Hi Brian,

Quote:
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".


What Ruckman is saying is that there was no " Flesh " until the Word was born. There was no " Internal Sonship," because the Word wasn't even born yet.

Quote:
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.


Show us the scripture that says Jesus Christ was always the eternal Son of God.

Quote:
The quote does not say "not the Son in the flesh", it says "not the Son".


And now you know why Ruckman said what he said, you are splitting hairs here. I have not given this any thought before but since this has come up and I have time to study it, and I'm a Bible believer, I must err on the side of Scripture.

Quote:
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:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.


Where do you read " Son of God ?" In order to be Son of God, there would have had to be a beginning for the Son, and then to say He was eternally the Son is not correct and can not be supported by scriptural.
Shain1611

"SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THY TRUTH: THY WORD IS TRUTH
(John 17:17)

And Jesus Speaking; " He that rejecteth me, receiveth not my words, hath one that, judgeth him:the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in
( John12:48 KJV)