Before we present our arguments on Christ. We need to give you a pair of ontology glasses to watch the argumentation carefully. Generally, we take words for granted and at face value. Which we need to resolve in order for you to interpretation errors that have given us our current theological woes in this doctrine.
Christ is a Son. He is the offspring of Someone. Christ has a Parent. The Bible is saying this, and it is true. This is the same word used for biological sons and/or adopted sons. Surely no one understands this parent son relationship as normal man to man or God to man relationship, even if human terms are used? We repeat. We repeat, you are what you are by nature, even if words ‘seem’ to suggest the opposite. One might argue from Colossians 1:14 that Christ is the firstborn of all creation. If that is the case, we must also remember that a few verses (verse 18) later he is the firstborn among the dead. Firstborn in this context seems to communicate pre-eminence and not the first born, because Christ is not the first resurrection in scripture. If He is not the first resurrection, he is not the firstborn from the dead, at least in the literal sense. If the words are truly connotative in verse 18, how textual evidence do would one have to make verse 14 denotative and not connotative as verse 18? Fairness begs us to believe that Paul meant pre-eminence and not time of existence.
Also, Christ is the only begotten. The lexical meaning to beget is very human. I mean no one would suggest that the Father begot Christ in that fashion. Meaning the reader understands that ontology doesn’t allow one to read the words exactly or denotatively. For if literally, then Christ (in his deity) is born like we are. Then God is a father like your dad is… biologically!
Some might even say… No Chumses. We don’t believe that the Father literally fathered Christ but there is a sense that Christ has been “brought forth” (Prov 8:24). My answer to this is that the word “chug” doesn’t help this position at all. Bringing forth has the connotation of travailing .i.e. labour. So literally the Father must have a womb to deliver/bring forth Christ? Of course not. They understand that this is an absurd reading of scripture and their understanding of ontology balances their interpretation of the term brought forth. However, they don’t do this fairly. They ontologically know that the Father hasn’t literally brought forth Christ in labour pains. But they still suggest that Christ is brought forth from nonexistence to existence. They have a spiritual brought forth and a half spiritual birth of Christ (kinda inconsistent).
We have presented the biases as we see them. We request that you all review them as well. For almost two thousand years, we have been arguing over essentially the arguments covered here. We thought it wise to dispel the biases before our positive presentation of the deity of Christ. Now that your spectacles have been delivered, carefully watch our argumentation in the next article.
Fullers' Soap 