Quote:

in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. all things were made by Him; the Word became flesh, born of a virgin, and was called Jesus.. so Jesus has always been God, but became the only begotten Son of God, the Lamb of God at his incarnation.. or is it that Jesus has always been the Son of God but became the only begotten Son of God at his incarnation..



Close, selah123. "Eternal Sonship" deals with when Christ became "the Son" - i.e. the question is simply: was he "the Son" before his earthly birth, or not? Defenders of eternal Sonship say yes (i.e. God was "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" before the incarnation), while rejectors say no (i.e. God was "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" before the incarnation"). "Begotten" isn't part of the question, although it does sometimes come up in one's understanding and explanation of one's position. Both sides (if they're basically Trinitarian) agree on Christ's divinity and his being the second person of the Trinity, etc. - the question is simply over whether Jesus was already "the Son" before the incarnation, or if he became "the Son" at the incarnation. Eternal Sonship is the orthodox and historical position of the church.

Many KJV-only supporters reject eternal Sonship. I have already given proof from Ruckman, Riplinger and Evans. The reasons are many, but one reason that comes up often is John 1:18, where there is a textual variation (the KJV says "only begotten Son" in this verse, many new versions say "only begotten God" or similar). Now pay attention, this is interesting: :) it appears, at least to me, that if this textual variation didn't exist (and all Bibles said "only begotten Son"), then most who now reject eternal Sonship would in fact accept it and never question it in the first place - but because they need a reason to explain how "only begotten God" is incorrect, they move to a position of rejecting eternal Sonship to find that reason: i.e. they interpret "only begotten God" as meaning his Godhood had a beginning (which is obviously not orthodox Christian doctrine), and thus they can reject the reading - however, to make this logic work, they must then also interpret "only begotten Son" to mean his Sonship had a beginning. In other words, they reason that if the phrase "only begotten Son" allows eternal Sonship, then they have to admit that "only begotten God" allows eternal Godhood as well. Since that doesn't make for a good argument against modern versions, they must fall to the position of rejecting eternal Sonship to make their argument against this textual variation in John 1:18 sound reasonable. In summary, in my opinion many (obviously not all) KJV-only supporters are rejecting the orthodox doctrine of eternal Sonship, not because they have a scriptural reason to, but rather because when it comes to choosing between attacking other Bibles or maintaining an orthodox doctrinal position, they'd rather choose the former.

"begotten Son" does not require that his Sonship had a beginning, it only means that he, the Son, was begotten.