Responding to Aaron Welch (End of the Preexistence Response)

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

I feel like I’ve thoroughly replied to Aaron here. He goes on concerning his theory on Philippians, but I don’t need to beat a dead horse. Before we move on to Colossians 1, I have to defend Gabe.

Gabe was not recognized by Aaron, which was okay, and kind of funny to me. Gabe is Martin Zender’s son. That was why I referenced him. I called him “Gabe Christ,” in my original article, that his allotment as a son of God was clear; I wasn’t quoting some random guy.

Gabe originally said, “The biggest problem with the non-preexistence argument is that it makes Christ an achieving man… worship of Christ the achieving creature… and I hear often the word “obedience” which makes Christ’s adherence to God’s will a work and not just that He was walking in accord with God’s will. It’s like a back door into free will!”

On this, Aaron replied:

The fact is that there is no distinction between someone’s knowingly and willingly doing God’s will and their obeying God.

And, sure, this is true. But what Gabe was getting at (and why I agreed so confidently with him,) was because of Jesus’ statement in John 5:19–

The Son cannot be doing anything of Himself if it is not what He should be observing the Father doing, for whatever He may be doing, this the Son also is doing likewise.

In this sense, there is a distinction, in that obedience to God is of God, and His decision, absolutely. Now, relatively, sure. I see what Aaron means. Christ obeyed God. I agree with him. Gabe was considering the absolute, that all is out of, through, and for the Supreme. Gabe’s comments, in this regard, could match Is. 43:11, or 44:24, in that God Himself is capable and wills all. He wills His Son’s obedience to Himself, as well as the Adversary’s disobedience to Himself. To proclaim that the Son freely obeys (as Knoch has said in the past,) I believe, is in error.

Aaron properly roasts free will, and we agree on that. Where’s the juicy stuff? Okay, on to Colossians 1. To reiterate:

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created, whether that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.

And He is the Head of the ecclesia, Who is sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him, (making peace through the blood of His cross,) through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.

Aaron ignores a number of criticisms at the start, and his first concern is:

I’m not quite sure what GK means when writes, “comparing Israel’s allotment to Christ’s.”

I mean what I say. Aaron compared Israel, a nation allotted earthly blessings, to Christ, the Image of the invisible God Who is enjoyer of the allotment of all.

In any case, the fact is that the literal meaning of the word “firstborn” – whether in Hebrew, Greek or English – is found in Exodus 13:2.

NuH uH!

…okay, that was rude. Let’s let him finish.

Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Hallow to Me every firstborn male, opening up every womb, among the sons of Israel, among human and among beast. It is Mine.

Literally, then, the word denotes the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother.

Oh, wait, now he’s done?

Okay… NuH uH! So the passage quoted is not an end-all-be-all use of the term “firstborn,” for one. It refers to males, not any other, which is changed by Aaron’s qualifier “first human or animal.” Moreover, my issue here is, again, the same. Aaron is throwing the qualifier with firstborn (“of every creature”) in relation to Christ, out the window. Comparing this to God’s use of firstborn with Israel is a slap in the face to the text. Here’s every use of “firstborn” in Greek–

-       Luke 2:7 – she brought forth her Son, the Firstborn…

-       Rom. 8:29 – whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren

-       Col. 1:15 – Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature…

-       Col. 1:18 – Firstborn from among the dead

-       Heb. 1:6 – Whenever He may again be leading the Firstborn into the inhabited earth...

-       Heb. 11:28 – lest the exterminator of the firstborn come into contact with them…

-       Heb. 12:23 – To a universal convocation, and to the ecclesia of the Firstborn, registered in the heavens…

-       Rev. 1:5 – Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and the Suzerain of the kings of the earth…

Now, simple question: how many of these uses of ‘firstborn’ are not explicitly characterized by the use of the literal ‘first born’?

Ah, that’s right! The answer is ‘zero!’ You’re so smart. And, even still, it doesn’t make any rational sense for Christ to ‘technically’ be the First of all, especially considering He is the Origin of creation (Unv. 3:14, Unv. 22:13.) How to be Head over all if you’re not actually the Origin??

I doubt that GK thinks the term is being used in Col. 1:15 to mean that Christ was the first child to exit the womb of his mother (although it should be noted that Christ was the first child to be born to Miriam, thus making him her firstborn son [Luke 2:7]).

I doubt that too. It’d be weird if GK thought that. No, GK thinks the term is being used in Col. 1:15 to mean that Christ was the first Being created by God, through which all else is made (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16,) as every other use of the term in the New Testament is in relation to one hierarchically created first.

Now, in my old article, I said, “‘Firstborn’ could only pertain to His rank and privilege if it didn’t say ‘of every creature.’” Aaron replies,

Despite GK’s unsupported assertion here, neither the word “firstborn” nor the expression translated “of every creature” has anything at all to do with when (or where) Christ came into existence.

So, again, let’s change the text to fit Aaron’s view, instead. It would be more compatible if God had said,

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, but in the middle of creation, so that, like, He becomes this, in the middle of My story, but He isn’t literally, just, like, proleptically.

If God said this (or anything to this effect,) then this God is not very intelligent. See, when you write a story, and you say, “The Origin of my story is chapter one!” You make perfect sense. But if you write a story, and you say, “The Origin of my story is chapter 6!” Then you sound stupid. Yet we’re supposed to accept that this is what God says?

The expression “of every creature” is in the genitive case, and thus expresses the idea that Christ belongs to the group comprised of “every creature,” and that it’s in relation to “every creature” that Christ is “firstborn” (i.e., uppermost, or highest-ranking).

Right, because Christ is created, and all else is created through Him (John 1:3, Col. 1:16.) Also, “firstborn” doesn’t mean “uppermost,” or “highest-ranking.” That is what the title “Head” means, or “Sovereign,” in an authoritative sense. Not to mention that this definition of ‘firstborn’ goes completely against your personal definition in Exodus.

The usages of the term “firstborn” in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures I referenced are not “potential exceptions” to “the simple definition of the word ‘Firstborn’.” Instead, they’re examples of how the word is used in Scripture when it’s not being used to denote the first child (or animal) to exit the womb of his or her mother. And since Paul wasn’t using the term “firstborn” literally in Col. 1:15 (as it’s being used in, for example, Luke 2:7), the word should be understood as expressing the same basic idea that it does elsewhere in Scripture when it’s used to mean “highest-ranking” or “uppermost.”

But they are potential exceptions; very few uses of “firstborn” in the Old Testament mean “highest ranking,” but, literally, “BEFORE-MOST-BROUGHT-FORTH.” And, again, each Greek use of the word in the NT has been consistent and can concordantly mean, literal “first born.” And, moreover, Aaron’s inference is that “Paul wasn’t using the term ‘firstborn’ literally in Col. 1:15.” He just says this. Just speaks it. Just because Aaron says something doesn’t make it fact. The simple grammatical rule is, “literal, if possible.” The only reason Aaron doesn’t take it literally is because it doesn’t personally make sense to him. Here, considering John 1:1, 3, 10, and more, it is very much possible to take Paul’s words literally. And, considering Col. 1:18-20 are the ones that go into Christ’s Headship over all, as its complement, as Reconciler, as Sovereign, it follows that Paul is not repeating Himself for kicks and giggles.

For example, in Psalm 89:26-29 we read the following:

He, he shall call out to Me, You are my Father, My El and the Rock of my salvation. Indeed, I, I shall make him the firstborn, The uppermost of the kings of the earth. For the eon shall I keep My benignity upon him, And My covenant with him is faithful. I will establish his seed for the future, And his throne as the days of the heavens.

Just as David being made “firstborn” refers to the future supremacy of rank that he’ll be given in relation to “the kings of the earth,” so Christ’s being “Firstborn of every creature” refers to his present supremacy in relation to every creature.

I feel like I covered this already. I made the joke about “NuH uH!” but… I actually responded to it. Just repeating your argument doesn’t do anything. David is literally said to be “made firstborn.” The term “made” should clarify that this is an outlier to the literal definition of firstborn, not the root by which every other use of firstborn must be considered. Moreover, the scope is radically different. David is made king for the eon, and Christ is not said to be “made” Firstborn of every creature, but is the Firstborn of every creature. There’s a clear qualifier given in the passage.

Me: When Paul referred to Christ as the “firstborn from among the dead” a few verses later, he was revealing when Christ became the “firstborn” – i.e., when he was roused from among the dead by God.

GK: No, that’s the job of the second ‘Firstborn,’ referenced in Col. 1:18, which is, “Firstborn from among the dead.”

Since (as has already been demonstrated) the term “firstborn” refers to Christ’s preeminent, highest-ranking status – and since Christ acquired his preeminent status in relation to every creature when he was roused from among the dead – it follows that Christ became “Firstborn of every creature” when he was roused from among the dead.

No. If what Aaron is assuming were true, it would quite literally mean that “Firstborn from among the dead” and “Firstborn of every creature” hold the same meaning, as all are being vivified. It means Paul repeats Himself in the same argument, which makes the Scriptural logic unjust, thus presents us with an unjust God. Thankfully, it’s only Aaron’s logic, and not God’s.

When we read that Christ is “Firstborn from among the dead,” we can conclude that Paul wasn’t affirming the following:

1. Christ was the first to be born/first to exit his mother’s womb from among the dead (which would be in accord with the literal meaning of “firstborn”).

2. Christ was the first one brought into existence from among the dead (which would be in accord with how GK defines the word in Col. 1:15).

When we read that Christ is “Firstborn from among the dead,” we can conclude that Christ is the First of the new creation, as it makes Him the first vivified One (1 Cor. 15:22-24.) However, Aaron is still incorrect, even in his assumption of what I believe, in the second view. Christ is always in existence; His soul went to the unseen, not His spirit. When we read that Christ is “Firstborn of every creature,” we can conclude that Christ is the First of all creation, and, just in case we missed it, Paul elaborates on it in 1:16-17.

The first option makes no sense, while the second option simply isn’t true (for there are other humans who, before Christ’s death and resurrection, were brought back into existence after being dead).

No, “Firstborn from among the dead” is a permanent, not temporary, title. Lazarus is not “firstborn from among the dead” because he’s definitely dead right now. Jairus’ daughter is not “firstborn from among the dead” because I didn’t grab lunch with her last Saturday. But Christ? Death is lording it over Him no longer (Rom. 6:9.) Thus, the second option (when the spirit, and not His entire existence, is implemented,) is true.

At this point, GK might try to claim that, in Col. 1:18, “firstborn” should be understood to mean that Christ was the first human to be brought back into existence with an incorruptible, spiritual body. But this view would require redefining the term “firstborn” even more.

Yeah, no, it wouldn’t. “Firstborn” is not the only word used in the damn sentence! I don’t have to “redefine” firstborn; it still means, literally, “born first.” It is you who are adding limitations to the text by citing a relative passage in Exodus as the official definition of ‘firstborn.’ I am comfortable in understanding that the terms “of every creature” and “from among the dead” clarify why Paul says “firstborn” here in the passages. One is in relation to His place in creation (Alpha,) the other in relation to His place in reconciliation (Omega.) Again… why is this complicated?

Those who appeal to the term “firstborn” in Col. 1:15 in support of the view that Christ pre-existed his life on earth are already redefining this term when they claim that it means “first created” or “first to be brought into existence.”

And here we have the crux of most of this argument, don’t we? Aaron, Jason, Norm, Peter, and others will just say, “Oh, you’re just redefining ‘firstborn.’” But we aren’t. The phrase we’re discussing, again, is not just “firstborn,” but “firstborn of every creature.” “Firstborn” does not mean “first created” or “first to be brought into existence,” but “first born,” or “BEFORE-MOST-BROUGHT-FORTH.” It’s not any more complicated than that. The phrase “of every creature” clarifies that, if He is firstborn of all, and all is created in Him, then He must be before all (1:16-17.)

GK: ‘Logic question time: how to be the Firstborn of every creature without actually being the firstborn?’

According to the original and literal meaning of “firstborn,” Christ is the firstborn of his mother, Miriam. However, in accord with the other inspired usage of the term “firstborn” (i.e., the usage that we find in, for example, Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9, Ps. 89:27 and Heb. 12:13), Christ became “Firstborn of every creature” – i.e., first in rank in relation to every creature – when he was roused from among the dead. A better question that GK could ask would be, “How can Colossians 1:15 support the doctrinal view that Christ was created before any other creatures when neither the literal nor figurative meaning of ‘firstborn’ is ‘first to be created’?” Another good question that GK could ask would be, “Since the term ‘firstborn’ in Col. 1:18 doesn’t mean ‘first to be created,’ why assume that it means this in v. 15?”

First, Aaron quotes Hebrews 12:13 as if this isn’t literal ‘first born.’ Dunno why he does that. But, second, again, this is just making the phrase “Firstborn of every creature” and “Firstborn from among the dead” to mean the same thing. I don’t need to ask a “better” question, especially if they’re non-sequiturs that put words in my mouth.

With regard to what I wrote concerning the terms translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 (CLNT), GK asked: Does this prove that [Christ] didn’t exist beforehand?

No; of course not. There are other verses that prove that Christ didn’t exist before his life on earth began.

That’s interesting. Where are they? After writing for 87½ pages, Aaron has still not presented a single verse that says, “Christ did not exist before His physical birth.”

In accord with this point, my remarks on the tense of the word translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 are simply intended to demonstrate that what Paul’s affirming in this verse is perfectly consistent with what’s revealed elsewhere concerning when (and where) Christ’s existence began. Again, Paul’s use of the verb form he used in this verse expresses the idea that everything “stands created” or “remains created” through and for Christ (to quote A.T. Robertson). Even A.E. Knoch noted that the verb form used by Paul (which he refers to as the “state” or “complete” form) gives “the state resulting from an action.” Other scholars are in agreement on this point as well.

Right, so again, repeating the argument doesn’t magically make it true that this is not in reference to Christ’s existence before His physical birth, and in fact gives more weight to this conclusion.

GK: If things remain created in Him, even in His death, there’s no real issue between “pre-existing Christ” and the passage that blatantly states, “through Christ all is made.” I would say that this is, in actuality, pretty good news, (literally) all things considered.

Here we find yet another example of GK completely misunderstanding my position (and then basing his defense of his view on his misunderstanding). It’s not my understanding that Christ received the universal authority implied in Col. 1:16 – i.e., all authority in heaven and on earth – prior to his resurrection, and that all things remained created in him “even in His death.” Since the dead don’t know (and can’t consciously/volitionally do) anything, it follows that Christ wasn’t exercising any authority over creation while he was dead. The One by whom everything remained created while Christ was dead is the same One by whom everything remained created prior to Christ’s death (i.e., God). However, when Christ was roused from among the dead by God, he was given all authority in heaven and one earth. And it was then that Christ became the one in whom, through whom and for whom everything in heaven and on earth could remain/stand created.

Through Christ, all of creation dies (2 Cor. 5:14.) This can’t happen if all do not come into being through Him (John 1:3.) Aaron uses the verb form, the “aorist” tense, to try and prove that we are dealing with a present revelation, and that this could not have occurred prior. In this, I would like to draw your attention to the following passage:

Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers. Now Judah begets Pharez and Zarah of Thamar. Now Pharez begets Hesron; now Hesron begets Aram; now Aram begets Amminadab; now Amminadab begets Nahshon; now Nahshon begets Salmon; now Salmon begets Boaz of Rahab; now Boaz begets Obed of Ruth; now Obed begets Jesse; now Jesse begets David the king. Now David begets Solomon of the wife of Uriah; now Solomon begets Rehoboam; now Rehoboam begets Abiah; now Abiah begets Asaph; now Asaph begets Joshaphat; now Joshaphat begets Jehoram; now Jehoram begets Uzziah; now Uzziah begets Jotham; now Jotham begets Ahaz; now Ahaz begets Hezekiah; now Hezekiah begets Manasseh; now Manasseh begets Amos; now Amos begets Josiah; now Josiah begets Jeconiah and his brothers at the Babylonian exile. Now after the Babylonian exile Jeconiah begets Shalthiel; now Shalthiel begets Zerubbabel; now Zerubbabel begets Abihud; now Abihud begets Eliakim; now Eliakim begets Azor; now Azor begets Zadok; now Zadok begets Achim; now Achim begets Eliud; now Eliud begets Eleazar; now Eleazar begets Matthan; now Matthan begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, Who is termed "Christ."

Yeah, so here we have forty different examples of the “aorist” tense most certainly referencing something in the past, but remaining, or standing true in the present. The “aorist” tense does not limit us to present or future revelations. “Without regard to time” does not mean that it must be a present or future event. The argument Aaron makes here, again, is trying to deny the full scope of the text, for no discernable reason.

Understanding Col. 1:16 as an affirmation of what is true of Christ now (i.e., during the time of his present exaltation at God’s right hand among the celestials) doesn’t discredit any “celestial observations.” For – in contrast with GK’s view – Christ didn’t become a celestial being until after he was roused from among the dead with an incorruptible, spiritual body.

Except for the part where He was (John 1:1, Phil. 2:6.) It’s really hard to reconcile the heavens if you do not have the heavens created in you. Take a crack at it sometime, if you’d like. It’s not easy.

Me: Although everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God (who originally brought everything into existence), everything in the universe remains created and continues to exist by virtue of Christ’s God-given authority.

GK: Blatant statement against God’s evangel. All is out of Him, not in Him (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6, 2 Cor. 5:18,) while everything is in Christ (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-16.) The simple fact remains that Aaron has not adequately disproven the statement, and, again, though I respect the vast majority of his writings, he is writing against God’s divine revelation in the above passage.

First, I didn’t say that everything in the universe is “in God.” I said “everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God.” The statements “everything is in God” and “everything has its ultimate origin in God” are not equivalent in meaning. What I actually said (rather than what GK misrepresented me as saying) is simply another way of saying that God is the source of everything in the universe (hence my additional parenthetical/explanatory remark that God “originally brought everything into existence”).

Noted. Sorry about that.

Second, the fact that GK referred to what I wrote as being a “blatant statement against God’s evangel” simply tells me that he’s confused about what the evangel is. The elements that constitute the message that Paul referred to as the evangel of God (e.g., in Rom. 1:1 and 1 Thess. 2:8) can be found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, and does not directly concern the revealed fact that God is the source of all that is.

This is fair, but only to an extent. When I said “God’s evangel” here, I was not playing some game with words, but referring to Paul’s letters in their entirety, being the full extent of God’s writings to all the nations. I could have said, “uncircumcision letters,” I guess, if that would be easier. “Evangel” means “good news.” Colossians 1 is indeed “good news.” Wasn’t looking for a theological debate on that.

Third, the “simple fact” is that what Paul wrote in the verses referenced by GK is perfectly consistent with the truth that Christ’s life began when he was begotten by God (Luke 1:30-35), and that Christ received the universal authority that’s implied in verses such as 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16 when he was roused from among the dead. Another “simple fact” is that GK is reading his own view of when Christ’s existence began into these verses, and assuming – without scriptural justification – that what’s being affirmed in these verses was true before Christ was begotten by his God and Father, and before Christ later received his universal authority.

The verses are indeed consistent with the circumcision evangel, but the circumcision evangel itself is limited in scope, and need not be utilized as your foundation, here. That’s what I’ve been saying. When He is begotten by God, this is not “created for the first time ever in 4 B.C.” Otherwise, He wouldn’t have all created in Him. The word “is” is not “remains.” The term “all” in Col. 1:16 has a definite article in front of it, and thus is in reference to the entire creation. It is impossible for folk like Abraham to be created in Christ if Christ isn’t there. That’s not “presupposing” a view, but using simple common sense, which is why I said, “this is a simple fact,” that Aaron has not adequately disproven Col. 1:15-17. I’ll add that he is twisting the aorist tense, here, to make it mean something else entirely.

All that is “out of” God is said to be (presently) “through” Christ.

GK: Yet another logical fallacy. Aaron adds the word “presently,” a word not in the text. The “present tense” doesn’t mean the words only now take precedent, especially when John 1 certainly speaks of His creation before the world begins, nor does the present tense detract from the revelation itself. I hate to insult Aaron, and I hope I don’t, of course, but this is missing the forest for the trees.

There is no “logical fallacy” being made here. What Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:6 is perfectly consistent with the understanding that all has been “through” Christ for as long as he’s had all authority in heaven and on earth (which, again, he received after his death and resurrection, and not before the first eon began)

“A fallacy, also known as ‘paralogia’ in modern psychology, is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed.”

Now, that’s just Wikipedia, but I think it’s descriptive enough, and certainly falls under what Aaron is doing here. What Paul writes in 1 Cor. 8:6 also has a definite article in front of ‘the,’ which includes everything, and nothing short of it. If all comes into being through Christ, then Christ is the Image by which God forms the rest of creation. This is indeed in reference to everything, and Paul goes into detail on this throughout Col. 1:16. According to Aaron, 1 Cor. 8:6 should say:

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 presently is, and we through Him.

Adding to the text is doubting God (Gen. 2:16-17, 3:1-4, Rom. 14:23.) To presume that we must infer that this is only present is the limitation, not that we can read the text as-is and understand Christ’s proper place as God’s Image, Emblem, and Effulgence.

On the other hand, GK has given no good, scripturally-informed reason to believe that all was through Christ when God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. GK references John 1, but John said nothing at all about Christ being created before all came into being through God’s word (despite GK’s assertion that this chapter “certainly speaks of [Christ’s] creation before the world begins”).

Unv. 19:13 and John 1:1-10 reveals that Christ is God’s Word, through Whom all is.

In fact, the implication of what John wrote in verses 1-3 is that, since Christ did come into being at some point (a fact on which GK and I are in agreement), Christ didn’t exist before all came into being through God’s word (for in John 1:3 we read that, apart from God’s word, “not even one thing came into being which has come into being”). Thus, what we read in John 1 actually disproves GK’s doctrinal position.

This is a logical fallacy that I’ve seen the non-preexistence sect present more than once. “If Christ is the Word, and all came into being through the Word, then how did Jesus come into being if He’s created??” The answer is, ‘Everything else came into being through the Word, not Christ Himself.’ Jesus is the Word of God that becomes flesh (John 1:14, Heb. 1:6, 10:5.) He already exists. It is when you deny this that the question is asked, and it is because you deny this that the question is sustained in your mind. I pray you release yourself from it, because the question itself is vain reasoning, and has only caused strife, in that, when it is answered, the answer is ignored, thus when you repeat it, it is mocked, which has led to unnecessary anger and confusion (2 Tim. 2:16-17, 23.)

Moreover, if – as GK believes – Christ preexisted his life on earth as God’s word (instead of coming into being when God’s word “became flesh,” in accord with what we read in John 1:14), then it would mean that Christ never came into being. In other words, it would mean that Christ has always existed (which is precisely what most Christians believe). So GK’s interpretation of John 1 actually ends up supporting the commonly-held (and completely erroneous) Christian view that Christ is uncreated, and that he has existed for as long as God has.

Nope, it doesn’t mean “Christ has always existed.” That’s an addition to my view that I absolutely did not claim, so don’t make it for me, please. I’ve said repeatedly that Christ is created first, and the eons are made through Him, which is confirmed by John 1:3 (and Heb. 1:2.) It does not mean He has always existed.

*   *   *

Almost done, here.

Of course, GK needs the verb used by Paul to mean “was created” in order for Col. 1:16 to provide him with support for his doctrinal position. However, rather than referring to what occurred exclusively in the past (i.e., when God spoke everything into existence “in the beginning”), the verb form used by Paul refers to a present, ongoing action. In other words, Paul used the verb form that we’d expect him to use if it was his intention to refer to the time period that coincides with Christ’s post-resurrection, glorified existence.

I really don’t need it to say “was created.” Again, for some reason Aaron thinks my doctrinal position stems from my view, and then the text (more of that “projection” bit, I guess.) The text comes first, and then my view. The only way the text can deny the conclusion to reach is if the text said, “will be created,” which is undoubtedly future tense. But it’s not. It’s aorist, which is ‘without regard to time.’ As “Firstborn of every creature,” “the all,” and “before all,” and “the all has its cohesion in Him” is the discussion, there’s too much evidence pointing toward this being inclusive of everything, per the word all, not some (which, to counter Aaron’s ‘Christian’ claim, is what Christians like to do with the word ‘all,’ to fit their view on eternal judgment.)

In response to my remarks on Col. 1:17-18 (where I point out that Paul used the present tense “is before all”), GK objected as follows:

“Because He’s not a guy, and He’s still alive; being alive makes it really hard to say, ‘He was before all,’ if He still is. It’d be like saying, ‘McDonalds is the oldest fast food chain.’ If McDonalds is the oldest, the other fast food chains won’t magically out-age McDonalds, will they? How ridiculous I’d sound to say, ‘McDonalds was the oldest.’”

When used with regard to time, the term pro (“before”) doesn’t actually mean “older than.” It means “preceding in time” (or “existing/occurring prior to”). Thus, the problem with GK’s criticism of what I wrote is that, if Paul had time in view in Col. 1:17, then there’s no reason why he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) have written “Christ was before all,” for that would be equivalent to saying, “Christ preceded all in time,” or “Christ existed prior to all.”

Except for the fact that it would imply that Christ is no longer here, which, per Rom. 6:9, is not the case. This is why I drew the 'McDonalds' figure. Saying “I was before you” makes me sound like I’m from the hood, not like an English major. Saying “Christ was before all” is past tense, and holds a negative implication with it, which is why Paul was smart enough not to say that. Also, it’s not “if” Paul had time in view; Paul did have time in view, per “the all” encompassing everything. And, if Aaron knows that this could easily be referencing ‘before all’ in regards to time, then we’ve no reason to sit here and question the text at all. Here’s Knoch on the subject:

“One of the wonders of the Greek language is its indefinite verb. God loves, not loved the world. It is fact, not mere act. So also with the preeminence of Christ. His glories are permanent. He was, indeed, before all. But, far more than that, He is before all. This is almost more than our language will bear, for we are not accustomed to such high thoughts or refined expressions. When we are old we look back to powers and honors that we no longer possess, for we are creatures of corruption. Even president or premier must step down or heed the call of death. They look back to when they were exalted. Yes, even Christ emptied Himself for a season for our salvation. But He never went to corruption, as we do. He is the One Who was before all, and this glory is His permanent possession. Let us not rob Him of it!”

During the conclusion of my old article, I concluded that Aaron is adding, twisting, and changing words to fit his view on the text. After reading this entire rebuttal, I’m finding that, even with six years having passed, this hasn’t changed. This is indeed disheartening to someone like myself, who has studied out, and even argued in favor of them in order to properly understand their view, and see if they are correct. Part of my first response was, initially, to see if the preexistence of Christ was a false view.  I’ve found that, in doubting God, it would still fit Aaron’s view better if the text said:

Who is the Image of the invisible God, made Firstborn of every creature, post Resurrection, for in Him is all remaining created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is presently created through Him and for Him, and He is before all in stature, and all has its cohesion in Him now that He’s been given authority.

In mixing metaphors, mixing the two evangels, and shifting around and blending entire passages to fit his view, the non-preexistence sect seems satisfied with the three articles he’s released in response to me. While there are indeed some good points, and some room for growth on my part, I can safely say that I am not “reading my own view” into the text. In reading the text literally, I don’t have to make long articles (like the ones Aaron made in 2017,) going through entire books of the Bible to try and disprove something that can very literally be true. This is a chink in His armor; thankfully, the Lord will rectify this in due time. In the meantime, God bless all, and especially the mature that have studied this out with me (Col. 1:26-28.) I’m grateful for the support I’ve received in all this, and await the day that we all obtain a full realization of the Son of God.

Grace and peace.

- GerudoKing