Okay...I am butting in just for a moment...to repost part of what Shain posted.

Spurgeon tells us that it is not worth the fuss. Still, the noise, which certain "loose canons" have made over the "Sonship" issue, has nothing to do with Herb Evans, Gail Riplinger, nor Dr. Peter Ruckman believing in the eternality and deity of the "Person" of our Lord (whether under the Name of the "Son of God," the "Word," the "Messiah," or "Jesus Christ" , for they all believe that 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 that of His Being) originated and functioned in eternity or time. We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before being begotten. He was BEGOTTEN or BORN on earth, yet His Person as God existed before He was so begotten. The Bible tells us that God the Word was MADE flesh and dwelt among us; it does not say that God the Son was made flesh (John 1:1,14).

Does that not solve this argument? If it does not, you are all confusing me.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. <br><br><br>Mari