Shain1611,

You are mistaken, you have not posted any refutation of what I have said. Either you don't understand me, or don't understand Evans, or both.

You said:

Quote:

He was always the Son



Evans, Ruckman and Riplinger disagree. They said: "We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was so begotten", "the Word became the Son", "His Sonship, which began at His incarnation", "Eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No!"

They believe he was NOT always the Son, but became the Son at his incarnation. They deny eternal Sonship. Period. Once you understand this fact, then we can get back to how "begotten" affects the discussion.