When NON-Preexistence Becomes the Gospel: The Real Issue Behind the Debate on Christ

The Real Issue Isn’t Preexistence—It’s What You Think It Means

There has been a lot of discussion about the preexistence of Christ versus non-preexistence, but I want to make something very clear from the beginning:

This is not primarily about whether Christ preexisted.
It’s about what people think that belief means—and what they think God is capable of doing.

---

Honoring Christ Is Honoring God

When I glorify Christ, I am glorifying the God who sent Him. That is not up for debate—that is the plain teaching of Scripture.

So when someone calls my position “dangerous,” the implication is serious. Are we now saying that those who hold to preexistence are unbelievers? That honoring Christ in this way somehow dishonors God?

That is not a small disagreement. That is a major accusation.

---

Scripture vs. Assumptions

We all agree Scripture is the authority. The issue is not whether we use our minds—it’s whether we are reading what is actually there or importing assumptions into the text.

Take John 1. The argument is made that because Christ was “begotten” or “generated,” that must be the beginning of His existence.

I agree—that is the beginning of His human existence.

But nowhere does the text say it is the beginning of His existence altogether. That conclusion is not stated—it is assumed.

---

The Core Question: What Is God Capable Of?

Here is the real dividing line:

Is it impossible for God to bring about Christ’s birth through the Holy Spirit, making Him fully human—of Mary, of the seed of David according to the flesh—while also having existed before?

The genealogy shows His human lineage. It explains how He entered into humanity. But it does not limit what God could have done prior to that.

To say it does is not exegesis—it is assumption.

I fully affirm:

• Jesus is of the seed of David according to the flesh

• Jesus is truly human

• Jesus came through Mary

• Jesus lived, died, and was raised

The question is not whether these things are true.

The question is whether God could have made Him this way even if He preexisted.

I believe He could—and that He did.

---

The “Boxes” Argument

What I find most revealing is this:

Those who reject preexistence often define a set of “requirements” for Jesus to be truly human:

• He must be of David

• He must be born

• He must be flesh

• He must be a kinsman

I agree with all of that.

My claim is that Jesus meets every one of those requirements.

So we are talking about the same Jesus in His humanity.

But here is where the disagreement shifts:

They believe that if Christ preexisted, then those requirements could not truly be fulfilled.

I believe God is capable of fulfilling all of them, regardless of preexistence.

So the disagreement is not about the Jesus who lived, died, and was raised.

It is about what people think God is able to do in bringing Him into that condition.

---

When Preexistence Becomes the Gospel

Here is where this becomes serious—and where the contradiction becomes clear.

On one hand, they say:

“If one truly believes that Jesus—the One born in Bethlehem—whether you believe He pre-existed or not—died for our sins, was entombed, and was raised from the dead, then that person is in the body of Christ.”

That statement affirms exactly what I’ve been saying:
👉 that salvation is based on who Christ is and what He accomplished, not on a position about preexistence.

But then, in the very next breath, they say:

• the doctrine of preexistence is “antichrist”

• that if you believe it, you are believing in “another Jesus”

• and that this Jesus does not save

Those two positions cannot both be true.

Because if I believe that:

• Jesus, born in Bethlehem

• died for my sins

• was entombed

• was raised

then by their own definition, I am in the body of Christ.

But if they then turn around and say that my belief in preexistence means I worship a different Jesus who does not save, then they have made preexistence the deciding factor of salvation, not the death and resurrection of Christ.

That is a direct contradiction.

---

The “God Part” Argument

Another claim is that if Christ preexisted, then there must have been some “God part” in Him that made Him more than fully human, and therefore He could not truly die.

But that misunderstands what I am saying entirely.

I am not saying Christ walked the earth as something other than fully human.

I am saying:
👉 He was made fully human. Completely.

Scripture says He:

• shared in flesh and blood

• was made like His brothers in every way

• was tempted as we are

So whatever He was prior, He entered fully into the human condition.

Not partially. Not aided. Not protected.

Fully.

So the question is not whether He was truly human.

The question is whether God could bring Him into that condition in more than one way.

---

The Pagan Argument Falls Apart

Another argument used is that preexistence comes from pagan ideas—gods becoming men.

But that reasoning collapses quickly.

If we reject something because it appears in pagan systems, then we would also have to reject:

• Resurrection

• Sacrifice

• Spiritual beings interacting with humanity

All of those appear in pagan systems as well.

So the logic is inconsistent.

Just because something is counterfeited does not mean the truth does not exist.

---

The Real Problem: Projecting Assumptions Onto Christ

What is actually happening is this:

Because some believe preexistence would make it impossible for Christ to be fully human, they assume that anyone who believes it must be denying His humanity.

But I am not denying it.

I am affirming it fully.

The difference is:

• They believe preexistence prevents Christ from being what Scripture says He is

• I believe God made Christ exactly what He needed to be, regardless of preexistence

So they are not rejecting my Jesus because of what I say about Him.

They are rejecting Him because of what they assume must be true if preexistence is involved.

---

The Breaking Point

This is where the conversation has led:

I have said we worship the same Christ.

They have said I worship a false one.

That is not a minor disagreement.

That is a line being drawn where:
👉 their interpretation of preexistence becomes the defining line of the faith

And I cannot accept that.

Because I know what I believe about Christ:

• He came in the flesh

• He is the seed of David according to the flesh

• He truly lived as a man

• He truly died

• He was truly raised

And I believe God made Him exactly what He needed to be to accomplish all of that.

---

Final Clarity

This is not about defending a theory.

This is about defending the idea that:
👉 God is not limited by our assumptions

And that:
👉 salvation is based on Christ Himself—not on our ability to perfectly explain how God brought Him into the world

If someone wants to say that my belief places me outside the faith, that is their decision.

But I reject the idea that the defining issue is how Christ came into existence, rather than who He is and what He accomplished.

Because once that shift happens, we are no longer talking about the gospel—

We are talking about a system where a theological position becomes the condition of salvation.

And that is the real danger.