a philosophical, non-substantial, notional, figurative or metaphorical nature is the accepted norm of Christendom.  It reeks of Docetism, which is the idea that Jesus only appeared to be a man.  A number of Christian fringe organizations also accept the orthodox assertion.  And it is said by many, both within orthodoxy and some heterodoxy, that without a real and substantive incarnation of the son of God (or Jesus or Christ or the Word), salvation, atonement and our understanding of God and his ability to act and love in the world become meaningless.  Really?  Is your salvation dependent upon a preexistent God-Christ who became a God-man by putting on flesh?  Mine is not.

Is your salvation pegged to the doctrine of the preexistence and a subsequent incarnation of an alien supernatural being?  Finally, who (besides church organizations) determines the specific parameters of salvation?  Who has established the limitations on your salvation?  In effect, I’m asking: Who is in charge?  Douglas McReady seems to think that “the church” is in charge:

The preexistence of Christ is part of the foundation of Christian faith on which these other doctrines depend.  The traditional teaching of the Church is that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, became human in Jesus of Nazareth.  So the preexistence of Christ means not that the man Jesus existed in any real sense before the incarnation but that God the Son existed apart from and prior to the incarnation.  Without the Son’s preexistence there can be no incarnation.[1]

On one point, McReady seems to contradict himself.  He writes that the man Jesus did not preexist but the son of God did preexist.  Yet later he writes of the preexistence of Christ: Christ’s preexistence is not “a luxury of theological speculation, which we could set aside in the interest of simplification.”  It is important because it shows the extent of God’s concern for our need.  The doctrine says it was God the Son, possessor of the fullness of deity with the Father from eternity, who took human existence to himself so that we might enjoy eternal life with God.[2]

In spite of McReady’s concerns, the whole of true Christianity is not dependent upon an incarnation of a supernatural being that preexisted eternally.  Granted, what passes for Christianity in some quarters may certainly depend upon the tradition or doctrine of incarnation as well as any number of other church teachings. Such teachings might include the adoration of an “immaculate” Mary “the mother of God,” worship of “saints,” an ever-burningtorture pit (hell) that burns flesh but never consumes (set ablaze by a loving God!), and the Hellenistic/Platonic belief in immortal souls (cf. 1Tim.6: 13-16), that have been adopted and later accepted (forcibly in many instances) by a gullible laity.

Tradition does not always reflect biblical correctness.  Tradition has traditionally turned out to be filled with an incredible amount of doublespeak and fancy religious footwork with an iron fist behind its back.   

Without an incarnation, there can be no preexistent Jesus. [Correct.]  An incarnation is only a meaningful term when there is a preexisting person to become incarnate. [Correct.]  … Three interpretations of preexistence: (1) The first or classic meaning can be called Real or Personal Preexistence.  This means that the one who became incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth truly and personally existed as the son of God, the second person of the [infinite] Trinity, before his incarnation.  …  The one who was preexistent was the son of God, not the humanity of Jesus which came into existence at a particular time and place.  …  Gerald O. Collins [?] suggests the language of personal preexistence not only means Christ existed before the incarnation, it means that he has never not existed.  …  The one who was incarnated as Jesus ofNazareth is eternally existent as deity.

(2) The second understanding is Ideal Preexistence.  This means that Christ existed in the mind of God prior to the incarnation, but did not exist personally prior to that same incarnation.  This view claims “There was a time when Christ was not in the Father’s purpose…”  …  Christ’s Ideal Preexistence would be a preexistence of divine intention but would have no reality until intention became actualized in time.

[Here, I would argue that God’s word, the logos, was real, substantive, and preexistent, but would quickly testify that this preexistent logos was neither a person nor an entity as orthodoxy demands, but, was the supernatural extension of God demonstrating various manifestations of his power and authority.  God’s spoken “word” went out and accomplished what it was meant to accomplish; things responded by coming into being, etc.  FPH]

(3) Karl-Josef Kuschel uses the term Eschatological Preexistence.  What he appears to mean is the “Easter experience” [the resurrection] requires some sort of preexistence as its justification.  He thus conceives of Christ’s preexistence as a theological construct or etiological[3] myth added before Jesus’ earthly life to balance and justify the resurrection and his post-existence.  …  Some who follow some sort of etiological understanding of Christ’s preexistence see it as merely a myth or metaphor, a scheme designed to give Jesus standing at least equal to contemporary religious leaders.[4]  

It appears that the orthodox position holds view number (1) while others hold views that combine aspects of numbers (2) and (3).  My premise is that Jesus did not exist prior to his birth, either as a God or in substance; he came into existence as a man at a time and place certain.  And I submit that Jesus was always a man (not a mere man), he was never a God (Yahweh) or God-being (Elohim capitalized), and he never will be one, although he has been highly exalted and sits at the right hand of the Father.  To the eternal embarrassment of our Armstrong “binitarian” friends supporting the Armstrong Movement’s polytheistic theology, this means that none of them in the Armstrong camp will become all-powerful Gods (Deity) in their own right!  They will not become deified.