Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
When the speaker moves to Colossians 1:15, he stresses Paul does not say “first created being” but “firstborn,” and he contrasts created angels/Adam with a begotten Son who shares the Father’s nature; how does this challenge common evangelical instincts about “grace vs. doctrine” or “it doesn’t matter how you explain it,” and what’s at stake if “firstborn” is flattened into “first created”?
Another way to ask: If Paul says “firstborn” and not “first created,” why does that difference matter? What could we lose if we treat “firstborn” as just meaning “the first thing God made”?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
It challenges the idea that precise doctrinal language doesn’t matter, because the speaker treats “firstborn” versus “first created” as a crucial distinction about who Jesus is. If “firstborn” is flattened into “first created,” the Son shifts from sharing the Father’s nature to being a creature, which the speaker connects to denying His eternal status and headship.
- He says Paul “does not say that Christ is the first created being…what he says is…firstborn of creation.”
- He insists “there’s a difference between being born of God and being created by God.”
- He contrasts: “The angels were not born. They were created. Adam was not born. He was created.”
- He interprets “firstborn” as “begotten by the Father…only begotten…same nature as the Father.”
- He adds that many render it “firstborn over creation,” tying it to “head over all creation,” like Proverbs 8:22 in early Christian reading.