Chapter I – A Brief History of the “Pre-Existence” of Christ

Part I – Introductory Claims and Foundation

Hello

For a long time, I have wanted to firmly write out the doctrine concerning Christ as The Origin of creation (Rev. 3:14.) In my years of study on the matter, me and Seth Fahlenkamp had come to call this doctrine the “Pre-Existence of Christ.” This is, in part, because of the teachers who have come before us, labeling it with this title, and in part because it helps a larger group of people readily identify the topic in question. The other reason for this is, I suspect, the same reason that A.E. Knoch, Martin Zender, Dean Hough, and many other wise teachers within the body of Christ title the doctrine thus. It is not because the doctrine we are heralding lines up with the “Pre-Existence of Christ” as heralded by the Trinitarian crews, but because the real truth of Christ’s existence before His physical birth, and the actions associated with Him hitherto, leads an honest Trinitarian to recognize the contradictions within their belief system, and withdraw from them accordingly. In other words, by using the name of the doctrine, the unsuspecting Trinitarian will be drawn in like a moth to a flame, only to be presented with facts concerning the necessary distinctions between the Father and Son, which the scriptures in question attest to (Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:15-17, and more.)

We initially believed that this was a good method to conveying the doctrine in question, yet swiftly realized that, no matter how much evidence we provided in the scriptures, how many live-streams we have where we provide scripturally-rooted answers to the objections from those who disagree, and how clearly we contrast the two positions and weigh their perspectives against the Greek declarations found in the text, we fail, continually, to convince our own brothers that Christ existed before His physical birth in Bethlehem.

Why is that? Well, first and foremost, it’s because God wills it to be this way, for all of our ultimate good (Rom. 8:28.) The relative reasons that follow on this matter do not detract from this fact, and this is our firm stance on the matter. We will all inevitably reach God’s beautiful end – the body of Christ will be completed, and our journeys will align necessarily to display the fulness of Deity (Eph. 1:21-23, Col. 2:9-10.) All will inevitably come to a realization of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4,) and all believers will inevitably attain to the unity of the faith, and a realization of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13.) It is not a straight line, but the journey will be completed.

Relatively, we assuredly do not fail to convince them for lack of evidence; as we will see throughout this pamphlet, whether anyone (including myself) really likes it or not, the scriptures simply do not deny the idea that Christ could exist in another form prior to His life on earth. It may be disagreed upon, but it is more than a valid interpretation of the text. And, many Greek verses, in both grammatical and dispensational nature, rather agree with this notion, when all of the factors of the Greek language are taken into consideration. Even the most fervent, passionate unbeliever in the doctrine we will present here will be unable to deny that there’s enough grammatical evidence to believe the primary claims in this study.

A relative reason we cannot reach the depths of our brothers’ hearts on this matter is, in part, because the doctrine’s name is inherently associated with the Trinity. The honest truth seeker, aware of the false, idolatrous nature of the Trinity, will turn a blind eye to the doctrine, or seek to actively disprove it through the Trinitarian lens. Such has been the course of action from many beloved brothers and sisters, such as Richard Golko (Faith Ignitor,) Peter Meye (Revago Channel) and Clyde Pilkington (Bible Student’s Notebook.) The approach of our brothers is such that the proponents of the “non-existence” of Christ, prior to His physical birth, will disprove the Trinitarian foundations for the doctrine, and use that as a platform to convey what they believe the “original meanings” of these respective passages to be.

We seek, then, to detach the name “Pre-Existence” from the belief that Christ was born before His physical birth, for the two ideas are simply not the same. To demonstrate this, we will first briefly relate the perspectives of the Trinitarians, the Arians, and the Socinians, and highlight their fallibility through our study of the Greek text. We will then further expound upon more nuanced objections from the Non-Existence sect which further demonstrate the sturdiness of the New Testament’s message concerning the distinction between God and Christ, and how the Two are to be understood in relation to each other. And, to do this, a study of the text from the perch of Paul’s letters is required.

Most known objections to “Christ’s existence before His birth” will be considered and refuted, here, both on the Trinitarian side, and its opposing movements which proclaim its opposite. All are fallible, and the truth firmly stands above them, shining a light on the face of all who look up to view its words. Through this, I pray that we are all brought to a greater understanding of the word of God, and that the Greek delights the hearts of all who believe it.

The Pre-Existence of Christ

(One more small note: Before you begin reading this first article, please keep in mind that these historical observations, using primary sources, from the first two parts here, are simply a means to distinguish the actual doctrine found in the scriptures. As no scriptural doctrine is man-made, it follows that we will find scriptural evidence which will expose all man-made inferences of the presented theology, from the Trinitarian, Arian, and Socinian considerations, and even a few of our own past blunders. The goal is not for me to disprove their conclusions, but for God to assert in the text what is true, irrespective of our reasoning. We will be sticking to the three oldest Greek manuscripts in the New Testament, and, when we consider the Old Testament, will consider the Hebrew and Septuagint texts.)

The title of the doctrine that myself, Seth and Wes Fahlenkamp, Martin Zender, Ace Theo, Scott Hicko, Thijs Amersfoort, A.E. Knoch, M. Jaegle, Tony Nungasser, Dean Hough, James Coram, A.E. Knoch, John Essex, Adlai Loudy, E. H. Clayton, William Mealand, and many others herald is not “The Pre-Existence of Christ.” The doctrine of Christ’s “Pre-Existence” is given this name in an attempt to prove a fallible doctrinal foundation of the Trinity. In fact, to “Pre-Exist” is an oxymoron; one may do well to ask, “How can something exist before its existence?”

Many who believe in the Pre-Existence of Christ will reply that it’s “simply a name to capture a thought.” However, the name means many things to many different people – hence the doctrinal schisms which have divided many brothers. To most unbelievers today, the Pre-Existence of Christ highlights Christ’s nature as the true, One God, “equally and eternally” divine in nature. To demonstrate the fallibility of the Pre-Existence as taught by the Nicene Council, we may first quote the Nicene Creed, to receive a window into their proclaimed beliefs:

“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen.”

There are many issues with the creed, which cannot be fully expounded upon here, but the main one we will focus on is the “incarnation of the virgin Mary.” The problem with the “Pre-Existence” doctrine is that they inherently make Christ out to be God in human form. The word “incarnation” is designed to indicate a Deity in human form. As we know, there are numerous distinctions in the text which indicate that Jesus is not “God in human form,” but the Son of God. 1 John 5:5 indicates this to us most clearly:

[this is the conquest that conquers the world: our faith.] Now who is he who is conquering the world if not he who is believing that Jesus is the Son of God?

This simple verse necessarily distinguishes between the two. We may briefly observe a few others verses which distinguish between them. Both 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15 tell us that

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God.

As we will dwell on when we further consider Colossians, the word “Image” in Greek carries the element “SIMULATE.” Christ is not literally God, but His Just Representative. He simulates the invisible God, that mortal, three-dimensional beings are able to rationally conceptualize Him (even the pronoun “Him,” here, occurs because we must figure God in some anthropomorphist fashion.) One of these Beings is invisible, while the Other is visible. This is a clear distinction between the Two.

The most common objection to verses like this (as well as the notion that ‘Jesus is the One God’ is not stated anywhere in the original manuscripts) is the excuse that “The Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father, and The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Holy Spirit… but they are all three co-equal parts of the One, eternal God.”

First: this is idolatry. I mean… dress it up however you’d like, but you’re saying that God is His creation, which is pantheistic in thought (and, therefore, gnostic in origin,) and you are saying that there are multiples of God, which is quite literally opposing the first commandment. For a strong study which would disprove the idea that the “Trinity” is a scripturally-rooted idea, but a philosophy derived from Gnostic reasoning, one may view Sessions 31-34 of Faith Ignitor’s study, titled “One God and One Lord, Jesus Christ” on YouTube.

And second: this is also scripturally disprovable, simply by observing a number of Paul’s introductions to his letters. Take, for example, Ephesians 1:3–

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

And Colossians 1:3–

We are thanking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

Here, we observe scriptural language which directly denies the idea that Jesus is a part of the “whole god” or some nonsense. The One Father is said to be the God of our Lord, Jesus Christ, twice. This statement, found in various forms at the head of each of Paul’s letters, could not possibly be a clearer delineation between the Two, delineating between Them over fifteen times alone.

With these simple declarations from the greatest Author of all time, Who does not misspeak, we may completely dismiss the claim that the man-made Nicene Creed has made, that Jesus is the “Incarnation” of God Himself.

This notion, at its core, removes the power of the Pre-Existence doctrine. No longer can the Trinitarian safely claim that Jesus is God in flesh, nor can he use any verse which could speak to an existence of Christ prior to His physical birth to “prove” that Jesus is God – especially when the writer of the epistles which most declaratively speak to this truth (Philippians and Colossians,) denies the forced “Two-in-One” idea. No amount of word games or philosophy could detract from this.

Presenting the Incarnation

No believer should adhere to the “Incarnation of Christ,” or the “Pre-Existence of Christ,” as these concepts are pillars of their mother doctrine. In order to justify the notion that Christ “is the Incarnation,” one would, simply, have to find the term in the text. Since this notion is nowhere directly stated and expounded upon within the text, the notion reveals itself suppositional, and unfounded in the three oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as the oldest copy of the Septuagint (LXX.)

There are many, especially in the early church days, who fought tooth and nail to either defend or massacre this “Incarnate” idea. Those who most staunchly defended this Incarnation were, of course, the Nicene Council, who designed the creed to affirm among themselves the idea of this Incarnation. Those who heavily opposed the Incarnation were called “Arians.”

This was, in essence, the core of the conflict: you are forced to pick a side, and what you believe will determine the others’ opinion of you – whether or not you are saved, whether or not you are mature, whether or not you are a plague to righteousness, so on and so forth. We will briefly cover both sides of the argument, by beginning with the defense of the Incarnation, set about by Athanasius. Athanasius was one of the loudest defenders of the Pre-Existence of Christ within the Nicene Council, and he wrote a book titled On the Incarnation in an attempt to prove his view.

We will not be covering the entirety of the book (you may read it yourself by clicking here, and the page numbers I cite will defer to this pdf,) nor will we be considering every error (though, for a while, I thought about it.) But we will be covering many immediate points which beckon our attention. To Athanasius, the fall of man necessitates God-Christ’s immediate attention, and this is why he is divinely incarnated on earth. Him being given up in human form – as opposed to his prior state as “The Word,” which had no form, yet still served as the channel by which God made everything – is the necessary platform for our salvation. Athanasius posits that God/Christ would not have needed to descend to earth if man were not in a fallen, or degraded, state. Through this, God/Christ’s descent is as necessary as His salvific work on the cross, and the fallen state of man demands a human form to repeal the laws corrupting our members.

In Athanasius’ view, the Father, together with the Son, are ambassadors of God for all, and the Son, as the Word of the Father, prior to His Incarnation, is immaterial, co-eternal, and has no beginning, like God, and needs the form of man, because He was not subject to death. As such, He would take the form of man and substitute Himself to fulfill the law’s demands.

It follows, then, that to Athanasius, the Word of God, taking a physical, fleshy form, becomes the Image of God. To Athanasius, the Image of God is man. The “Father” and “Son” of the passage is simply metaphorical, and serves as a form of condescension and anthropomorphism in order to convey the aspects of this Godhood (he does not explicitly call this metaphor, but many Trinitarian writers since then have conceded that this is the necessary logical distinction to make under this interpretation.) In other words, he may well argue, then, that God did not have His own Image, which we are made in the likeness of, but rather God had mankind, whom His Image, Christ, is likened after.

From here, Athanasius tells us that because the Word became Man (not limited to, but including the sacrifice of Christ,) He could “banish death from us and make us anew.” Athanasius believed that the Word, while subject to human form, was not subject to human ability, and yet still controlled the entirety of the universe during His earthly sojourn. Instead, the physical calamity which befell Him was some form of a chain reaction to His death on the cross – which, by the way, is metaphorical, as God/Christ then raised Himself back from the dead, sentient within unconsciousness.

Meet Arius

The theory presented by Athanasius was, at the time, the primary concern of the early  Catholic church. Many works have been published concerning the Trinity, both during the period of Athanasius’ life, as well as the years following. Many have come to accept the notion of the Trinity on the grounds that these apostolic fathers also believed in this creed (and, of course, if those guys, which such beautiful writings, could agree on such a topic, then we should too… right?)

However, not everyone agreed so jubilantly on this conclusion. One such individual, named Arius, was distraught by the notion. Unlike Athanasius, Arius did not perceive “Father” and “Son” as metaphorical at all. He found it inconceivable that the “Son” could be called a “Son” without having a beginning. As we know from human experience, a son can only be brought about by the act of a father. Thus, we have the simple, logical dilemma from Arius: how can Christ be God, if the One God is said to be the God of Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:3?)

So, Arius began to write. His arguments posed a threat to the authority that the Catholic church had amassed. In a fit of rage, Emperor Constantine, perceiving Arius as a public disturbance and a threat to the church’s power, called the Nicene Council together! Yes – it was the disagreement from Arius which spurred the Nicene Creed we have today.

During this council, the group condemned Arius as a heretic and had him expelled from the country. Today, only three documents remain today which were verifiably written by Arius, by which we can grasp some semblance of his position. These documents are:

1)    A letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia

2)    A letter of a confession of faith to Alexander of Alexandria, and

3)    A letter of a confession of faith to Emperor Constantine

All three of these letters are the only pieces of information that we can use to assert Arius’ position on any matter. All of his opponents, clearly well-versed in how to skew bits of information, cannot be reliably trusted with their declared representations of Arius’ argument.

To convey his beliefs, it would be best to highlight his position by sharing the entirety of one of his letters. I have chosen the letter to Eusebius, because I find it best highlights his beliefs:

“1. To that most beloved man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, from Arius, unjustly persecuted by father Alexander because of the all conquering truth which you, Eusebius, also are defending!

2. Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out,” others that he was an “emanation,” still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.”

3. We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable.

4. Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.

I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [i.e. the pious one].”

From this, we can see that Arius practically believes the opposite of the Nicene Council on one major, critical issue. Per the third paragraph, some of the only stated beliefs from Arius himself which we can safely assert were his own, concern the notion that the Son is begotten, and as such is not a part of an “unbegotten” entity. However, he also believes that God was unable to create without Christ. Of course, this is simply untrue. As we will read, Christ Himself repeatedly credits God with creation of all (Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6, 13:19, John 5:19,) and this is confirmed by our apostle (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16.)

For this, he is often slandered by his opponents – particularly Athanasius, who would paraphrase Arius instead of directly quoting him. Athanasius would project his own anger into Arius’ words to justify himself. You can read of this in Athanasius’ strongly-worded insults toward Arius, often at the cost of proper textual criticism in an effort to disown him from the Catholic church. He was charged with heresies against the church, and against God, and for being a complete disruption.

This had its desired impact, for less than a decade later, Emperor Constantine decreed:

“If any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death.”

Arianism

Such claims of heresy and blasphemy were too much for Arius to live down. Both then and now, Arius himself is considered an outcast – a heretic! The Catholic bishops at Antioch were frustrated at the very name “Arianism,” not wanting to attribute a doctrine they so highly regarded with a man whom they hardly respected.

“It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at Antioch in 341 declare, by way of preface to a non-Nicene confession of faith, that they were not ‘followers of Arius; for how could we as bishops be followers of a presbyter?’ They meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe any individual authority to him.” – Arius, Heresy, & Tradition, Rowan Williams, p. 82

This realization – that the only legitimate piece of information that we have concerning Arius himself is that he believed that the “Son is begotten of the Father,” is absolutely no reason for the modern reader to attribute this truth to Arius alone, for he was not the first to call Christ a “Son of God.” While his theory concerning Christ as the Son of God is inexact, it is a massive step in the right direction. While it is impossible for a Trinitarian to simultaneously believe in Paul’s evangel (as they cannot readily accept the death of Christ, and the manner of His resurrection,) it is possible to apprehend it with Arius’ understanding that Christ is not God, but the Son of God.

Nevertheless, we will also cover a few potential pitfalls which Arius’ declarations can necessitate, and resolve to cover them carefully here.

Faustus Socinus

Let’s “Faustus” Forward a little bit (…I’m so sorry) into the 16^th century – Italy. This next piece of history is going to be highly abridged; no intentional attempt to misrepresent Socinian beliefs will be made, and any error will be retracted. This is said because we will not be covering the entire scope of Socinian philosophy – only the piece in relation to the sprawling problem at hand.

Faustus Socinus, disbelieving the mystic, contrarian nature of the Trinity, was Unitarian in belief, almost by default. However, Mr. Socinus believed that there was a critical piece of the puzzle, which everyone within traditional Catholicism to modern reforms (“modern” by 16^th century standards, that is):

Christ is said, explicitly, to be a Man.

To Socinus, this posed a great problem between the proclaimed beliefs of the masses and Holy Writ. How can one proclaim to be a Man – and yet proclaim to be divine? Men… men aren’t divine! That’s just preposterous. We are weak, created beings, brought into this world as naked as the day we are taken out of it. And, to Socinus, Jesus Christ had experienced both of these miraculous events, no mysticism required.

Sure, He’s God’s revelation – that much is true. But what if, per the verbiage in Luke 1:35, as well as the clear revelations in Matt. 1:18-23 concerning the manner of Christ’s authentic, human birth, Christ is not really a Pre-Existent spirit being at all? What if He is simply the Primary in a long line of prophets, simply perfecting His Father’s will?

As gut-wrenching as such a doctrine may appear to the Christian reader, who may propose fifty verses to identify the contrary, please keep in mind that, at its base, the claims are not irrational, but curious: “How can Christ be ‘full God’ and ‘full Man’ at the same time?” Socinus, while not particularly dogmatic about it one way or the other, simply rested on what he could apprehend, logically, and attempted not to dispose himself above the simple statements he had read: Jesus is born. Jesus walks on earth. Jesus is called the Son of Man – by more than one writer (1 Tim. 2:5.) Jesus is, at the time of the four accounts, the latest in a kingly lineage. These simple facts, if nothing else, were believable, and did not cross Socinus’ “One God” conscience.

Of course, the objections from his opposers began to spring forth. However, his opposers faced a major problem: Socinus did not leave the word of God. He was exact. His simple view is found directly in the word of God, and to deny them would, of course, be to deny scripture – blasphemy, plain and simple. And, when it came to passages such as John 1:1, he held an airtight alibi.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Socinian view, today, takes a passage as this – one which, most would agree, draws a figure for Christ as “The Word,” – and explains it as the Beginning of Jesus’ ministry. To these men, it is speculatory to draw attention to Genesis 1:1, and it is necessary to recall that scripture be read in its context. Thus, the “beginning” is, to Socinus, simply the beginning of the primary focus of John’s account: Jesus’ ministry. This would mean that the statement in verse three, that “All things came into being through [The Word,]” is in reference to the new creation, which Paul would expound upon in his epistles (Rom. 6:3-11, 2 Cor. 5:14-17.)

Such a view befuddled the Trinitarians, most of whom could not, exactly, argue against Socinus, for to do so necessitates an argument on Unitarianism that a Scripture-text-only guy like Socinus was sure to win.

A Sinking Ship

The stage has been set for a war between the broad fields of view and their general beliefs. When we begin studying the scriptural passages, we will be going into further detail on the views of these schools of thought in the modern-day, and comparing them to the Concordant Greek Text, which contains the three oldest Greek manuscripts available for us today, as well as a few amendments by their original editors, which highlight any errors in the manuscripts themselves.

As for the beliefs themselves, I liken all three to the same sinking ship. Trinitarians make up the crew, Arian Unitarianism is the sail which perpetuates the dialogue, and Socinianism serves as the barnacles that are impossible to scrape off the bottom of the hull. The ship’s name is “Paganism,” and it has been struck by a ten-ton cannonball called “The Word of God.” The water penetrating its lowest decks will capsize it shortly. As we consider the facts of the Greek, with all of man’s philosophy exposed, please… observe the diamond that is the word of God, for the truth is astounding, awe-inspiring, and wholly humbling. It does not subscribe to man’s views, but stands firmly above them, refusing to stand down. In all ways, it will change your life.

- GerudoKing