Proverbs 18:13

13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I am very well aware that my positions of Conditional Immortality (Annihilationism) and Unitarianism will cause the vast majority of my fellow Christians to write me off immediately, and without a hearing. I completely understand why, and I myself would have done the same in the past. It is my hope that even if one dismisses me, that perhaps they will return later, maybe on a day when their conscience is pricked while wondering about "why Eternal Conscious Torment?", or being puzzled over the Trinity after reading a passage of Scripture which controverts it, and refusing to accept a "none-too-compelling-but-everyone-accepts-it" answer that they are offered.

Here, I will offer a very brief overview of why I changed my mind on these things, which may give some insight into how someone can undergo such a large theological progression even after defending a doctrine for many years.

What Leads to Theological Progression?

The traditional positions on Hell and the nature of God find themselves in a very odd position in modern Christianity. With regard to Hell, functionally, most Christians never witness, which betrays that most of them don't really think about Hell very often, and if they do, they aren't really sure who is going there, and if they are, they don't really think it will last forever, or if they do, they don't really think about what it will be like. Therefore, somehow, there are nearly 2 billion people who attend churches professing that the lost will endure eternal, unending torment, and yet very few, if any, are frantically begging their families, neighbors, friends, and everyone else to believe in the Savior in order to avoid this most infinitely horrible fate.

If they hazard to ask about the horrifying doctrine, they may receive clichés such as, "sin against an eternal God requires eternal punishment", or "sin deserves infinite punishment if God is infinitely just". "Oh", they may say, even though they are not sure why any of that would be the case, as these things are definitely not obviously true, nor does the Bible state them. The person repeating the clichés is not really to blame - they probably have no idea why they are saying such illogical things anyway, and are merely attempting to justify what they think the Bible teaches on the matter. The few verses of Scripture in which hyperbolic language is used to describe the fate of the lost, mostly occurring in visions, may be hauled out, and the enquirer will be assured that these controvert the apparent message of dozens or hundreds of verses which extol God's mercy, His love, His measured, sensible, merciful justice, and the promised final eradication of suffering and death from His creation.

If one examines the Annihilationist interpretations of the (very few) verses used to support Eternal Conscious Torment, and finds them compelling, they now find themselves in a difficult position. They know that they will be dismissed as a liberal, whose rationality is clouded by their emotions, if they ever give voice to their new position. They know they will need to attend, in all likelihood, a church which does not teach Annihilationism. They know they will be told by people they respect that it is rather far more rational, Biblical, holy, and righteous for God to never forgive, and to torment forever, many who died as young as 14 years old (or in the Imperialist denominations, every unbaptized infant), and that they are a compromised heretic for rejecting such an obvious doctrine of Scripture.

Still, one may be an open Annihilationist and carry on a relatively normal Christian existence in some less Fundamentalist contexts, or, if they keep it hidden, they may encounter very little trouble at all, only having to silently disagree with the odd sermon (which may be years apart, as actual defenses of Eternal Conscious Torment are rare as a sermon subject in nearly all denominations).

Unitarianism, however, is wholly different. No matter how much Protestants may despise Catholics, or Catholics the Orthodox, or Orthodox the Protestants, all can unite in hatred and anathemas against Unitarians. Nevermind that far less than 1% of their laity could defend the doctrine of the Trinity in debate, or even answer basic questions about the doctrine (see Appendix I) - all are assured that this is one line that cannot be crossed, or challenged, and seldom even discussed, because it is absolutely definitional, Scripturally certain, and all who do not believe it are wicked, liberal, dumb, and/or blasphemous, and so must be avoided.

This immovable line is drawn by Trinitarians, and anathemas are doled out abundantly, despite the recognition from even Trinitarian scholars that the doctrine is extremely difficult, partially mysterious or incomprehensible, and fraught with the potential for error:

The Trinity - An Introduction, by Scott R. Swain - Introduction

No topic of study is more rewarding, or more challenging, than the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor is any topic of study fraught with greater possibility of error.

The Trinity - An Introduction, by Scott R. Swain - Chapter 5

The mystery of the Son's eternal begetting is one that mortal minds cannot fathom. Because it is a divine begetting, it is an unsearchable deep (Ps. 145:3; Rom. 11:33).

The Trinity, by Karl Rahner - Section IIA

The dogma of the Trinity is an absolute mystery which we do not understand even after it has been revealed.

The Trinity, by Jack Hayford - Chapter 1

Don't be surprised if you find this concept mysterious. It is perfectly logical that the very essence of God's being would exceed our full capacity to understand!

The Forgotten Trinity, by James White - Chapter 1

So why don't we talk about loving the Trinity? Most Christians do not understand what the term means and have only a vague idea of the reality it represents. We don't love things that we consider very complicated, obtuse, or just downright difficult.

The Fount of Knowledge, by John of Damascus - Book 2: On Heresies

And so, let the faithful adore God with a mind that is not overcurious. And believe that He is God in three hypostases, although the manner in which He is so is beyond manner, for God is incomprehensible. Do not ask how the Trinity is Trinity, for the Trinity is inscrutable.

Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Translated and Annotated by John Henry Newman - Discourse 4, Subject 1

The Mystery of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed by them. We can scarcely make a nearer approach to an exact enunciation of it, than that of saying that one thing is two things.

The Baltimore Catechism, Annotated by Thomas Kinkead - Question 30

Question: Can we fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God?
Answer: We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God, because this is a mystery.

"Fully" - entirely. We can partly understand it. We know what one God is and we know what three persons are; but how these two things go together is the part we do not understand - the mystery.

Basic Theology, by Charles Ryrie - Chapter 8

Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must acknowledge that it is in the final analysis a mystery. We accept all the data as truth even though they go beyond our understanding.

Christian Theology, by Millard Erickson - Chapter 14

In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible. We cannot fully understand its mystery.

Christian Theology, by Millard Erickson - Chapter 14

We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what he is like. As someone has said of this doctrine:

Try to explain it, and you'll lose your mind;
But try to deny it, and you'll lose your soul.

Systematic Theology, edited by Stanley Horton - Chapter 5

Indeed, the historical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is properly characterized as a terminological maze wherein many paths lead to heretical dead ends.

Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem - Part 2, Chapter 14

The difference in persons must be one of relationship, not one of being, and yet each person must really exist. This tri-personal form of being is far beyond our ability to comprehend. It is a kind of existence far different from anything we have experienced and far different from anything else in the universe.

Because the existence of three persons in one God is something beyond our understanding, Christian theology has come to use the word "person" to speak of these differences in relationship, not because we fully understand what is meant by the word "person" when referring to the Trinity, but rather so that we might say something instead of saying nothing at all.

Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - Part I, Chapter 8

The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature.

Systematic Theology in One Volume, by Norman Geisler - Chapter 10

In view of this distinction, the Trinity should be treated as a mystery, not a problem. Once the basic elements are understood, we should not attempt to unscrew the inscrutable. We should not analyze it, but admire it; we should not dissect it, but devote ourselves to it. It is an object of worship, not scholarship. As has been well said, if one tries to understand it completely (as a problem), he may lose his mind, and if he does not believe it sincerely, he may lose his soul!

The disparity between the lack of general understanding of the doctrine, and intensity of the venomous hatred for all who dare to deny it, demonstrates the kind of traditional dogmatism that underlies it. Why else would failing to accept something so non-obvious elicit such hatred?

My own theological development in this regard began with defending the Trinity and Deity of Christ against Jehovah's Witnesses, and later, Muslims. At first, I did not give the doctrine much thought, as it was so obviously definitional to me, and I strung together some responses which rehashed the standard replies to common challenges to the Trinity. Later, more serious challenges were put to my view, which led me to adopt a formal Trinitarian position (Classical Trinitarianism), replacing my previously ill-defined, informal, Social Trinitarian-leaning position - the position of many who would notionally affirm the Trinity without formally studying it.

The Classical Trinitarian position, in attempt to avoid Tritheism, is very philosophically complex, and not intuitive at all. I was struck by just how little Scripture was being appealed to, and how much was made of verses or even parts of verses which did not at all clearly state what was being drawn from them. Yet, I did not want to hold a view which nearly all of Christianity disagreed with, and let go of a view which I had notionally held since even before I was born again, and so I intellectually submitted myself to the Classical definition, while finding it quite unsatisfying.

Later, I remember undertaking a critique of a Muslim dawah ebook which had a section on the Trinity, and as I typed out my standard Trinitarian responses, it occurred to me that many of them seemed contrived. I had heard these critiques many times, yet, on that occasion, I was feeling particularly unsatisfied with the convoluted and uncompelling nature of the doctrine that I was trying to defend. I did not publish the critique, but rather compartmentalized the matter, and moved on, mostly on the basis that I thought the Deity of Christ was very easy to prove, and so did not feel a need to fully comprehend the Trinity. This is the position of the vast majority of Trinitarians, who know little to nothing about the Trinity, but feel a deep attachment to the Deity of Christ. Yet, if there is one God, and if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Son is not the Father, unless one wants to live in contradiction or be a polytheist, they need some way of reconciling those beliefs, and therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity must be confronted. Most push the matter to the periphery, and that is what I did at this time.

However, in early 2025, when I began to take a step back from polemics, and returned to studying theology in an attempt to define a more organized doctrinal basis for Free Grace Christianity, I found myself at an impasse regarding the Trinity. It was something that I knew "needed" to be definitional, and defended, and yet, I knew that the case for the doctrine was not clear, and was not something that I felt like I could bind to another person's conscience, because I was an apologist who defended it, and still had lots of logical incongruities and Scriptural uncertainties regarding it.

What persisted in bothering me about the doctrine was mainly this:

• So much of the case was built on extrapolations from individual verses, and almost every single one of those verses had a textual critical or translational issue. It was always a verse here, a verse there, if this textual variant is chosen, or if this translation is used. And I remember thinking, "Why?". Why would this most important, definitional doctrine, be derived this way? I do not care about textual variants or translational issues when defending Salvation by faith alone, because I have the explicit text, and lengthy chapters-long defenses of the doctrine in multiple books of Scripture, where context makes the case for me. Not so with the Trinity. Why? Why wouldn't there be an entire book, or multiple books, wholly dedicated to the Apostles explaining to their churches how Jesus is not only the Son of God or Messiah (as they are sure to call Him clearly, and in context, dozens and dozens of times), but also unambiguously God, and this is how that fits into the fact that the Father is God (as they are sure to state clearly, in context, dozens and dozens of times), and what they already believe about the Messiah? Instead, a verse here, a verse there, in this translation, with this variant - and this is the basis by which we are to reinterpret all the other statements in the New Testament which seem to teach Unitarian truths about God, and Jesus's relationship to Him?

Additionally, I had, in the past, put a lot of weight on verses which I believed proved that Jesus Christ pre-existed His earthly life, or can be worshipped, or called "God", or prayed to - each of which I thought were absolute proofs that He must be Almighty God. By this point, however, I had learned that there were historical and modern forms of Unitarianism which accommodated all of those things, and that Unitarianism did not pigeonhole me into a purely human, or denigratory view of Jesus. And, while I remained Trinitarian while learning of these positions at various points, they removed a lot of the barriers that I had regarding Unitarianism, and made it seem like a more compelling position, in light of the other things that Scripture says about Jesus and God, and aiming to have a coherent view of God that I can actually explain and share.

So, while I am a fallible human being who does not have all of the answers, as of now I believe that a Unitarian understanding of Scripture, wherein God the Father is God, and Jesus is the most exalted creation of God (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14), is more compelling, both logically and Biblically, than a Trinitarian view. I believe that the Trinity hypothesis is an attempt to reconcile Monotheism with a misreading of a few texts which people think teach the Deity of Christ (see this article), and that it creates far more problems than it "solves", because there is no problem to solve - there is one God, the Father (John 17:3: 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6: 1 Timothy 2:5), and the Father is the God of Jesus Christ (Micah 5:2-4, Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17, Romans 15:6: 2 Corinthians 1:3, 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 1:17: 1 Peter 1:3, Hebrews 1:8-9, Revelation 1:5-6, 3:2, 3:12, 5:10), and is superior to Jesus Christ (John 14:28: 1 Corinthians 3:22-23, 11:3, 15:24-28).

Additionally, I am aware that this belief will ensure that I am excluded from nearly all fellowship with other Christians for the rest of my life. That, however, cannot be a criteria for determining truth. "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe", and my conscience convicts me of the truthfulness of these doctrines, and, as a result, I do not really care what the social consequences are for believing them.

Lastly, I thought it would be useful to anticipate and answer some questions/comments which will likely either come from those who knew me when I was a Trinitarian, or who are otherwise offended by my positions here:

• "So Jesus was just a man?" ⟶ No, I do not believe that Jesus Christ was or is "just a man". I believe that He is the most exalted creation of God, and His unique Son and Messiah. I pray to Jesus, based on verses in which He is prayed to or answers prayer (John 14:13-14, Acts 7:59, 9:13-17: 1 Corinthians 1:2, 16:22-23: 2 Corinthians 12:8-9: 1 Timothy 1:12, Revelation 22:20), and praise and worship Jesus for who He is and what He has done, also in accordance with Scripture (Matthew 14:33, Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:8-14, etc.).
• "I don't understand why you changed your mind. Here, look at this verse! ⟶ See the article Unitarian Interpretations of Verses Commonly Used for the Trinity. If your verse is not there, feel free to email me and ask for it to be added.
• "Which verses changed your mind about the Trinity?" ⟶ It was not a particular verse, but rather the cumulative weight of the message of the following verses, along with the absence of what would have seemed absolutely essential to include in Scripture if the doctrine of the Trinity were true: Matthew 8:23-27, 9:1-8, 11:27, 12:17-18, 16:13-17, 19:17, 24:36, 26:37-44, 27:46, 28:18, Mark 4:36-41, 8:27-30, 10:18, 10:36-40, 12:28-34, 13:32, 14:33-39, 15:34, Luke 1:32, 8:22-25, 9:7-8, 9:18-20, 10:22, 22:29, 22:41-44, 24:17-19, John 3:34-35, 4:34, 5:19-23, 5:26-27, 5:30, 5:36, 6:27, 6:38, 6:57, 7:12, 7:16-18, 7:28-29, 8:25-29, 8:40-42, 8:54-55, 10:17-18, 10:29, 10:36, 12:49-50, 13:31-32, 14:1, 14:10, 14:28, 16:27-28, 17:1-9, 17:24, 20:17, Acts 2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 3:26, 4:10, 4:26-27, 5:30-31, 7:55-56, 9:20, 10:38-42, 13:37-38, 17:30-31, 18:5, 18:28, 20:21, Romans 1:1-3, 1:7-9, 2:16, 3:24-26, 4:24, 5:1, 5:8-11, 5:15, 6:4, 6:11, 6:23, 7:4, 7:25, 8:3, 8:11, 8:31-32, 8:39, 10:9, 14:18, 15:5-6, 16:27: 1 Corinthians 1:3, 1:9, 1:30, 3:23, 6:14, 8:4-6, 11:3, 15:15, 15:23-28, 15:57: 2 Corinthians 1:3, 5:18-19, Galatians 1:1-4, 4:4, 4:7, Ephesians 1:3, 1:17, 1:20, 2:13-18, 3:9, 4:6, 4:32, Philippians 1:2, 1:11, 2:5-11, Colossians 1:2-3, 1:12-19, 2:12, 3:17: 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3, 1:9-10, 3:11-13, 5:9: 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2, 1:12, 2:16: 1 Timothy 1:1-2, 1:17, 2:5, 5:21, 6:13, 6:16: 2 Timothy 1:2, 4:1, Titus 1:4, 3:4-6, Philemon 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-9, 1:13, 2:9-13, 3:1-2, 5:5, 5:8-10, 7:25, 9:14, 9:24, 10:5-9, 10:12, 12:2, 12:22-24, 13:20, James 1:1, 3:9: 1 Peter 1:3, 1:21, 2:5, 4:11, 5:10: 2 Peter 1:1-2, 1:16-17: 1 John 1:3, 2:1, 3:21-23, 4:9-10, 4:14-15, 5:9-11, 5:20: 2 John 1:3, Jude 1:1, 1:4, Revelation 1:1, 1:6, 2:27, 3:2, 3:12, 3:14, 5:9-10, 7:10, 12:5, 14:12, 15:3, 21:22.
• "Do you believe that Jesus began to exist when He was conceived, or do you think He pre-existed His earthly life?" ⟶ See Appendix II - On the Pre-Existence of Jesus for a discussion on Jesus's pre-existence.
• "What about the Holy Spirit?" ⟶ Unitarians commonly believe that the Holy Spirit sometimes refers to God or Jesus Christ, or can be how the action of God in the world is described, or can describe the power of God (Luke 1:35) sent forth by God or Jesus Christ, but is not a distinct being, in the sense that "the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17) is not a separate being from Elijah. In this view, it is only sometimes anthropomorphized on account of the one who sent it or to whom it refers, e.g., it can be spoken of as a "He", because the pronoun ultimately refers back to God, who gave it, or to who it is being used to refer to, or to whose operation it is describing. Some Unitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is a created heavenly Being.
• "What about Modalism?" ⟶ In Modalism, Jesus has two natures - one human, and one divine - and the divine nature just is the Father. To begin, all of the same critiques regarding the New Testament not teaching the absolute Deity of Christ apply to Modalism as well. However, responses to Modalism in particular would depend on what theory of Modalism is being advocated for. If Jesus did not have the center of consciousness, powers, and knowledge of God, which is pretty clear in the New Testament (Matthew 27:46, Mark 13:32, John 6:38, etc.), then He is a separate being from God, and is not God. If Jesus has the center of consciousness, powers, and knowledge of God, then much of the New Testament is rendered incomprehensible, as all of His prayers would be to Himself, and He would be a mediator between Himself and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 4:14, etc.), which makes nonsense of the word "mediator". Jesus likewise is said many times to sit at the right hand of God (Hebrews 8:1, 10:12, etc.), and distinguishes Himself from the Father innumerable times. So, I reject Modalism because I find it to be unbiblical, and logically problematic in different ways than Trinitarianism.
• "A non-divine Savior cannot save anybody. Jesus had to be God for His atonement to be valid. You have attacked the Gospel" ⟶ The Bible never says anything like that, ever. The actual statements in Scripture which talk about God's redemptive plan distinguish God from Jesus (John 3:16-17, Romans 5:6-11, Galatians 4:4-5).
• "You just reject the Trinity because you can't understand it. God can't be fully comprehended by human beings" ⟶ No, I reject the Trinity because I believe that the Bible teaches Unitarianism. Of course, there are things about God that cannot be understood by human beings, such as His having no beginning. However, the fact that God cannot be fully comprehended does not somehow give us liberty to invent any nonsensical doctrine about God's nature, and assert that it is true in spite of it being inconsistent with the Bible, or self-contradictory, and I believe that the various Trinity theories are disqualified by at least one of those two criteria.
• "Jesus said that He would build His Church, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). You believe the Church was lost, and the gates of Hell prevailed" ⟶ No, I do not believe that the Church was ever lost, because I do not believe that believing or not believing in the Trinity is an element of saving faith. The essential doctrines of the belief in one God, Jesus's atoning death, burial, resurrection, and second coming have always been preached (see, for instance, the Apostles' Creed), even if they were distorted to greater/lesser degrees throughout history by different groups. God sometimes allows periods of spiritual darkness. This should be readily granted by Protestants, but even in the Old Testament, consider the period of time before Josiah (2 Kings 22:8-13), or consider that at the time of Jesus, He rebuked both of the major sects of Judaism which had come to prevail in His day, the Pharisees and Sadducees. For a discussion of Matthew 16:18, see Appendix I in this article.
• "You're an apostate liberal" ⟶ No I am not an apostate liberal, theologically, or socially, and people who actually read what I write should know that. I reject the liberal denominations (and cults) which hold to my minority theological positions.
• "You must hate Trinitarians, and think they are non-Christian" ⟶ No way - I love Trinitarians. I don't think they are unintelligent, I don't hate them, and I definitely don't think that they are non-Christians. I was a Christian when I was a Trinitarian. I believe that I loved God, but just hadn't taken the time to investigate these things as I should have, and that that is the position of most Trinitarians today as well. So, if you are Trinitarian, I am not mad at you, and I absolutely do not hate you, or think you are non-Christian
• "So what else are you going to change positions on?" ⟶ For as much as I engage with theology, I am actually very stable in what I believe. I have no "plans" to change anything that I believe, but will always believe whatever I find to be most compelling at any given time. I try to teach only on things which I am certain about, because doing otherwise is irresponsible, but sometimes, as in the case of these doctrines, it is possible that I may become less certain about doctrines which I was once certain about. If that makes me "unreliable", you may prefer dead theologians, whose theologies are settled. Believe good arguments for good reasons, not because I am the one saying them.
• "If you're right, why does nearly everyone disagree with you?" ⟶ Each "minority" theological position that I hold is believed by millions of other people. Finding someone else who has combined them all may be rare (although there seems to be significant overlap between Unitarianism and Annihilationism), but that says nothing about whether the positions are right. Majority theology is often misleading, as the majority of Christians are not theologians, or even people who study their religion at all to know why they ostensibly believe what their churches teach on paper. I believe that if every Christian studied the Bible intently, many more would hold these minority positions, though even if they did not, we have to abide by Exodus 23:2.
• "I'm not going to talk to you or fellowship with you unless you change your mind" ⟶ That is unfortunate, but I expect that kind of treatment. I certainly do not believe these things because I think that believing them will make me friends. As stated in the introduction, it is my hope that maybe some day that will change for you, and you will be more open to hearing robust, reasoned arguments from both sides on these topics. Free Grace Christians, however, who know what it is like to be a theological minority, should be the last people who would enforce a rigid separation on what is a speculative doctrine which they themselves do not even understand.

Appendix I - Trinitarian Questions

Basic Trinitarian questions for Trinitarians to test themselves with:

• What is a "Person" or "Hypostasis"?
• What is an "Essence" or "Substance" or "Ousia"?
• What does "Perichoresis" or "Circumincession" describe?
• How are the Persons of the Trinity distinguished from each other?
• Does each Person of the Trinity have their own center of consciousness?
• Does each Person of the Trinity have their own will?
• How many wills does Jesus Christ have right now?
• What are "relations of origin", and how is it that something can "proceed" from something else, yet be uncreated? If the Son and the Spirit have life from a source external to themselves, how is that not creation or contingency?
  • If, on the other hand, the Son and the Spirit exist of themselves, how is that distinct from Tritheism?
• What does it mean for two Persons with the same mind to communicate with each other?
• Given the law of identity, and the statement that "God is triune", is it correct or incorrect to say that "Jesus is God"?
• If the divine nature of Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, how do you determine the distinction between the Person who became man, and the Person who did not become man?

Appendix II - On the Pre-Existence of Jesus

The main division within Unitarianism is over whether or not Jesus Christ pre-existed His birth in Bethlehem (or more precisely, His conception within the virgin Mary). Those who hold to the view that Jesus pre-existed His birth are normally labeled "Arians", after Arius (256-336 AD), and those who reject that view are usually called "Socinians", after Lelio Sozzini (1525-1562 AD) and Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604 AD). These terms are unhelpful, as neither Arius nor the Sozzinis founded their associated view of Jesus's pre-existence, nor do those labelled Arians or Socinians in modern times actually properly "follow" their namesakes (as Lutherans follow Luther, Calvinists Calvin, Thomists Thomas Aquinas, etc.). So, while the terms are common, this section will forego both of them in favor of referring to the positions as the "pre-existent view" or the "non-pre-existent view".

The following is an examination of passages which are commonly brought forth to support the view that Jesus pre-existed His birth, presenting at least one possible pre-existence and non-pre-existence view for each passage:

• Micah 5:2
  • Pre-existent view: The "goings forth"/"origins" of the Messiah are said to be "from ancient times", which refers to Jesus's creation by God before the foundation of the world
  • Non-pre-existent view: The "goings forth" "from ancient times" refers to the lineage of Jesus from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or refers to Jesus's place within the plan of God from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), i.e., His coming forth has been planned from the very beginning
• Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34
  • Pre-existent view: Here, Jesus speaks of "often" wanting to gather Jerusalem to Himself, and that they were not willing, which seems unlikely if He was only referring to the maybe handful of times He went there during His ministry. Rather, the context, which speaks of the many prophets which were sent to Jerusalem, seems to be what Jesus had in mind
  • Non-pre-existent view: This refers to Jesus's repeated attempts to witness to the Jews throughout the course of His ministry, or could be Him speaking on behalf of God as God's agent, or embodying the mission of all of the prophets which came to Israel before Him
• John 1:1-14: 2 Corinthians 8:9, Philippians 2:5-11
  • Pre-existent view: The Carmen Christi ("Christ Hymn") of Philippians chapter 2 describes Jesus in His pre-existent state with God, and His humbling Himself, and taking on the form of a human being in the Incarnation. This is also what is referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:9, where Jesus's Incarnation is described in a similar way, saying, "though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor". Additionally, John 1:1-14 describes the Incarnation of Jesus from His previously-existing exalted state
  • Non-pre-existent view: The passage in John refers to the idealized, i.e., in idea only, pre-existence of Jesus, who then became the embodiment of that idealization when He was born into the world. Both of the other passages refer to Jesus laying aside the benefits and prerogatives of being God's Messiah in order to be a sacrifice for our sins on the cross
• John 1:1-3, 1:10: 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:12-17, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1:8-12
  • Pre-existent view: These passages speak of God using Jesus as His agent in creation, and creating all things through Him
  • Non-pre-existent view: When Jesus speaks of creation, He attributes it to God, not Himself (Mark 10:6). When God speaks of creation in the Old Testament, He says He did so "alone", and "by myself" (Isaiah 44:24). In John 1, the "word" refers to an aspect of God in the same way that the book of Proverbs speaks about wisdom (Proverbs 3:19, 8:1-36), and so is describing the action of God in a poetic way. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, "all things" refers to the present benefits and circumstances of the current age, and of the age to come. In Colossians 1:12-17, the new creation and Kingdom of God are in focus, not the Genesis creation (Colossians 1:13). Hebrews chapter one is also referring to the new creation, based on what is stated in Hebrews 2:5
• John 1:15, 1:30
  • Pre-existent view: John the Baptist says two times that Jesus is preferred before him, because He "was before" him. John the Baptist is slightly older than Jesus (Luke 1:24-27), and so this could refer to the fact that the Messiah existed prior to His birth
  • Non-pre-existent view: The "before" at the end of these verses means "above" or "superior to", and refers to the fact that in the eternal plan of God, the Messiah was always above John, who was the one appointed to announce His arrival
• John 3:13, 3:31, 6:33-35, 6:61-62, 8:14, 8:21-23, 8:42, 13:3, 16:27-28, 17:3, 17:16-18, Romans 8:3: 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, Hebrews 10:5-7: 1 John 4:14
  • Pre-existent view: These passages are most naturally read as Jesus being sent from Heaven, and coming to earth from Heaven, and existing there beforehand
  • Non-pre-existent view: In John 17:18, Jesus says, "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world", so if this can be applied to human beings, it does not necessarily refer to being sent from another realm or location outside of earth. Being "sent" is also interchangeable with "coming" to do something (compare Mark 1:38 with Luke 4:43), so when Jesus is described as being "sent" from Heaven, it can be said that He was coming with a heavenly agenda. Additionally, something can be described as coming from Heaven in a metaphorical way (Matthew 21:25, Mark 11:30, Luke 20:4, James 1:17). Other prophets can also be described as being sent from God (John 1:6, 1:33, 3:28), but that does not imply that they came from another realm. Therefore, the sending from Heaven or being from Heaven refers to a commission from Heaven, or acting as an agent from Heaven to the world (1 John 5:19)
• John 17:3-5
  • Pre-existent view: Jesus speaks of the glory that He had with God "before the world was"
  • Non-pre-existent view: This refers to the glory that Jesus was predestinated to have with God before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), and does not necessarily refer to any prior experience of that glory
• Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14
  • Pre-existent view: The passage in Revelation speaks of Jesus as "the beginning of the creation of God", which refers to the fact that Jesus was the first thing God created. The passage in Colossians 1:15 is less clear, as "firstborn of all creation" could easily refer to preeminence, but the context of the creation of the world (Colossians 1:16) makes it possible that this also refers to the fact that Jesus was the first thing God created
  • Non-pre-existent view: Both passages refer to Jesus's preeminence over all creation, and it is an error to read a temporal meaning into the terms "firstborn" or "beginning" in these instances. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God says, "I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth". Additionally, Colossians 1:18 says that He is the "the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (compare Acts 13:33-34, Revelation 1:5), so "firstborn" may be in regard to His resurrection
• Romans 8:3: 1 Timothy 3:16: 1 John 4:1-3: 2 John 1:7
  • Pre-existent view: These passages speak of Jesus coming in the flesh (incarnating) in a manner which seems unlikely if He had no pre-existent state
  • Non-pre-existent view: These passages speak of Jesus performing His mission from God to the world in a real body, not as a spirit or in some other form

Though I currently favor the pre-existent view, I understand how others can come to hold the non-pre-existent view, and do not generally find their interpretations to be Biblically impossible or unreasonable. However, what I have very little patience for is any sectarian dogmatism from either camp, especially those who hold to the non-pre-existent view suggesting that those who hold to pre-existence somehow deny the true humanity of Jesus Christ, or are in some way Gnostic.

If the Scriptures do in fact teach that Jesus pre-existed His birth in Bethlehem, then they also teach that God performed the operation of making Him human through a miraculous virgin birth, and that there is no conflict between those two propositions. It seems speculative, and very narrow, to attempt to build any kind of dogmatic case that Scripture teaches that a pre-existence is absolutely impossible for God's Messiah, as there is no explicit statement of any kind in the Bible to that effect. There are many ways in which God could create a spiritual being, and then have that being become human by whatever means or in whatever sense He deemed appropriate. It must be kept in mind that Jesus is unique, in anyone's estimation - normal humans are not born of virgins, or exalted to the kind of authority and power that Jesus is described as having. So, a narrow-minded view that attempts to declare an incarnation either Biblically incongruent or logically impossible (and then causes grief for others, and creates division on that basis) should be exhorted to exercise more humility before presuming to speak on what God could or couldn't do with respect to the ontology of His Messiah.