Quote:

This was the very first thing I pointed out but in all of this mess, this has been lost in it all.


No, this was one of the things you introduced in this thread, which was started 8 days after you asked for, and I provided, quotes from Ruckman and Evans showing that what Ross said about many KJV-only supporters rejecting eternal Sonship is true.

See p105.ezboard.com/ffinalau...D=43.topic

Once we deal with the quotes and you are honest enough to admit that Ruckman does in fact reject eternal Sonship, we can return to how "begotten" affects the discussion (which I've said before as well). It has not been "lost in it all", but first things first. I have been waiting (patiently!) to talk about John 1:18 until after the quotes have been dealt with:

"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!"