Hi Shain

Quote:

Ruckman and Riplinger never said they didn't believe that Jesus Christ was not " Son " until his incarnation.



They did. Explicitly. I have posted the quotes twice already on this forum, I will post them again later in this post.

Quote:

I would like for you to go to page 8 in the September 02 issues of the " Bible Believers Bulletin " and tell me what is on the bottom left side of that page.



It says "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, or 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 the all believe that the preexistent Word was deity or God and that the God/man, the Son of God is also deity or God."

All this is saying is that Evans, Riplinger and Ruckman affirm "the eternality and deity" of the "Person", no matter which name one choses to use. It does not say that they themselves use the term "Son" before his incarnation. In other words, the passage you asked me to quote is about his eternal Godhood, not his eternal Sonship. Neither Ross nor I have said they deny his eternal Godhood.

Quote:

I have either missed them or have yet seen them in the three " Bible Believers Bulletin's," you have mentioned. Could you give me those again with the page number you found them on so I can check them out. I have all three copies and I havent seen them yet. I may have missed them, and it wouldnt be the first time for that.

Let me try and refresh your memory; the issue was that you claim that Ruckman said he didn't not believe in the " Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ?"



Let me try to refresh your memory. I have posted quotes from them twice, the first time you even responded buy only said "Thanks and yes this is very interesting" but never addressed the quotes themselves. Here's the third time (with page numbers this time):

- "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!)
- "the Word became the Son" (BBB, Sep 02, page 8 (middle of right-most column))
- "His Sonship, which began at His incarnation" (BBB, Oct 02, page 8 (bottom of 3rd column)
- "Eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No!" (BBB, Oct 02, page 16 (middle of second column))

Quote:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ad I'm glad you seen this. It just proves what I have been saying all along. They have invented a lie and then tried to pin it on KJVonly's.



Your forgetfulness and avoidance does not mean we have lied. They said "Eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No!" - what part of "No!" don't you understand???