Responding to Aaron Welch (End of the Preexistence Series)

Concerning “A Rebuttal to Martin Zender’s ‘The Preexistence of Christ’”

Is it only “relatively true” that God is the sole Creator of the heavens and the earth?

Martin believes that it’s only in a relative sense that God was the sole creator of the heavens and the earth, and he attempts to prove this by appealing to the context of some of the verses in which God appears to be saying that he was the sole creator of the heavens and the earth (e.g., Isaiah 44:24).

Yes, as ripping a verse out of context is like ripping a bike chain off the bike.

Although I commend Martin for attempting to make sense of this (or any) verse by appealing to the context, the problem, for Martin, is that there is nothing about the context that in any way justifies the view that God’s words in Isaiah 44:24 should be understood as anything less than absolutely true.

No one said they were not true, Aaron – they are relative revelations, considering the idolatry of the Israelites, and their crediting other deities with creating. What God said is true. He wills it all, and as later revealed, it’s through Christ. This doesn’t “credit Christ with something God did,” but notes the way God operates, as you just sought to figure out for yourself apart from God’s evangel. Why is this complicated?

As Martin points out, one of the themes of this chapter is the worthlessness of pagan idols and the inability of the false gods of the nations to save anyone. However, this fact doesn’t make Isaiah 44:24 express a truth that can (or should) be understood as true in only a “relative sense.”

How so, considering the relative context in which Israel was acting like a bunch of children? And how does this remove Christ from the equation?

The fact that no false gods assisted Yahweh with the creation of the heavens and the earth (which can be understood as an implied fact of Isaiah 44:24) can itself be understood as being based on the more fundamental fact that no one assisted God with the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Right, but even Colossians and John doesn’t say “Christ assisted God,” but that God uses Christ. Again, this doesn’t make Christ a sole or co-proprietor, but the method God uses to get His work done. I myself wrote this response. I wouldn’t say, “I myself and my computer wrote this response.”

Another point to take into consideration is this: What reason would the original readers/hearers of the book of Isaiah (or indeed, any Israelite from the time that this book was written until the time of Christ) have had to understand the words of Isaiah 44:24 as anything less than absolutely true?

Martin used the words ‘knockout punch’ in discussing this topic, but I would submit here that the Is. 44:24 passage was the ‘knockout punch’ of Yahweh (God’s relative title,) to Israel, at this point in time. Their heads were buried up their own asses, man. They weren’t ready for a Messiah, and God knew it. Telling them the method wasn’t the point at this moment (ref. Job 38.) Okay? They were to understand His absolute supremacy over what He made, and in still ignoring Him, they inadvertently killed the very Messiah they were supposed to be seeking.

Responding to my remarks on Paul’s words in Acts 17:24, Martin writes: Here, Paul claims that “God made the world and everything in it.” Does this prove that God did not make the world through Christ? No. In fact, this same Paul states elsewhere (1 Corinthians 8:6) that, “Nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” To show you that even here there is a comparison made to the possibility of other deities pitching in, Paul directly precedes this statement with, “For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords, nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). Even in the midst of multiple gods, Paul states that there is only one God. If God can be said to be “the only God,” even in the midst of multiple deities, then surely He can be said to have created the world “alone,” even while creating it through Christ.

I don’t think 1 Cor. 8:5-6 is a good example for Martin to use in support of the point he's trying to make.

Oof. Why’s that?

Paul clearly qualifies the “one God” of whom he is speaking as the God “out of whom all is, and we for him.” There is only one God of whom this can be said, so I don’t think Paul was saying that there is only one God “relatively speaking” (or one God “in a relative sense”).

So we’re talking about Acts 17, right? Being told in another spot that all is out of God and through Christ should still not be limited to anything, especially if you’re taking a “1 Cor. 8 is absolute” stance.

No other god in existence is the god “out of whom all is, and we for him.”

Correct.

Thus, it is absolutely (not relatively) true that there is one God concerning whom this fact is true.

Also correct.

Similarly, when Paul said that there is only “one Lord” (Jesus Christ), he qualified this with the words, “through whom all is, and we through him.”

Also correct.

No other lord in existence is the lord “through whom all is, and we through him.”

What was the point of this? You’re proving our point, Aaron. If One is through all, as Paul wrote, what’s the glitch, here? All means all. It never means ‘some.’ This is the first qualification in getting out of the ‘Christ saves some’ mindset of the Christian church. Why would all mean ‘some,’ here? If you understand, intuitively, that the Lord is through all, then this entire debate need not exist.

Psalm 33:6, 9 and John 1:3

What Martin considers “the least convincing verse of all” (with regards to supporting the position that Yahweh acted alone when he created the universe) is Psalm 33:6, 9. There, we read: “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host...For he [Yahweh] spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm…”

Yahweh gives the word and breathes—and the world is created through His appointed channel (1 Corinthians 8:6) and through His appointed Image (2 Corinthians 4:4), and through the personified Word (John 1:3).”

Martin believes the following concerning the sequence of events which resulted in the heavens being made:

1. As an expression of his will, God declared that the heavens come to be.

2. In response to the word of God, Jesus Christ (in his “preexistent” state) then willed that the heavens come to be.

3. The heavens came to be.

Not quite. The words Yahweh speaks are subject to Yahweh, the word simply being Living, a Subjector itself (John 1:1.) This is why Martin found this so unconvincing.

with regards to Psalm 33:6, my understanding of the sequence of events would simply be as follows:

1. As an expression of his will, God declared that the heavens come to be.

2. The heavens came to be.

*sigh* In the kingdom evangel, this is true. They aren’t familiar with God or Christ, apart from His kingship as Messiah and now, presently, as the Son of God with authority. They don’t know anything about the evangel of God, which concerns His Son.

What’s worth noting is that, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation - a translation with which the apostle John would’ve likely been very familiar - the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for “word” in Psalm 33:6 is logos. It is, in other words, the same word found in John 1:1-2. Thus, in Psalm 33:6 we’re being told that it was by the word (logos) of God that the heavens were made, and in John 1:3 we’re being told that all came into being through the word (logos) of God.

I would think that, if the word is toward Subjector, and John knows what the word logos is, and the word is personified in John 1:10-14 (especially 14, where the phrase the ‘word became flesh’ is so undeniably stated,) then the passage in Psalm 33 should be read with the newer revelation in mind, which Martin did. Again, this is why he found the initial argument for this verse so unconvincing.

At this point, Martin might object, “But the ‘word’ referred to in John 1:1-5 is said to have ‘become flesh’ in v. 14!”

Yes, he and I both would.

Yes, and this is perfectly consistent with the view that the word through which God created everything in the beginning was the spoken expression of God’s thoughts (which, again, Martin would agree is in view in Psalm 33:6).

*sigh* this would be true if the word wasn’t both called subjected and subjector in John 1:1. It’s personified from the very start, and saying It became flesh isn’t saying the word didn’t exist beforehand!!

Martin himself referred to Christ as “the personified Word,” and the event referred to in John 1:14 is, I believe, precisely when God’s word became personified.

I see. He’s playing a word game. Okay, the fact that the word becomes Jesus Christ, becomes Christ Jesus, and Christ is explained very clearly in Colossians 1:15-16 as having all created in Him, and the word both is the method God uses to create, and has life in it (John 1:3-4,) I think it’s pretty safe to clarify that the word is the method in which God creates is the same thing as saying, Christ is the method in which God creates. Phil. 2:5-8 goes into detail on this as well. Hard to “empty Yourself” to become a human if you don’t exist to perform the actual ‘emptying’ part of the phrase. Calling Christ the ‘personified word’ is a figure Martin used to get his point across.

“One Lord through Whom all is”

With regards to Martin's reference to 1 Cor. 8:6, I don't see this verse as providing any support whatsoever for the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence or his involvement in the creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

In the words of my friend Jose, lmaooooooo!

Paul was referring to what was true (and remains true) since the time that Jesus Christ became the “one Lord…through whom all is, and we through him.”

Ah, that’s there in 1 Corinthians, how could I have missed this:

For us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, through Whom all has become, presently, and we through Him.

Tale as old as time…

When did Jesus Christ become the “one Lord…through whom all is, and we through him?”

Yesterday, of course.

Was it before God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning? Was it at any time prior to when our Lord was generated/begotten by God, his Father, and the “Son of God” came into existence?

I would still implore any in Christ not to let this distract you from the written word of God. Aaron’s writing here has, once again, blended the two separate evangels together. The title ‘Son of God’ is not used here, nor is ‘Son of mankind’ used, nor is the force of the words through or all lost.

Jesus Christ became the “one Lord” – and was given the authority to be the one “through whom all is” – when he was roused from among the dead by God.

Let me go tell that to John, because he must have missed the memo. To be a Lord is to be a “SANCTIONER.” God’s word subjects creation, which is indeed Christ’s operation. Jesus is called “Lord” many times prior to His death, and even still, authority over all creation stems from Him being Firstborn from among the dead (Matt. 28:18,) not in being the method through which God creates. That’s a glory, not a power.

It would seem that Martin believes my teaching is “evil” because it supposedly robs Christ of what he refers to as Christ’s “second-greatest glory.” However, I believe that it is, in fact, the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence that tends to distract from (and even compete with) Christ’s greatest glory, and to make less of what Christ accomplished by the act of obedience that made him worthy of this glory.

Sorry, Aaron, I’m with Martin on this one. Christ’s preexistence doesn’t at all detract from His glory, but contextualizes it, making it even richer. The word of God emptied, down to the form of a man, born in a cow trough, to die for the sake of all, giving Him authority over all, that all may be ultimately reconciled right back to God? Pardon my saying so, but that’s pretty fucking awesome! How does this, in any way, detract from Christ’s prior glory, when the alternative implies that He didn’t exist until He was man, and then chose, during His life somehow, to (further, I guess) empty Himself? His death, as Aaron goes on to say, inseparably ties him from the glory of exaltation, but God clearly didn’t exalt Christ, all throughout the Old Testament, for being the method for anything, until after He is resurrected, that His children may now appreciate it!

Part Two

Aaron begins this section by stating that he was frustrated in reading Martin’s second articles, for two reasons. The first is that he believes Martin built a strawman based off of a misinterpretation of his argument, and the second is that he himself believes that he hadn’t made his thoughts on Philippians 2 quite clear. I’m not super concerned with Martin’s writings, here, and have only included them for context on Aaron’s argument, so I’m really going to focus on either how he elaborates on his previous view, or how his view on the chapter has either shifted or changed his initial understanding of… well, his own argument.

He very smartly does what I do in my studies (no credit here – I learned to do it from him and Martin both, actually,) and takes Philippians 2:5-8 piece by piece.

For let this [humility] be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also…

Aaron highlights, as I have above, that the ‘disposition’ referenced is in relation to the ‘humility’ in verse 3. Humility is the primary function that we have been entreated to follow, and Christ Jesus is listed as the ultimate example of humility, here.

…Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God…

Before we consider the meaning of the above words, let’s first consider what it is that Paul didn’t write. We’re not told that Jesus Christ “preexisted inherently in the form of God.”

This will become the necessary indication on the verse, as we will see. I usually quote verse 6 and 7, or, for the sake of simplicity, quote verse 7, and maybe sometimes 8, because it’s a direct line of thought.

Let’s look at the word inherently in the Greek/English keyword concordance:

Belong (huparcho), “UNDER-ORIGINATE” – is used of permanent, actual possession of freeholds, in contrast to allotments which change tenants, then that which is inherent, continually (all along) existent as an innate or essential attribute, exist.

The word ‘inherently’ literally means something permanent, something continual as an innate or essential attribute of the object. There’s a man “inherently” lame in Acts 3:2. God is inherently Lord over heaven and earth in Acts 17:24. Christ is inherently in the form of God. This is a continual, all along, essential attribute to Christ’s form.

Christ is in the form of God, Who does not touch death, does not die, and is a Subjector (very similar to how John 1:1 describes the word.) The word belongs to God, as we belong to Christ. These are indeed facts concerning what Paul wrote, leading right into the next two verses, and should not be lost in translation, or throughout Aaron’s reasoning.

Also, my guy, how are you going to say this:

This verse is entirely consistent with the view that Paul was talking about what was true of Christ Jesus as “the Man, Christ Jesus.”

Romans 1:23. Christ is inherently in the form of God, not in the form of man. I don’t think Aaron recognizes that this isn’t just a ‘doctrinal bias’ he’s combating, but a major component of Paul’s evangel. All of us in Christ have a doctrinal bias toward what’s written, knowing it’s laid out by God. In the midst of celestial observations on Christ’s glories and our deportment therein, we should not be presuming Paul is speaking of the man, Jesus, the way Aaron supposes we should.

Then Aaron says:

So what does it mean for Christ Jesus to have been (and to be) in the “the form of God?” In his commentary on this passage, A.E. Knoch remarked that the word translated form denotes “outward appearance,” and referenced 2 Tim. 3:5 in support of this fact (“having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power”).

What Aaron doesn’t tell you is the rest of Knoch’s statement:

“Form denotes outward appearance, as is shown by Paul’s use of it in the contrast, “having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5.) We have found it impossible to sustain the idea that it refers to intrinsic essence. Figure or fashion denotes the form prevailing at any time. Christ is the Image of God, the visible representation of the Deity. Paul himself saw Him on the Damascus road in celestial glory. Yet the form in verse 6 was laid aside for that of a slave, at His incarnation.

The ending mos of the word for pillage denotes the act, not the object of pillage. When He was in the form of God His glory was too bright to be gazed upon by men. The apostle John presents Him as the audible Word, but Paul shows Him as the visible Image of the Deity, too bright for our mortal gaze and seen only by our spiritual perception. As such He is seen in this epistle.”

Huh. Let’s line that right up with Exodus 33:18-23:

“Now he said: Show me, I pray, Your glory. And He said: I shall pass all My goodness on before you and proclaim My Name, Yahweh, before you; I will be gracious to whom I am being gracious and will show compassion to whom I am showing compassion. He also said: You cannot  see My face, for no human shall see Me and live. Then Yahweh said: Behold! There is a place by Me, and you will station yourself on the rock. So it will come to be when My glory passes by that I will place you in a fissure of the rock. And I will overshadow on you with My palm until I pass by. Then I will take away My palm, and you will see My back, yet My face shall not appear.”

Almost like Christ is the Image of the invisible God, being the Effulgence of His glory or something. Could just be the wind.

A.E. Knoch clearly doesn’t see form of God as taking any conflict with Christ’s preexistence, here, and while we should certainly be taking a critical eye to Knoch as well, we should also recognize that Christ is in the ‘form’ of God beforehand as well, especially thanks to the proceeding verses.

Now Aaron says,

“Inherently” (huparcho)? Does this word suggest that Christ has, in a fully realized and active sense, been “in the form of God” since the very beginning of his existence? And if Christ’s existence began at the moment of his conception (as I believe), wouldn’t this imply that Christ was speaking and acting on God’s behalf from the moment he was conceived? Not at all. Using the same word huparcho, Peter declared that David was “inherently a prophet” (Acts 2:30).

*sigh* Unfortunately it seems as though inherently and form are not enough for Aaron. You can’t argue with someone who has repeatedly denied. Let’s continue, letting him test his theory.

…nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity…

What does it mean for Christ to have “nevertheless emptied himself?” Strong’s defines the word translated “empties” (kenoō) as, “to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.” The first definitions provided by Bill Mounce  (a scholar of New Testament Greek) are, “to empty, evacuate;, ἑαυτόν, to divest one's self of one's prerogatives, abase one's self, Phil. 2:7.”

Right, so Christ, emptying Himself of the form He was inherently in, was by definition divesting himself of his prerogative, or class, or privilege, abasing himself. Again, how to consciously empty your non-existent form in your nonexistence?

What Paul went on to say immediately after declaring that Christ “empties himself” can be understood as further clarifying what he had in mind here, and as giving us the sense in which Christ “emptied himself”: Christ took “the form of a slave.”

Right, going from form of God to form of slave.

But what does it mean for Christ to have taken “the form of a slave?” As noted earlier, “form” refers to “outward appearance.”

Right, which means that now two different forms have been discussed in the passage, though He inherently remains the Same (Phil. 2:5, Heb. 13:8.) Also, to take the form of a slave is to take the form of a human (Rom. 1:1, 6:6, 14, 16, 17-20, Phil. 2:7.)

But if this is the case, then how does a person come to have the “outward appearance of a slave?”

By being human.

Being a slave is not about having a distinct physical appearance or particular physical constitution, and so “taking the form of a slave” has nothing to do with that.

Except being human, per the evangel we walk in.

Rather, having the form of a slave concerns one’s actions in relation to others.

Not in the celestial observations Paul makes in God’s evangel. We are referring to humans. The human race. Also, I hesitate to define being enslaved as ‘concerning your actions in relation to others’ at all. Being a slave consists of a clear master>subject relationship, which is exactly what being a human is in relation to the celestial realm. And, considering the verse continues with, “coming to be in the likeness of humanity,” I’d say I’m on the right track, here!

The “job description” of a slave is to serve the one to whom one belongs as a slave.

Yeah, and as a human being, He was subject to His Father, appointed by Him as servant to the Israelites.

Slavery is all about servitude, and the lack of liberty that a slave has is only a means to an end (the end being, of course, servitude).

Where is this going?

For someone to take the “form of a slave,” therefore, is for them to serve others, treating them as if they were superior to oneself in status. It is, therefore, serving others that gives one the “form” (or “outward appearance”) of a slave.

Yeah, which He did for His entire life to His Father! His sole operation was serving Him, which led to serving Israel! Jesus is familiar with this, saying in John 8:34 that man is slave to sin, and Paul’s evangel has been referring to humanity like this exclusively.

This fact should have led A.E. Knoch to question his belief (as expressed in his commentary on Phil. 2:7) that Christ’s “taking the form of a slave” took place “at His incarnation.”

He didn’t question the belief, because He understood that this is a celestial observation, as all of Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are, and had read Romans beforehand.

Knoch should have reasoned, “Since taking the form of a slave involves having the outward appearance of a slave – and since having the outward appearance of a slave involves serving others as if they were superior to oneself – then how could Christ have taken the form of a slave “at His incarnation?”

By becoming human.

The fact is that a human’s being conceived and their “taking the form of a slave” have nothing to do with each other, and such an interpretation only introduces confusion and absurdity into what Paul wrote.

When Martin claimed that Aaron required proof for his claims, this is what he meant. The proof here is that Aaron doesn’t have a legitimate argument here, lest He likens Christ’s glory to starting as that of a man, and proclaims that, in “emptying Himself,” He is emptying Himself of the ‘Son of God’ status. Observe:

Despite Christ’s superior, elevated status as the Son of God (a status which was expressed in the words “being inherently in the form of God” and being “equal with God”), our Lord emptied himself (i.e., abased himself), living a life of humility and servitude.

What?? He removed His privilege as son of God during His lifetime?? How?? He recognized from puberty that He was the Son of God, and during His ministry He still very much titles Himself Son of God (John 6:46!) He’s a slave the whole way through, as a man, Aaron. Again, these are lines you are drawing around the passage, not lines the passage itself drew.

In light of what has been said above, we are now in a better position of understanding the last part of verse 7: “…coming to be in the likeness of humanity…”

This phrase, like ‘empties Himself’ in relation to ‘form of God’ (not status of God, mind you, the way Aaron seems to be generalizing it,) is elaborating further on slave. Coming to be in the likeness of humanity is, by definition, the form of His slavery.

Anyways, Aaron wants to redefine human:

The word translated “humanity” in Phil. 2:7 is also the same word found in 1 Tim. 2:5, where we read that “the Man, Christ Jesus” is the “one Mediator of God and mankind.” The “humanity” in whose “likeness” Christ came to be is the same “humanity” or “mankind” of which Christ is the Mediator. It is that group of people constituted by every human being except Christ himself (hence the translation “other men” in the NET Bible).

I’m lost, now. No clue what he’s talking about.

The humans for whom Christ died (and of whom the “humanity” of Phil. 2:7 is constituted) are, of course, inferior to Christ with regard to status and rank.

Yeah, which is what makes likening Himself to them such an act of humility.

Despite being himself a human (as Paul notes in v. 8), Christ is on a completely different level than every other human; no other human could, for example, be said to be “inherently in the form of God,” or could “deem it not pillaging to be equal with God.”

Now you acknowledge His exceptionality? He was exceptional because He was the Son of God. This didn’t change at all during His ministry. I still don’t know what he’s getting at.

And yet, Christ Jesus - the one who was and is inherently superior to all other humans ("humanity") - conducted himself in such a way that he took “the form of a slave.”

God, what is he talking about?? What is the point of this rigamarole?? This all stems from misapprehending the word slave. Let’s restate the passage, here, in its entirety, just to recall:

For let this [humility] be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Right. Thank you, Paul. In the last 2,000 years, this passage has not changed. It’s still a point A to point B revelation. The humility should be in you. Why? It’s in Christ Jesus also. Elaborate! He’s inherently in the form of God. So? Well, He deems it not pillaging to be equal to God. So? So, He empties Himself. How does He do that? By taking the form of a slave. A slave? Really? Yes, like the rest of humanity. So how was He enslaved? Well, being found like a human, He humbled Himself, obedient to death – even the death of the cross.

It still reads this way, always has, and always will.

This, I believe, is the simple and beautiful truth being expressed by Paul here, and powerfully illustrates the humble disposition of Christ that Paul wanted to be in the saints.

Stop it, Aaron, pleeeease, because I’m going to laugh and I don’t want to laugh. I still respect you, and feel that would harm our soon-to-be beautiful friendship. That wasn’t simple. There was that whole part in there where you redefined humans, recontextualized the meanings of these words, and once again, put the kingdom evangel first. This isn’t the way to be teaching the body of Christ.

Then he talks about verse 8:

After referring to Christ’s “taking the form of a slave” and “coming to be in the likeness” of those inherently inferior to himself (i.e., “humanity” or “mankind”), Paul then makes the point that Christ was no less human in nature than those individuals constituting the “humanity” on whose behalf he took “the form of a slave.”

*sigh* He came to be in the likeness of man. That’s evident from His birth, not something He did throughout His ministry. It’s such an ambiguous statement that it’s hard for me to even wrap my head around.

That is, despite his superior status as the Son of God (being “inherently in the form of God”), the one who humbled himself by “becoming obedient unto death” was just as much a human being as the humans of inferior status on whose behalf he died.

So, wait. Was He not obedient unto death from the womb? Did death just give up until Christ said, “Now, death, I appease you.” Where is the line drawn, there??

*   *   *

This, I believe, is the last notable objection I can make on Aaron’s articles. There’s maybe a quarter of his final argument left, in which he insists that Martin is teaching a strawman argument, and I can dive further into it if I’m asked to by anyone. I don’t mind doing so. But as far as I’m concerned, this last part really is just Aaron pitting his words against Martin’s, both nitpicking Martin (some sensible, others not,) and rephrasing and/or restating previously established positions with little new info. I do indeed believe that my point has been made, and cannot elaborate further on any particular point Aaron makes. Again, if any disagree, or believe I must elaborate further, I can, but at this point, I’d also like to move back into other projects. I’ve been exhaustively studying Romans, and I’d like to return to that. I’ll probably be able to reaffirm many of my positions on this topic as I go through Paul’s evangel, so please, look out for that.

At the end of this, I can say two things:

1)    Aaron, I love you brother, I’d love to meet you one day, your brain fascinates me, and

2)    I think your doctrinal position here requires recontextualization – stand in God’s evangel first, and let the rest of Scripture fall into place through that, not the other way around. Also, don’t let Martin’s biting criticisms get to you. He’s a big ol’ turd, haha! It’s why God called Him out, too.

It’s all love, I love you all, and thank you so, so much if you took the time to read all this. It was a massive effort and there were many nights with 8-10 hours of intensive study. Even as I write now, it’s nearing 6 A.M., and I’d woken up at 7 P.M. It was fun, and at the very least, I love that Aaron challenged me to think differently on many of these topics. Even if you don’t agree, I’ll say that Romans 14:1 asks us to take the infirm to ourselves, not for the discrimination of reasonings. It’s important to delineate, yes, especially considering the Eph. Phil. and Col. passages are, literally, the mature epistles, concerned with the celestial, but even still, whether you recognize an infirmity in yourself, or in my writings, know that again, my entire intent was not to “disprove the Trinity,” or “get Aaron to renounce his view,” but to edify the ecclesia with any knowledge or wisdom God allows me to catch in His grace. Peace, all.

-       GerudoKing