Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part V)

 Concerning ‘An In-Depth Response to “GerudoKing” Concerning When Christ’s Existence Began (Part Two)’ Part 2

In my first series, in the article Aaron’s responding to, I said, “After using his idea on Hebrews 1:1 to again, state that Christ didn’t pre-exist, he ends his paragraph with the sentence, “to know and believe in Christ in accord with the truth of Paul’s evangel, we must know him according to his post-conception identity.” Hold on, hold on. Now we’re just saying things. This is a half-truth, still not impactful, as Aaron, as of yet, has not properly proven that Christ didn’t exist before His physical birth.”

Aaron replies:

First, it’s not my view that Christ came into existence when he was born; as is the case with every human except Adam and Eve, I believe Christ began to exist when he was conceived.

Okay. We’re getting into technicality, there. Like, I get it, nine months prior to birth is what we’re talking about. Fine. If I say “born,” I’m not disregarding this, but if Aaron is saying Christ was brought into existence after God says He was (John 1:1,) then I’m going to disagree, because Paul’s letters confirm otherwise.

Second, my understanding of when Christ’s existence began is in accord with what every believer in Paul’s day would’ve believed concerning Christ after first becoming a believer in his evangel if all that they knew concerning Christ was that he was/is a certain man whose Father is God, and that he’d died for our sins and was roused the third day. Even GK would agree that, in order for any new believer in Paul’s day to have come to believe that Christ existed before his life on earth began, it would have to be revealed to them.

I mean, sure, but anything in Scripture that you didn’t previously know would have to be revealed to you. I didn’t know about the eons when I first became a believer in Paul’s evangel. Does this mean the eons aren’t actually a Scriptural concept? And, if you’re only believing what any believer in Paul’s day would believe after first becoming a believer, and actively avoiding and/or twisting the verses that unfold His celestial glory, can you honestly say you’re striving to attain unity of the faith and come to a full realization of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13)?

It is, therefore, up to GK (who is the one making the claim that Christ had a previously-unrevealed existence in heaven prior to the start of his life on earth) to prove that what he believes is, in fact, scripturally-supported. He can’t just take this belief for granted and then demand that I “prove that Christ didn’t exist” before his life on earth began.

Right, and I have, per the arguments that are continually ignored. Look, I’m a very simple man. Paul’s statements in Phil. 2:5-8 and Col. 1:15-17 should suffice. They are, literally, Scripture that supports the view. If they were not, then I would not hold to the view. It is, therefore, up to Aaron to explain why his view differs from the above verses, or why he feels fit to “import” his view into the text while projecting that others are doing so.

GK’s way of dealing with the scriptural proof I’ve presented has involved the erroneous and unsubstantiated assertion that the word translated “generated” in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 means “became human” (instead of “brought into being”).

And, to clarify, I have not said this. I have said that “begotten,” or “generated,” is “BECOME,” and its meaning does not deny Christ’s existence beforehand. Don’t put words in my mouth, please.

Okay, okay. Moving on, moving on... Let’s slide past this Acts 17 thing, because I don’t feel like getting into it, and no one’s mind will be changed, per this verse… aaaandd… ah! Here we have:

Moving on, GK takes issue with something I said concerning how he and others believe God created the heavens and the earth. I wrote that, according to the pre-existence view, it was Christ whose will “directly brought everything into existence.” GK responds as follows: ‘Which, per John 5:19, is just not true, and us pre-existing Christ folk didn’t make this claim.’

Yes, and we still don’t. Christ’s will did not directly bring everything into existence. The Son cannot be doing anything of Himself. Our Father’s will is supreme, and Christ is clearly subject to it (John 1:1,) not the director of the Father.

When Christ does that which the Father wills that he do, is Christ willingly doing it, or not? I think he is. Even A.E. Knoch – who, as I’m sure GK is fully aware, strongly rejected the view that anyone has a “free will” – remarked that Christ’s obedience “was never blind or forced” but rather “always intelligent and free.” And if Christ’s obedience to God involves his choosing to do what God wills that he do (i.e., his choosing to do what God commands that he do), then of course Christ’s will is involved.

Right, but Christ’s will is still effectual, not the cause of anything. The voice of the Greek word ktizo, in Col. 1:16, “is created,” is passive, not active. Nothing is ever said, in the absolute perspective, of being out of Christ. All is said, repeatedly, to be through Him (John 1:3, 1:10, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16.) The preposition dia is intentionally claiming Him as the Channel, not the Source. Some have continually made the false claim that we (me, Seth, Martin, Scott Hicko, Knoch, etc.) are calling Christ a Co-Creator, as though Christ’s input was the cause of anything. I have repeatedly shot this down, and yet everyone in the non-preexistence sect will downright intentionally put these words in our mouths. This is frustrating, because we would be crucified if we did this:

“Hey, did you know that, in Aaron’s last article, he made the claim that the body of Christ existed before Paul?? I know, that’s crazy, right? What a ridiculous claim! And he writes on this stuff!”

And, when Aaron denies this, we continue: “No, no, but that’s what you’re saying, because clearly we know exactly what you’re saying, even though you never directly said or even implied this! Crazy, man! Do you even believe Scripture?”

If Christ’s will is effectual, then God’s will directly brings everything about, including the will of Christ, which is how things clearly are by the time Genesis 1 rolls around (John 1:1.)

Now, in my old article to Aaron, I said: “The assumption that, because Christ is used to create the eons, that Christ’s will directly drove the decision to create the eons, is a logical fallacy that no believer of Scripture should be holding.”

Aaron, interestingly, goes on to say that this is my assumption! Huh?? I literally said, if this is one’s assumption, then it’s a logical fallacy. It’s an assumption I inserted, here, because yes, I’ve heard some that understand Col. 1:16 make that assumption, and I disagree with it! But I directly said here that I disagree with it. How does that magically make it my assumption??

And this is what I’m talking about. When you misrepresent the view, of course you can make whatever argument you want against your perception of said argument. I’ve heard people tell me “Oh you’re saying Christ is Yahweh!” And I haven’t said that at all; on the contrary, I always directly deny this claim and refute it whenever a Christian makes it. Yet instead of actually taking the verses into consideration, Aaron is doing the same thing, which is a shame. I never said, “Christ’s will directly brought everything into existence,” and actively refuted such a notion, because it’s wrong. Aaron would rather make claims that I’m believing what I’m directly refuting. Make it make sense.

Commenting on what I wrote concerning Isaiah 45:12, 48:13 and 66:1-2, GK writes: I had always assumed that when God says “My hand,” we’re dealing with a physical representer of God accomplishing a goal that He commands?

Although GK has “always assumed” that “God’s hand” refers to “a physical representer of God” acting on God’s behalf, I think he would do well to not let his own assumptions determine what he thinks a certain text means or doesn’t mean. For the fact is that, in Scripture, God’s “hand” can simply refer to his power. For example, in Isaiah 50:2 Yahweh rhetorically asks (using synonymous parallelism), “Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver?” See also Exodus 32:11 and Nehemiah 1:10, where God’s “mighty hand” and his “great power” are referred to as synonymous in meaning.

And, yeah, sure. This is a prime example of what I mean when I say, I was “responding” to his articles, not senselessly arguing. I had always assumed this. What Aaron said concerning the verse, I believe, is completely viable. You could infer “My hand” as His power. Now, do I believe that Christ cannot be understood as being in view in the verse? No; I think He is very much present in every verse, as the very language God uses portrays Him (see the meaning of each Hebrew and Greek letter; it’s a fascinating study.) However, I wouldn’t knock Aaron for perceiving the verse the way he does, and I don’t believe it’s a “false” view or anything like that. I was merely offering another possibility.

Now, the reason I commented on it the way that I did was because I know that Aaron would use the verses in Isaiah to try and prove that “Christ couldn’t exist, if Yahweh Himself did these things; if He alone did them!”

Look. Say I build a house. I would say, “I alone built my house.” Similarly, God says, “I Myself created the earth.” Now, if I used a hammer to build my house, I would say, “I alone built my house, using my hammer.” Similarly, God clarifies, later, to us, with Paul, in a more intimate scope (Col. 1:26,) saying, “I Myself created the earth, using My Son.” Again, these two passages are not irreconcilable. God is in perfect control of all, and uses Christ to effect His goal. Yes, God Himself, alone, creates all. Aaron’s criticism that “Christ could not be there then” operates under the assumption that Christ could potentially have gone, “No, I don’t want to,” which would mean that God is reliant on Christ. This is assuredly not the case (Is. 46:9-10, John 5:19, Acts 17:25, 1 Cor. 12:6, Eph. 1:10-11.) God chooses to operate all through Christ (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15.)

That God says, “He alone,” then, is not barring Christ from being operated through in creation, because God is indeed allowed to create things through His creatures (and, He does this all the time, even today.) This is evident in other ideas as well. For instance, here’s 1 Tim. 4:10–

…we rely on the living God, Who is the Savior of all mankind…

Here also is Is. 43:11–

I, I am Yahweh, and there is no Savior apart from Me.

And again, Is. 33:22–

For Yahweh is our Judge; Yahweh is our Statute-Maker; Yahweh is our King; He Himself shall save us.

Sounds pretty cut and dry, so– oh wait, what’s this?

On the morrow, [John] is observing Jesus coming toward him, and is saying, “Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!”

Wait. So now, Jesus is the Savior, per John 1:33. But, I’m sure that’s not that serious, right? He’s not explicitly called Savior, here, so–

We have gazed upon [Christ,] and are testifying that the Father has dispatched the Son, the Savior of the world.

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that. So clearly, Christ is allowed to borrow these titles from God. Philippians clarifies this much:

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

This isn’t the only time that God says “He Himself” is attested to something, and then Christ is also attributed these same dignities, as His Image. Gen. 18:25, Ecc. 3:17, and Ps. 75:7 calls God, the Supreme, the One Judge over all. Yet Jesus clarifies that He indeed is judging all, giving His account in judging the nations in Matt. 25, the appeal the religious zealots of the world will be making to Him in Matt. 7:21-23, and our apostle, in 2 Tim. 4:1, says:

I am conjuring you in the sight of God and Christ Jesus, Who is about to be judging the living and the dead, in accord with His advent and His kingdom…

So, the things that are directly attributed to God are very much allowed by Him to be attributed to Christ. It follows:

I (Yahweh) Myself made the earth and created humanity on it…

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created… all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.

Indeed My hand, it founded the earth, And My right hand, it measured out the heavens.

In the world [Christ] was, and the world came into being through Him…

These statements do not deny, but complement each other, and they are in perfect accord with other Scriptures.

GK goes on to say that Yahweh’s statement in Isaiah 45:12 is “a relative statement, listing everything God is directly responsible for.” However, nothing that GK goes on to say concerning Cyrus actually supports his assertion that Yahweh’s declaration in Isaiah 45:12 is “relative.” If this statement is “relative,” then it’s only relatively true that Yahweh “made the earth and created man upon it,” “stretched out the heavens with [his] hands,” and “commanded all their host.” So what, then, is the absolute truth concerning who created everything?

My statement that Is. 45:12 is relative is not rooted in denying God as the Source of all. I probably could have better clarified this, sure, but the goal is to clarify the context that Aaron was ignoring. The relative context was in reference to Israel’s idolatry, which is why God contrasts their idols with His glory. Moreover, it is to clarify that, while God reveals the truth to them, He does not reveal the grace, the light, the life, in which He creates it, to them (John 1:4.) His power is in view, not His heart, which is why Christ is not explicitly referenced, here.

If, on the other hand, God used an agent (e.g., a created celestial being) to create the heavens, then his involvement in their creation was indirect. For example, God was directly responsible for both generating his Son and rousing Christ from among the dead. He didn’t use a man or a celestial messenger to accomplish this. In contrast, everything we’re told that Christ did during his earthly ministry was indirectly (rather than directly) done by God (thus we’re told by Peter in Acts 2:22 that God did “powerful deeds and miracles and signs…through [Christ]”).

Aaron, it’s the other way around. If I build a house, and use a hammer to create the house, that doesn’t suddenly make my creation of the house an indirect action. Your life is a direct result of God. Christ is a direct result of God. The physical world around us is a direct result of God. The universe is a direct result of God. You’re implying, again, that God is subject to His creation, because of His revealed method of creation, in John and Colossians, when in reality He is clearly directing His creation, through His created Son. This is not impossible to understand, and does not make God a liar. Moreover, the passage in Acts is literally revealing that God is the cause of all, and directs the miracles through Christ. This still doesn’t deny Christ’s existence beforehand, but clarifies the point I’ve been making, that God is operating all in all (1 Cor. 12:6,) and that He made a righteous Image by which to present Himself creating all (Col. 1:15-16.)

The reason this whole “mention Isaiah and Job as proof of Christ’s nonexistence” argument is ineffective to me is because it’s the same argument that atheists use when trying to disprove the Bible. They put on their nerdiest glasses and go, “Well, look, one account in Matthew says this, but the account in Luke says this.” And they take that surface level commentary and attempt to rip the text to shreds, ignoring that, if Matthew says one thing, and Luke another, it doesn’t mean that the text cannot possibly align, but that there is a different scope in view in each book. Isaiah’s revelations are not as matured as Paul’s. Sorry, but this is the fact. There’s a reason the uncircumcision’s blessings are considered to be far greater than that of the circumcision; the circumcision revelations are limited in their scope, and do not provide the far-seeing statements that Paul gives (Rom. 11:7-12, 15:8-9.)

GK goes on to comment on Isaiah 66:1-2 as follows: ‘Nowhere in here are we reading, “By the way, I, Yahweh, have not created my Son yet!” This passage is informing Israel that their will is incomparable to God’s will. He can accomplish what they cannot.’

And, once again, GK provides no compelling reason as to why we should understand Yahweh’s declaration in Isaiah 66:1-2 as anything less than absolutely true. Just as it’s absolutely true that God can do anything he wills to do (and thus accomplish what humans cannot), so it’s absolutely true that his “hand” – i.e., his power – made heaven and earth.

I mention this as a prime example of how Aaron uses this sleight of hand in his writing. My comment on Is. 66:1-2 does not match his response, which is still playing with “absolute/relative” diction. My criticism lies in the fact that, one and a half articles in, Aaron has given not one verse that backs his initial claim, that “Christ did not exist before His physical birth.” None of the verses Aaron has quoted say, “Christ was nonexistent before His conception in Mary’s womb,” or, “Christ did not descend from heaven,” or, “Christ did not have all created in Him.” Any of these statements will do, but no. The verses that Aaron does give have to be stretched like laffy-taffy, to cover more ground than they actually cover, in verses that are not focused on Christ’s grandest glories. Whereas, if you asked me, “Hey, why do you believe Christ existed before His physical birth?” I could give you thirty verses off the top of my head that claim, “Christ descended, and that in order to ascend, He must first descend,” that “He empties Himself,” that “all is created in Him,” that “God used Him to make the eons,” that “He is the word, and the word is toward God in the beginning,” and more, Aaron cannot accurately provide a verse that will support His initial claim, from 2017.

Even now, having written three more articles on the subject, in response to me, Aaron has still not given a verse! The verses quoted are “non-sequiturs,” in that they aren’t following the initial claim, which is rooted in man (John 6:42,) and is rebuked by Christ (John 6:43.)

Now, Is. 44:24–

Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, And your Former from the belly: I am Yahweh, Maker of all, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, Stamping out the earth, and who was with Me?

Aaron, in relation to this, simply says that the context doesn’t matter.

There’s no need to understand Isaiah 44:24 in a relative sense in order for it to be understood as demonstrating the superiority of Yahweh over idols.

I’m sorry, yeah, that context thing? Who cares about that? Aaron says more on this verse, and I’ll get to it in a moment, but I want to start with this one, because this is the direct response to my criticism, which was that Aaron is ignoring the context of the verse, which is, again, contrasting the idols Israel worshipped with Himself. Aaron’s response, is, simply, “We don’t need the context, so forget it.”

When, oh when, has there been any time that man could quote Scripture out of context and beget positive results?? Here’s a verse for you, John 2:19–

Jesus answered and said to them, “Raze this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Billions use this verse to prove the Trinity! Yet Aaron, I’m sure, would be one of the first in Christ to go, “Hey, look at the context.” You can’t pick and choose whether the context matters when it’s convenient for your point of view. The text’s context is concerning idolatry and absolutely should be read in this light. Otherwise, it’s no better than taking a verse like this:

I am saying to you that every man looking at a woman to lust for her already commits adultery with her in his heart.

And going, “This is absolute truth concerning mankind.” It’s a statement of fact, sure, but not absolute. If God is saying something relatively, to His eonian nation, with a limited revelation of His power, and not the untraceable riches of His grace in Christ (Eph. 1:7, 3:8,) then I think it’s very much fair to call God’s statement in Isaiah a relative one, and not absolute. A statement of fact does not make something “absolute.” It may be a fact that “I was 3 feet tall.” This is a limited revelation to you concerning my height. It is historically accurate, but not absolute. The absolute perspective is consistently given by Paul. Few other verses state absolute truths, that is, considering all things. Isaiah 44 does not get into “all.” Is God’s power for salvation in Isaiah 44, or is it where He says it is, in Romans, which is the letter that breaks down absolute truth (Rom. 9:18, 11:33-36)?

The words “alone” and “by Myself” rule out any sort of intermediary agent used by the One speaking to accomplish the creation of the heavens and the earth.

*sigh*

A few months ago, now, Scott Hicko made a great couple videos concerning the preexistence of Christ. I will now paraphrase something he said concerning the variations of Aaron’s argument here, that have been presented by the non-preexistence sect:

“I’ve heard [Is. 44:24] used as an argument against the preexistence of Christ. God ‘alone’ does it… Let’s look at Is. 43:11… ‘There is no Savior apart from Me.’ So the same God that says, ‘I Myself create…’ says, ‘There is no Savior apart from Me.’ And we go to 1 Tim. 4:10, where it says God – not Jesus – God, is the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers. Now… let me ask you a question. What if you inserted the word ‘alone’ after ‘God’ in 1 Tim. 4:10, so that it says, ‘God alone is the Savior of all mankind.’ Would that bother you, as someone who doesn’t believe in the preexistence of Christ? ‘God alone?’ I know it doesn’t say that, sure. But it doesn’t mention Jesus! If you added ‘alone’ there, it wouldn’t bother me at all, because God is the Savior of all mankind, and yet, He has not saved one creature apart from Jesus Christ! There is no Savior apart from me, in Is. 43:11, and yet no one is saved apart from Jesus Christ.

God and Jesus are so closely related that God could say He’s doing something alone and still be doing it through Christ Jesus. I’ve heard it said in 1 Cor. 15:28 not to put Jesus in there as completing the All in all, because it’s all God’s plan. Well… yeah, it is all God’s plan! No one denies that! But He’s doing it through Christ Jesus! So here we have the fact that there is no savior apart from God, and He is the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers, and we all agree – I think – that God does this alone! But He can do it alone, and still do it through Christ Jesus. That’s how close His perfect Image is to Him! That He can act alone, and this acting alone does not separate Him from His perfect Image, like it does with every other created Being.

God can say He is stretching out the heavens ‘by Himself,’ and He’s ‘doing it alone,’ and separate Himself from everyone else, but He doesn’t separate Himself from His perfect Image, which is Christ! We understand this in relation to salvation, but yet in creation we deny it. ‘It says by Himself.’ Well… God also says that He is the only Savior, so does this mean Jesus doesn’t save everyone??”

Seriously, if someone who claimed to be in Christ came up to you and said, “I don’t think Christ reconciles all,” most in Christ would instantly presume that whoever this guy is, is not in Christ, because if they are rejecting the conclusion of Paul’s evangel, then they must be denying the evangel. Most could say, very easily, that “You are rejecting Christ becoming the ‘Omega,’ as He proclaims He is, in Unv. 22:13.” Martin Zender would make a video about how whoever this guy is cannot apprehend the simple statements in Eph. 1:10 and Col. 1:20. Yet if this same man said, “I don’t think Christ has all created in Him,” many in Christ would commend him! Though he is rejecting simply stated truths in John 1:3, 1:10 and Col. 1:16, many in Christ are not yet given the understanding to go, “You are rejecting Christ’s place as ‘Alpha,’ as He proclaims He is, in Unv. 22:13.”

Goodness. Here’s another Knoch quote:

“The past and future glories of Christ are complementary. The Image of God calls for all that finds fulfillment in Him as the complement of the Deity. His preeminence is based on the past as well as the future. As God's Image He is Firstborn of all creation, and the universe, in heaven as well as on earth, was created in Him. As God’s Complement, He is the Firstborn from among the dead, and the universe, in heaven as well as on earth, will be reconciled through Him. No latecomer to the scene is qualified or capable of accomplishing the far more difficult task of recon ciliation if he had no hand in creation. To deny one is to reject the other. Let us thank His God and ours, that the future rests in the mighty hand of Him through Whom God has wrought so marvelously in the past.”

Why do some in Christ feel fit to accept one, and not the other? They can accept Christ’s position in reconciling all (Col. 1:20,) even as God is the One conciliating (2 Cor. 5:18-19, Is. 43:11,) and yet they cannot accept Christ’s position in the creation of all (Col. 1:16,) even as God is the One creating (Is. 44:24.)

With this considered, Aaron’s doctrinal stance falls flat, yet again. My original admonition still stands, being, “Put Paul’s letters first, and let the circumcision letters file in behind them.” No good can come from prioritizing letters that are not speaking absolute truths as Paul does, as though they are revealing the same truths that Paul is. They are holy, just, and true, but limited in scope, and should be viewed in context, to follow the charge of rightly dividing the word of truth.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing