sense, it refers solely to God the Father. In the qualitative sense, it refers to Christ as sharing the nature of “God”, the Holy Spirit as being the nature of “God” or to humans as representatives of “God”. It can also refer to false gods. It is NEVER used as a group term. Not one single time! In fact, in some listings of the “three”, the quantitative use of “God” as applying to God the Father is seen through the distinction made between “God”, “Christ” and the “Holy Spirit”. For example:

“May the grace of the Lord Jesus the Messiah, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you!” (2 Corinthians 13:14)

“There is one body and one Spirit. Likewise, you were called to the one hope of your calling. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

“Before he left them, Christ gave his followers a positive promise that after his ascension he would send them the Holy Spirit. ‘Go ye therefore,’ he said, ‘and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father [a personal God,] and of the Son [a personal Prince and Saviour], and of the Holy Ghost [sent from heaven to represent Christ]: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’” (Home Missionary, July 1, 1897)

“But they were not left to fight the battles in their own human strength; that the angelic host coming as ministers of God would be in that battle, and also there would be the eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them with more than mortal energy, and [who] would advance with them to the work, and convince the world of sin.” (Ms 130, 1901)

“Why, then, should not those who are fighting against the powers of darkness move forward with faith and courage? God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are on their side.” (Review and Herald, February 18, 1904)

“How many will today pledge themselves to serve God with heart and mind and strength? Do you not want God and Christ and the Holy Spirit to co-operate with you? They are pledged to do this if you will keep your covenant with God.” (Ms 50, 1904) *Note, this is a stenographed manuscript based upon a sermon*

“They have one God and one Saviour; and one Spirit--the Spirit of Christ--is to bring unity into their ranks.” (Testimonies for the Church, Volume 9, p. 189)

Please note how “God” is listed separately from “Christ” and “the Holy Spirit”. This listing is clearly interchangeable to “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Jesus IS “God” qualitatively, as in John 1:1, or as Ellen White writes, “truly God in infinity but not in personality”. But the unproven onus is on you to furnish any evidence for “God” being a group category.

 You have taken your own liberty to capitalise “Divine Powers” when you quote “the sundering of the divine powers”. I would recommend reverting to how Ellen White wrote it. Also, I think that your application of this statement is out of context for the original statement is speaking of God and His Son and doesn’t mention the Spirit at all. This is another exhibit in the case of extending to all three what is spoken of only one or two. I hope you can see what you’re doing by now.

 You write, “Imagine the pure bliss of God’s eternal oneness. Imagine how completely immersed they were in one another’s friendship. Imagine how deeply they were intertwined, each one with the others. Hold that nearly unfathomable image of perfect love in your mind for a moment . . . and then allow your imagination to grasp, if you can, the great cutting off from one another that the “heavenly trio” experienced. Try to comprehend, and even empathize with, the separating agony that ripped straight through the emotional core of God’s eternal friendship.”

I just checked and found something interesting. You only begin with this whole John Lennon-esque “imagine” routine once you reach the half-way part of the book. Every time I see this rhetoric I recoil. This type of subjectivity would be at home in a “Spiritual Formation” textbook or in “The Spiritual Exercises” of Ignacio de Loyola. We’re better than this as Adventists. When did Ellen White ever resort to such rhetoric? When did Paul? When did Jesus? I’m not saying there’s no place for emotional appeal, but these appeals are asking to go beyond what is revealed, beyond what you have established.

 Here again we have you saying “In a vitally significant narrative twist, God would come to our world as the promised son of God.” I cannot stress how troubling these sorts of statements are. You completely rewrite Biblical narrative with these specious expressions. God didn’t come AS the Son of God, He SENT the Son of God – another individual. Even if I agreed with your conceptualisation, I would be equally repulsed by these statements.

 Next sentence shows the incomprehensibility of your view in the sense of mediation. “God, as man, would keep covenant with God in order to redeem our failure and show us what love looks like in action.” Without the distinction between quantitative and qualitative God, this sentence entirely contradicts the entire notion of mediation. Paul writes that “There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.” Jesus had to be OTHER THAN quantitative God and quantitative man yet SHARE the qualitative nature of both to be a true Mediator. In fact, Ellen White goes further in saying something that doesn’t fit with anything I have seen other versions of the trinity address:

“There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is none the less true that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’” (Ms 140, 1903)

Let’s reflect on these words for a moment… “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one.” If you try to say that this only applies to the incarnation, then you are saying that He ceased to be “the Lord God Almighty”. Not only does this not make sense it flies in the face of another statement from her pen.

“In stooping to take the habiliments of a man, Christ did not cease to be God. The human did not become divine, nor the divine human. Christ lived the law of God, showing men and women that through His grace they can do the same. By faith, in His humanity Christ saw what we are permitted to see by faith—the atoning sacrifice connected with the Lord upon the mercy seat. The golden censer is waved, and the incense, the representation of the purity and righteousness of Christ, ascends, bearing the prayers of every soul that receives and believes on Christ to the altar which is before the throne of God. And Jesus is in the midst.” (Ms 111, 1897)

The ONLY way to maintain the integrity of these two statements is to acknowledge the distinction between quantitative identity (“God in personality”) and qualitative nature (“God in infinity”). Christ was NEVER “the Lord God Almighty” in the sense of the quantitative person of God. He is able to hold that title in a representative sense, but that’s another hermeneutic principle. He did not cease to be Who He was when He came to earth, so the first statement does not apply to the incarnation alone. And the whole issue of mediation renders your expression nonsensical.

 Next you write, “There is a lot at stake here for our comprehension of God’s character. Reducing the sonship of Christ to speculations about His metaphysical beginnings robs us of these rich insights to God’s love that naturally unfolds from the truth of God’s triune oneness.” Ty, pretty much every portion of the second sentence here is calumnious. No one is “reducing the sonship of Christ”. Those who believe as I do rather ENLARGE the sonship of Christ to include BOTH ontological and covenantal sonship. Furthermore they are not “speculations about His metaphysical beginnings”, but REVELATIONS that come from Scripture and inspiration. It is those who deny the ontological sonship that “reduce” the sonship of Christ and those who take flights of philosophical fancy about three being necessary to love that engage in speculations. Scripture tells us plainly that the love that God is is exemplified in the giving of His only begotten Son. Any view which diminishes or reduces this sonship to mere metaphor is going to reduce our comprehension of God’s character.

 One observation I want to make relating to Philippians 2 is this. Notice how Christ is always compared to God and God is never compared to Christ. Christ is in “the form of God” and “equal to God”. Even His pre-existent name, “Michael” means “Who is like God?” We never read that God is in the form of Christ, or God is equal to Christ. In the lack of interchange of these expressions is an implicit deference of Christ to God that makes perfect sense in a view where Christ is begotten from God. Otherwise we would expect equal statements going both ways.

 Ok, moving onto the kenosis. I want to make a disclaimer that some of the points I will raise here are not settled among antitrins or nontrins. Some of it, I have never heard from anyone else that hasn’t gotten it from myself. We all know the spectrum of views on the humanity Christ assumed. Prelapsarians say Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, postlapsarians say Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. I believe Christ possessed the FLESH of Adam after the fall, but possessed the MIND of Adam before the fall. What I mean is that He was born born again. Literally and spiritually. He was born into this world with the same connection to God that we can have when we are born again.

Anyway, there exists a similar spectrum of views on the DIVINITY of Christ when He came to earth. At the two extremes are those who believe that He relinquished the divine attributes and those who believe that He possessed and used the divine attributes. I again fall between these extremes, believing that He possessed but did not use the divine attributes. Now, this is going to take a bit of unpacking to put this all together.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that this chapter and the next I will be dealing with the two things that the Bible and Ellen White explicitly refer to as “mysteries” - the incarnation and the Holy Spirit (God’s revelation knows of no “mystery” of the trinity except as relates to the Holy Spirit). Despite this, God has revealed certain particulars about each of these topics. I propose that if we can find a tentative framework that makes all the pieces fit, we are on safe ground. I believe that the cautions are meant to stop us from engaging in speculations outside of what has been revealed. I also believe that these topics should be afforded the most latitude in that if someone can, to their own satisfaction, honestly address every statement while allowing for additional evidence (why did Ellen White have to write SOOOO MUCH?!?) there should be licence. In addition, we should be open to other frameworks than our own in light of these mysteries.

Now to the evidence for and against Christ’s possessing of divine attributes in the incarnation. There seems to be evidence to say that Christ dispossessed Himself of divinity when He came to earth, which I take you to be saying in this chapter.

“At the time when He was most needed, Jesus, the Son of God, the world's Redeemer, laid aside His divinity, and came to earth in the garb of humanity.” (Bible Echo, October 12, 1896)

“He turned from His royal throne, His high command, and, laying aside His divinity, clothed Himself with humanity. For our sakes He was rejected and despised; He became poor that we through His poverty might be made rich.” (Signs of the Times, March 17, 1887)

On the surface, these quotes seem to be saying that Christ laid His divinity aside. Yet then we have other statements.

“Christ could not have come to this earth with the glory that He had in the heavenly courts. Sinful human beings could not have borne the sight. He veiled His divinity with the garb of humanity, but He did not part with His divinity. A divine-human Saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood.” (Review and Herald, June 15, 1905)

“He knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He came from God, and went to God. He had a full consciousness of His divinity; but He had laid aside His royal crown and kingly robes, and had taken the form of a servant. One of the last acts of His life on earth was to gird Himself as a servant, and perform a servant's part.” (Desire of Ages, p. 644)

“The Saviour came into the world, outwardly the son of David, not manifesting the full significance of his character. His spirit was subject to that discipline and experience through which humanity must in some measure pass. His divinity was veiled beneath humanity. He hid within himself those all-powerful attributes which belonged to him as one equal with God. At times his divine character flashed forth with such wonderful power that all who were capable of discerning spiritual things pronounced him the Son of God.” (Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 3, p. 259)

Somehow, we must pair these statements that Christ “did not part with His divinity”, “had a full consciousness of His divinity” and “hid within himself those all-powerful attributes which belonged to him as one equal with God” with the statements that He “laid aside His divinity” and “laying aside His divinity”. In simplicity, I propose that Jesus possessed quiescent divinity, accessible but voluntarily dormant. There are significant reasons for this view.

If we look at additional statements, Ellen White is clear that Jesus laid aside the glory and prerogatives of divinity, the outward form of God, but veiled and limited His divinity by clothing it with humanity. Jesus had prayed in John 17 that God might glorify Him with the glory He had previously shared. This indicates that it was the outward glory that would return to Him upon the completion of the earthly phase of His ministry.

“He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was His own act, and by His own consent. He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity, which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration, of the universe of God. He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for a while relinquished.” (Review and Herald, September 4, 1900)

Now, as to the practical reasons that Jesus possessed but did not use His divinity, I will point out the following:

1. The Temptation. If you or I were told to turn stones into bread we would laugh at the person telling us to do so. It would be no temptation, for we know we cannot do that in our power. The reason it was a temptation is because Christ possessed the latent ability to perform these acts. 2. The Example. When Jesus says “I can of Myself do nothing”, He is not saying that He does not possess that power. He is saying that He chooses not to use His Own power as the incarnation required His reliance upon the Father. 3. Transfiguration. Ellen White says on multiple times that “divinity flashed” forth at certain times while Christ was on earth. These instances are indicative of the underlying divinity that was clothed by the humanity. 4. Gethsemane to the Cross. Ellen White makes it clear that without His divinity, He could not have made it from Gethsemane to the Cross. She says He was “sustained by divinity” (Youth’s Instructor, August 4, 1898) and “if His humanity had not been united with divinity, He would have failed and become discouraged” (Review and Herald, March 26, 1901) 5. The Substitute. Without being fully divine, we don’t have a complete substitute. It is Christ’s infinite nature tasting the second death on our behalf which provides our salvation. 6. The Resurrection. Ellen White says at different times that Christ came forth “to” and “by” life that was in Himself (Compare Desire of Ages, p. 785 with Manuscript 131, 1897). Jesus Himself said on one occasion that He would raise Himself even though this must be harmonised with the numerous statements that the Father raised Him. The full picture must be that the Father’s power charged the divinity of Christ laying dormant in the tomb and this divinity raised Christ.

The manifestations of His divinity above indicate the unconscious or involuntary activation of His passive, latent nature. To remove His divinity destroys these powerful narrative elements, robbing rich theological and practical significance to the Christ event. I found another curious statement I want to summarise this section with below:

“The nature of Christ was a combination of the divine and the human. Having all the attributes of God, He also represented the excellencies of humanity and showed that all who believe in Christ as their personal Saviour will perfect a character after Christ's likeness and be qualified to become laborers together with God. By precept and example He uplifts those who are depraved, for through the virtues of Jesus Christ he has become the son of God. His life is like Christ's life, his work is like Christ's work, and he will not fail nor be discouraged, because he is vitalized by the Spirit and power of Jesus Christ. Christ is the Son of God in deed and in truth and in love and is the representative of the Father as well as the representative of the human race. His arm brought salvation. He took humanity, was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and submitted to all the temptations wherewith man would be beset. He showed in the great controversy with Satan that He was fully able to remove the stigma and discount the degradation of sin which Satan had placed upon the human family. By taking humanity and combining it with divinity, He was able to meet every demand of the law of God, to overcome every objection which Satan had made prominent, as standing in the way of man's obedience to God's commandments.” (Letter 11a, 1894)

Here she says that Christ had “all the attributes of God” and also that “Christ is the Son of God in deed and in truth and in love”. Under your entire thesis in this book, Christ is only the Son of God in “deed”. You have removed the “truth” about Christ’s sonship as well as the pater-filial “love” that exists between the Two of Them as part of the plan of salvation. I urge you to explore the bigger picture that is missed by this otherwise excellent portrayal of covenant sonship.

 I want to discuss the attributes of God for a little bit before we get to the “omnis”. This is the specific topic that I think should be very new to you, and it also relates to the previous comments on the kenosis. Most lists of the divine attributes in various systematic theologies tend to be all over the place. They include the “omnis” (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience), as well as character traits (holiness, love, etc) relativistic statements (transcendence and immanence), as well as descriptions of God’s Own existence (impassibility/passibility, aspatiality/spatiality, atemporality/temporality) and sometimes even the passive and active roles that God takes (Father, Son, Creator, Sustainer, etc). These tend to just be thrown together. I want to outline six different categories of viewing these traditionally conflated attributes along with questions that can help us arrive.

1. Vantages of Divine Proximity (How is God perceived?) This is where the discussion of God’s “transcendence” and “immanence” should take place. These don’t describe something that God is, in and of Himself. God doesn’t “transcend” Himself outside of the existence of any other being or thing. He just “is”. These descriptions either contrast God to us (personal view of transcendence/immanence) or to some other thing, such as time, space, matter (relativistic view of transcendence/immanence).

2. Realities of Divine Existence (How does God exist and experience?) This category looks at God’s innate relationship to His reality. It deals with God’s relationship to time and space. It deals with whether or not God has emotions. I would list under this category the following realities of God’s existence:

. Personality (God is a Person) . Relationality (God is able to be Related to) . Aseity (God requires nothing to exist as He is) . Passibility (God is an emotional, experiential Being) . Spatiality (God is able to move omnidirectionally) . Hyper-temporality (God lives in the moment)

3. Qualities of Divine Character (What is God like?) This category considers what God’s character is like. Of course, “love” is the primary descriptor, but so are such things as “holiness”, “mercy”, “justice”, etc. This category is limited only by the number of positive adjectives and their synonyms humans can conceive of.

4. Attributes of Divine Nature (What does God have?) This is where the “omnis” usually have their place, but I will get to this in a moment. These are the truly misunderstood and deserve quite a bit of attention.

5. Relationships of Divine Dynamics (How does God relate?) Here we can consider those roles that exist passively, by virtue of inherent relationship, whether internal to divinity (Father/Son) or external to the rest of creation (Source, King). These do not involve action but being.

6. Roles of Divine Economy (What does God do?) These roles are more active and relate to the operations of God and include such things as Creator, Sustainer, Comforter, etc.

Now, I have not seen anyone systematise this aspect of divinity before, and if they are fresh, then I submit them as a contribution to the discussion of divinity. Now to the “omnis”. I am going to say something else that I have not read anywhere else. I do not believe that “omnipresence”, “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are, strictly speaking, the attributes of Deity. Now, before you pick up stones, hear me out. I believe that a logical step is missed when the attributes of God are described with the omnis.

For example, omnipotence means “all power”. “All” or “omni” is merely a measure of the underlying attribute. If we distil this commonly held attribute to its basic element we are left with “potence” or “power”. I believe that “omnipotence” conceals both an active and passive element. “Power” is the active, while “Authority” would be the passive. Each of the three commonly held “omnis” have a passive and active element when they are simplified.

Omnipotence Omniscience Omnipresence Active Element Power Wisdom Glory Passive Element Authority Knowledge Presence

So what we have are six underlying attributes concealed within these words which are simply MEASURES of these attributes. To this there is one final attribute which might be called “omnivitality” or “immortality” or “self-existence”. At its most basic it is “life” and is always both active and passive at once. Thus the complete list of divine nature, then, are:

. Power . Authority . Wisdom . Knowledge . Glory . Presence . Life

The implications of viewing the attributes in this way are many. First of all, there is no attribute in the above list that Jesus lacked during the incarnation. He simply didn’t use them to maximum capacity. He allowed humanity to restrict His exercise. Perhaps the most frequently used phrase of Ellen White in describing the incarnation is “clothed divinity with humanity”. I imagine a tight-fitting glove that restricts the full access of movement to a hand. At any time, the glove could be removed or if the material is weak enough, the hand could break through. The capacity is there, but restricted.

Another implication of the above list is that there is also no attribute that we are lacking. When God made man in the image of Christ and Himself, He created man with every attribute, only not at maximal capacity. The omnis are true as they relate to divinity because divinity alone has maximal capacity in each of these areas.

So functionally, we agree that Christ in a sense dispossessed Himself of the omnis. This is important for Him to be our example. But He didn’t dispossess Himself of them in terms of being unable to access them, but voluntarily relinquishing their use. This is important for Him to be a Substitute of infinite efficacy. I think that you go too far in saying, “He voluntarily ‘emptied’ Himself of His natural God-abilities in order to embark upon the colossal enterprise of our salvation. So, then, the incarnation was not merely a change of geographical location for God, but rather a change of nature.”

“But although Christ's divine glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human.” (Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899)

“Christ had not exchanged His divinity for humanity; but He had clothed His divinity in humanity.” (Review and Herald, October 29, 1895)

 When you say statements like “God became the Son of God”, I wonder what you intend by it? You have previously said that “God is three personal beings” and “the social reality that is God”. It appears that there is some inconsistency and cognitive dissonance here due to the lack of holding to a qualitative and quantitative nuance for the word “God”. Do you mean to say that the “three personal beings” “became the Son of God”? Or only one of those individuals? I hope you can see how confusion can arise from the alternating uses without explanation here. And if you mean all three personal beings became the Son of God then you still have to address Ellen White’s statement that Christ specifically “became the Son of God in a new sense”. I am yet to learn what you believe the “old sense” upon which the expression “new sense” is predicated, for you only have the same metaphorical sense throughout.

 I have little problem with the subsequent discussion on Christ’s obedience excepting in that you have omitted a very important verse. You seek to make Christ’s obedience EQUIVALENT with what you see as His assuming sonship in only a covenantal sense. Yet Hebrews indicates that Christ “learned obedience” though He was already a Son!

“Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.” (Hebrews 5:8)

Ty, your problem is not with the excellent discussion of covenant sonship, but with the fact that you omit what that is based upon, in Christ’s case. As you say in this section, “the truth of Scripture belongs only to those who take in the whole narrative”. You are not taking the whole narrative, Ty.

 You say, “sonship is a human vocation, not a divine one”. Ty, sonship is not a vocation at all! Sonship is not an active role of economy, but a passive role of relationship. You have flipped this around and I believe you damage the gospel in doing so. You make God a doing rather than a being, both in your assertion that these are vocations and your view of love as primarily an action rather than a principled state. These are legalistic foundations. It’s like your seeking to present a relational Gospel, but by constantly describing relationship in terms of action rather than being, you’ve laid the groundwork for either sin or perfection to be primarily matters of action rather than being. This is not how the Bible describes either.

 You say, “A Son of God, in the likeness of Adam, now occupies the throne of the universe.” No, no, no! THE Son of God, the Express Image of the Father, sits at the RIGHT HAND of the throne of the universe. What happened to the whole narrative? You even quote Revelation 3:21 where it explicitly states that we can sit with Christ on CHRIST’S throne as He sat with the Father on the FATHER’S throne.

On this point, this was the thread that I actually began pulling that unravelled the prevailing views of the trinity for me. I was giving Bible studies to this ex-WCG girl and she asked why there were only two thrones. Now, I realise that there is the potential to make the logical fallacy of an argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

First of all, we should still maintain integrity of the narrative. Consubstantial and tritheistic trinitarians infer a third throne or being in instances like this out of their a priori conclusion that there must be one because their conception requires it. This is not how we should do theology. But more than this there is enough evidence to LIMIT the number of thrones to two. The sanctuary is very much a problem to the speculative versions of the trinity. Neither consubstantialism nor tritheism integrate with the Sanctuary. May get to this in another email, but for now, there are two throne locations in the Sanctuary. The table of showbread is the same height as the mercy seat, indicating that it is the throne location in the Holy Place. More importantly, there are two crowns that surround this table and this table alone. In addition, the “bread of the presence” is arranged in two stacks of six. This imagery decidedly limits the number of thrones to two and the number of occupants of the Holy Place throne to two. Christ does not sit upon the throne with God in the Most Holy Place, for that is where God presides in Judgement and Christ appears BEFORE the throne as our Advocate.

 I do appreciate what you say about Christ’s sacrifice being a covenantal sacrifice rather than the types of sacrifices the Pagans engaged in (appeasement, etc). I feel we would probably have a very lively discussion on theories of the atonement.

That said, I do wonder at how you perceive the death of Christ. What died? Was it just a human being? It would appear that you have made a convenient way out of the conundrum by dispossessing Christ of His divinity. The sacrifice needed to be infinite. A human sacrifice could not suffice. Only divinity possessed the infinity to not only justify sinners, but ultimately eradicate sin.

A lot of problems seem to come from how the following statements are perceived:

“’I am the resurrection, and the life.’ He who had said, ‘I lay down my life, that I might take it again,’ came forth from the grave to life that was in himself. Humanity died: divinity did not die.” (Youth's Instructor, August 4, 1898)

“As the sin-bearer and priest and representative of man before God, He entered into the life of humanity, bearing our flesh and blood. The life is in the living, vital current of blood, which blood was given for the life of the world. Christ made a full atonement, giving His life as a ransom for us. He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family. He did not have a mere semblance of a body, but He took human nature, participating in the life of humanity. According to the law Christ Himself gave, the forfeited inheritance was ransomed by the nearest of kin. Jesus Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity, in order to become a substitute and surety for humanity, that dying in humanity, He might by His death destroy him who had the power of death. He could not have done this as God, but by coming as man, Christ could die. By death He overcame death. The death of Christ bore to the death him who had the power of death, and opened the gates of the tomb for all who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” (Lt 97, 1898)

“Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.” (Letter 280a, 1904)

Note this last statement, undoubtedly familiar to you. First see how Ellen White contrasts “the human nature of the Son of Mary” with “the divine nature of the Son of God”. I am honestly mystified and thoroughly nonplussed at how you cannot see that this title is inherently a testament to His divine identity, rather than His incarnational, secondary “sense” activity. But beyond this, this famous statement and the others indicate that humanity died, and appear to say that divinity did not sink and die. In fact she says “that would have been impossible”.

However, Ellen White is also clear on several occasions that Christ “risked” eternal loss by undertaking the incarnation. Your solution appears to be to divest Christ of His divinity so that the risk is certain, but it doesn’t solve the need for an “infinite sacrifice”. I submit that more than just “humanity” died. Isaiah 53 states that “His soul” was made an offering. I’m going to divert a little bit to something that we as Adventists have not really embraced.

We are very strong on there being a duality to human nature. We use Genesis 2 to show a mathematical equation whereby Body/Form/Substance + Spirit/Mind/Breath of life = Living Being/Soul. We show the reversal of this from the wisdom literature. This is all well and good and accurate. Yet the Bible ALSO sees a tripartite perspective on man. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There is something additional that exists by virtue of the combination of substance and spirit - something else about the soul. (Don’t worry, I’m not going to argue for an immortal soul.)

Paul clearly sees the tripartite view of human nature when he desires sanctification in body, soul and spirit. Again, when writing about the Word of God, he sees that only that Word can divide “spirit and soul” which are paralleled with “thoughts and intents”. The soul and spirit appear almost indiscernibly identical, except in light of the Word of God. Ellen White also lists the tripartite ontology as “the physical, the intellectual, and the moral nature” on numerous occasions. The body is the physical, outer shell. Within this are the unseen elements, including thoughts, emotions, and will. Thoughts and emotions equate to the “spirit” and the will or moral center is the “soul”.

There is no accident that Paul likens our individual beings as “temples”. There are three parts to the temple. The courtyard surroundings and then two almost indiscernible (from the outside) sections of a single building within the courtyard – holy place and most holy place. The holy place features bread, smoke and light, all symbols of thoughts and feelings. The most holy place features what is essentially a throne – a decision center. So while man can be viewed as a duality (a courtyard and a building), he can also be validly viewed as a trinity. I hope to enlarge on the implications of this in the next email which will review your chapter on the Holy Spirit. For now, we can see these three parts in passages such as this where sanctuary imagery is combined with the three parts of man:

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (COURTYARD). Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind (HOLY PLACE), that by testing you may discern what is the will of God (MOST HOLY PLACE), what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:1-2)

So coming back to Christ, what was offered? Well, it was not simply the physical husk that expired on the cross and was laid in the grave. This did die, as Ellen White says. And it wasn’t the divine SUBSTANCE. That divine substance was in its very nature “life in itself” or “self-existence” or “immortality”. That substance did not die but lay dormant in the tomb. No, what died was the individuality or soul or will of Christ. However the incarnation was accomplished we know that Christ had taken a dual nature – divinity combined with humanity. Just as our “soul” ceases to function at the point where the physical body dies, Christ’s “soul” was “poured out” when His physical human body died. In this we have a resolution to all the requirements necessary for the atonement, including an infinite sacrifice.

Anyway, I hope that this was helpful. There were different areas of divergence here than what might have occurred in previous chapters, but there is some connectivity. Like I said, a lot of this includes points that are not resolved among nontrins or antitrins and probably not among trinitarians either. We are dealing with mystery, so it's all about how we find a harmony of the statements that holds integrity. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there are any points you might want clarification on. I know I'm crunching through your book, but hopefully at the end of it, we can have a dialogue on individual points, especially when you visit Australia next year for ARISE. blessings, Brendan Valiant

"And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built." (Nehemiah 4:18)

Epilogue Ty ultimately removed his chapter about the Holy Spirit and deferred it to his forthcoming book, which I have also reviewed and will compile and release to people after it is available upon request. Thus I held off on reviewing his chapter on the Holy Spirit until that time. I hope you have been blessed by the responsive reading I have made of Ty’s book. I hope you have also been able to discern the brotherly love that grew through these emails in spite of differences of opinion. We have had dinner together the two years he has come to Australia since then and had other communications building upon that friendship. I will close with a statement from Ellen White which I believe is rather applicable to this and other situations: “Christ prayed that His disciples might be one even as He and His Father are one. In what does this unity consist? This oneness does not exist because everyone has the same disposition, the same temperament, and thinks in the very same channel. All do not possess the same degree of intelligence. All have not the same experience. In a church there are different gifts and varied experiences. In temporal matters there are a great variety of ways of management, and yet these variations in manner of labor, in the exercise of gifts, do not create dissension, discord, and disunion. “One man may be conversant with the Scriptures, and some particular portion of the Scripture may be especially appreciated by him; another sees another portion as very important, and thus one may present one point, and another, another point, and both may be of highest value. This is all in the order of God. But if a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing elements. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls.” (Manuscript 24, 1892, “Love, the Need of the Church”) Blessings, Brendan Valiant Appendix A – First Attachment Ellen White, 1888 and the ‘Christian Connexion’ Appendix B – Second Attachment Who was Arius and What Contribution Did He Make to Christology in the Early Church, Especially as He Appears in Relation to the Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of the Seven Churches as History? Appendix C – Third Attachment What did Ellen White Say? A Framework for Studying the Words of Ellen White