Wow Shain. I must admit that I'm enjoying my discussion with MaricoG more and more, but I'm enjoying my discussion with you less and less. You've been after me to discuss Ruckman and my claim that he rejects eternal Sonship, and when I do so again for you, again you completely avoid what I present. Instead, you take one small statement, twist it, and go off on another rabbit trail. I'll respond to your post for the sake of discussion, but PLEASE deal with the information I have provided about Ruckman, Riplinger and Evans before you "forget" about it again.

I said:
"But consider: The "Father" in the OT. Why was he called "Father"? One can only be a "Father" if one has a "Son" (or daughter). Yes, he is "our Father" and the "Father" of all creation in one sense, but what about even before creation? The orthodox Christian belief is that it was still "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", not "the Big Guy, the Word and the Holy Spirit"."

You replied:
Quote:

The Father you are referring to is God, not a human father. Not a father in the sense that he had a son as you now have projected. Because to believe your logic then Jesus Christ the Son had a beginning and we all know thats not true. We also know that to even imply this makes Jesus Christ a lesser part of the God Head.



Baloney. Jesus is eternal and God. We are temporal and human. Of course I was not implying that the "Father"'s fatherhood in relation to the Son is not the same as his fatherhood in relation to us. My point was simply that the Father could not be the "Father" in eternity past unless there was also a "Son", by definition. Don't read into my statements what is not there.

Quote:

So we do not see the " Son of God " in any of this, but that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being



Are you now rejecting eternal Sonship? Of course I accept "plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being"! I am Trinitarian. The plurality is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Quote:

We do not see " Eternal Lamb-ship," " Christ-ship," or " Kingship or Servent-ship."



We can talk about other titles after we finish talking about Sonship. You are setting up the same strawman, getting in to the same "Semantic Bamboozle", that Evans did in the article I am trying to discuss with you. You really have to decide whether you accept eternal Sonship or reject it. You started of forcefully and vocally defending it, and now you are using the same arguments against it as Evans.

Quote:

Did you know that even Adam was the son of God without being eternally the son of God. ( Luke 3:38) or being eternally begotten. Abraham also had an only begotten son that was neither eternally begotten ( Heb. 11:17) nor eternally his son.



That's because neither Adam, nor Abraham, nor Isaac (nor Ishmael!) are the eternal God. They are only temporal humans, thus could not be eternally begotten by definition. Good try though.