2 Key Biblical Unitarian Philosophical Fallacies
From my several years-long interactions with Biblical Unitarians, I have observed that their denial of Christ’s “preexistence” is based entirely on a faulty philosophical foundation rather than on a biblical foundation. Once their philosophical axioms are assumed, the Scriptures which at face value teach preexistence (such as Genesis 1:26; Micah 5:2; John 1:1-18, John 3:13; John 6:38; John 8:56-59; John 16:27-31; John 17:3-5,24; Colossians 1:15-20; Philippians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:1-2,10-12, etc.) are forced to conform to their philosophical presuppositions. Yet then cannot even agree among themselves on their interpretations of these Scriptures! The mistake is in placing the cart (human philosophy) before the horse (Scripture). For them, philosophical axioms trump the plain sense of all of these Scriptures, forcing them to come up with alternative explanations for these, all of which violate the norms of biblical exegesis. The two most important of their philosophical axioms are as follows:
I. Biblical Unitarians claim that a preexisting, divine, immortal, Son of God, who allegedly participated in creation and interacted with Israel formerly, who afterward “emptied Himself” of His divine nature in order to become a helpless, ignorant, human infant, cannot be the same ‘person.’ Continuity of ‘personhood’ is denied.
Answer: The fallacy of this argument can be demonstrated by proposing whether the reverse is possible. Can a “mortal” human person, who ceases to exist upon death, become an “immortal” person in the resurrection, existing in a completely different ontological form, yet be the same ‘person?’ Will Abraham, to whom the promises were made, who died and who has not existed as a ‘person’ for nearly 4 millennia, be the same ‘person’ (albeit immortal) in the resurrection? In the resurrection, will Abraham have “preexisted” with a different ontological nature, yet be the same “person?” If a “mortal” person can cease to exist and afterward become an “immortal” while retaining continuity of personhood, why cannot the “immortal” Son of God become purely a “mortal” human being in order to save us, yet remain the same ‘person?’
II. A formerly “divine” Son of God cannot become fully “human,” because being “human” requires a “human” origin. No other human preexisted in another form, therefore full “humanity” itself excludes preexistence.
Answer: The fallacy of this argument can be demonstrated by asking the following questions. What human besides Jesus was born of a virgin, without a human father? Jesus Himself was unique in His human birth. What human besides Adam had no birth at all but was created from dust as an adult? Adam was unique but was fully human. What other human besides Eve was created as an adult from a body-part (rib) of another human? Eve was unique in the origin of her humanity but was fully human. Why then is it impossible for the preexisting, divine Son of God to be fully transformed, and thus become fully human in every way?
The fact that Biblical Unitarians present these kinds of philosophical (fabricated) obstacles in order to deny the Son’s preexistence, then force Scriptures to comply with their own imagined constructs using poor hermeneutics, reveals the faulty foundation of their system. Instead of dealing with these errors honestly, they conceal them behind the noise of the errors of Trinitarianism and the logical fallacies of the doctrine of “Hypostatic Union” (two mutually exclusive, yet simultaneous ‘natures’). I have found that Biblical Unitarians have absolutely no interest in, and decline to seriously engage on, the issue of “preexistence” alone with those who actually agree with them on both the oneness of God and conditional immortality.
The denial of Christ’s preexistence is THE reason why the “One God” movement remains small and ineffective against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, keeping them in their “cult” status in the opinion of Evangelical Christians.