Hi Shain,

Thanks for FINALLY addressing the quotes I provided. However, I must now conclude that you are extremely confused, or are intentionally twisting things in an attempt to backpeddle.

Quote:

This is from Ruckman:

Quote:
..." for they ( Ruckman, Herb Evans, & Riplinger) believe in the preexistent Word was deity or God and that the God/man, the Son of God is also deity or God. This straw-man issue is merely a semantics exploitation of the Title rather than the Being or Person of our Lord. The contention is over whether HIS Title as the " Son of God " ( rather than His Being) originated and functioned in eternity or time. We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was MADE flesh and dwelt among us not that God the Son was made flesh ( Jn. 1:1,14)



Shain, I am completely at a loss how you are interpreting this to mean the exact opposite of what it says. Let's look at it - are they saying that the Word was the Son before he was made flesh? NO, they are "saying that The Word was not the Son before He was made flesh". Are they saying that God the Son was made flesh? NO they they are saying "not that God the Son was made flesh".

Quote:

Now who are we to believe you or the Word of God.



What am I saying different from the word of God?

Quote:

Before the " Son of God", came into the World and was crucified died and rose from the dead, was anyone saved by GRACE ALONE? If Jesus Christ did not come ( Begotten) he would not be the " Eternal Son-ship" because the Word of God says so, not because those who believe in the " Eternal Son-ship" do.



What?? I have no idea what you're trying to say. "Eternal Sonship" is the term used to label the belief that he was rightfully called the "Son" of God before his incarnation. Period. Either Jesus was already rightfully called the "Son" of God before his incarnation, or he wasn't the "Son" of God" until the incarnation.

I believe he was always the Son. If you agree, why are you debating this with me??? If you don't, why did you say that you did? Which do you believe? Or are you simply confused and want to argue regardless?

Note I am NOT asking you if he was "in the flesh" before the incarnation, I am asking you if he was always the "Son" (even BEFORE he had flesh), or if he became the "Son" (at the moment he was made flesh).

Quote:

As I said before, I never gave this any thought before ,



How about give it some thought now, instead of just trying to defend Ruckman at any cost?

Quote:

Quote: - "We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was so begotten" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (from the same paragraph you asked me to quote!)

This is correct, there was no Son in the Flesh until he was begotten, period.



The quote does not say "not the Son in the flesh", it says "not the Son". They do not believe the Word was the Son until the incarnation. They believe the Word existed before he was made flesh, but was not the Son until being made flesh.

Quote:

Quote:
- "the Word became the Son" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (middle of right-most

This is also correct, the Word became the Son in the flesh when the Word was Begotten.



But they deny the Son became the Son in the flesh. They believe he wasn't the "Son" until he came in the flesh. They believe the Word became the Son when he was made flesh.

Quote:

- "His Sonship, which began at His incarnation" (BBB, Oct 02, page 8 (bottom of 3rd column)

Once again this is correct, the Son became flesh and dwelt among us.



Pay attention! "Once again" you have twisted the quote. The quote clearly says his Sonship (i.e. rightfully being called "Son"), not just his flesh, BEGAN at his incarnation. You completely reveal your confusion when you say "this is correct, the Son became flesh" - yes, that IS correct, but that is the OPPOSITE of what they are saying! They OPPOSE and REJECT the idea that "the Son became flesh". They believe "the Word became flesh" and THUS BECAME the Son.

Quote:

For those who do not have this information they are at the mercy of those who do, and they have no idea at all how badly this has been distorted.



Good point. Therefore, I have just uploaded the entire article to www.kjv-only.com/evans_sonship.html so everyone else can see the whole article and how you are twisting this around backwards.