(SORRY this is late!!)
I begin this episode of MZTV with a private moment outside
on my patio in Ft. Lauderdale, telling you why any sort of "live and kindly discussion" invitations on the topic of the preexistence of Christ (with Scripture-believers Vs. Tories) will be vehemently refused by your's truly. I would and will never give air time or share air time with anyone seeking to subvert Christ's glories with philosophy, theory, and explanation rather than with Scripture. Ain't gonna happen.
One of my favorite A.E. Knoch quotes is, "God gives teachers, not roundtable discussions." The truth is not up for discussion—especially not the obvious truth of Christ's preexistence. Should we "discuss" eternal torment with, say, a Baptist? This would only be fruitful in a one-on-one encounter, where the motive is to convert the Baptist. In a public setting, the "discussion forum" only serves to legitimize the lie in the eyes of
some. "Oh, they're giving the Tories air time. There must be something to this."
Paul said concerning the Circumcisionists of his day, in Titus 1:11, "[They] must be gagged, who are subverting whole households, teaching what they must not." I feel the same way about the Tories. It isn't that the Tory position wouldn't be buried in a debate or discussion
forum. Please. This position has not a Scriptural leg to stand on. Even the remotest entertainment of the theory requires (from the Tories) tortured explanations, a sub-study of Jewish philosophy, a bent for philosophy in general, and a conscious blind eye toward the many obvious Scripture passages against it.
Someone suggested such a discussion in the
comment section of yesterday's video. A man named Mikael enthusiastically replied, "Totally agree!" This tells me instantly that Mikael is a Tory. Why? Because only Tories want the discussion forum. Why? Tories NEED the discussion forum/format because their position relies, not upon rapid-fire, single-verse Scripture quotes, but upon lengthy explanations about why plain Scripture verses don't mean what they mean. Their position depends on philosophical explanations. They are dead in a contest of
proof texts. Why? They don't have any proof texts. Conversely, the truth of the preexistence of Christ enjoys multiple proof texts—as any truth generally does.
What bothers me most about the Tories is that they are not stopped short by the fact that their position has not a single verse backing it. The fact that their position must be explained and, in
fact, excused, doesn't make them step back and say, "Hm. Maybe something is wrong here." This indicates to me that some other motive is afoot—some motive besides, "Let's get to the truth." I detect an emotional attachment of the Tories to their position that keeps them from objectivity, causing actual proof texts from the other side to bounce harmlessly off their hardened, psychological defenses. It's freaking weird.
Also, why won't Mark Haukaas (The Pirate) tell us the name of the professor who taught him that nothing came into existence through Christ, and that Christ never descended from heaven, and that Christ Jesus never came to be in fashion as a human? Someone had to TEACH him this, as it's not a position that comes naturally via organic Scripture study. I'd like to know the name of the guy so that he can be researched.
Maybe this would give us a clue as to the motive/mental disposition required to defend this position.
The rest of this episode is my first talk from the Des Moines, Iowa conference on September 16th of this year (2023). Thankfully, it's upon a different topic than the one at hand. (You're welcome.)
Grace and peace to one and all.
