Shain,

Yes, there appears to be a great disconnect. And still you haven't dealt with the quotes. Let me make it as simple as I can for you.

- "eternal Sonship" is simply a label for the belief that he was always the "Son" of God into eternity past. Nothing more.
- apparently you believe in eternal Sonship (whether or not you like the label), as you stated you believe "He was always the Son".
- in contrast, Ruckman and others believe he was not always the Son. They believe he was only "the Word" before the incarnation and became "the Son" at the incarnation.

All the rest of what we (you and I) are discussion is secondary at this point, until you deal directly and adequately with those facts.

This is NOT about his deity, his eternalness, his being in the Trinity, his being "the same essence of the Father", etc., etc., etc. Neither I nor Bob Ross have said Ruckman or others have denied these things, despite Evan's article trying to make it appear that this is the case. This is SIMPLY and ONLY about whether or not he was rightfully called the "Son" of God before the incarnation or not. PERIOD. Orthodox Christianity says "yes". I say "yes". Ross says "yes". Even you said "yes". Ruckman, Riplinger and Evans say "No!" - and that's how this all came about.