Hi Shain,

Quote:

I will not go back repeat what I have already said. I have re-read all the post here and the sticking point again is trying to pin something on a group of believers that's simply not true. KJV's all believe in the Trinity, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



You have reread all the posts here, and then you say something like that?? OK, let's go back to basics for a moment. Please answer these questions briefly but as clearly as you can, to the best of your knowledge:

1. What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship?
2. Does Ruckman, Riplinger and others believe that doctrine (yes or no)?
3. Do you believe that doctrine (yes or no)?
4. Do you think I believe that doctrine (yes or no)?

Hi MaricoG,

About your first post, I have no real disagreement or comments.

About your second post:

Quote:

I just don't the Scriptures anywhere showing Jesus as the eternal Son



OK, I'm a bit confused. I'm pretty sure that earlier in the thread you agreed that he was always the Son, but were only questioning "eternally begotten". Are you now saying you no longer believe he was always the Son as well?

Forgoing the OT verses that have already been discussed a bit, what about all the NT verses that talk about God sending his Son - not sending someone that became his Son when he arrived. If I send my son into the store, he is my son before he gets to the store, he is my son for his entire existence prior to entering the store. He doesn't become my son just because he arrived at where he was sent.

Quote:

Only begotten is a statement of fact. Jesus is the only begotten of God. When did this occur? At the conception, or at the resurrection? Or both times?



Those are not the only possible answers. As I indicated in my previous response to you, I said that I believe that begotten can not only refer to his incarnation and his resurrection, but also his special unique relationship with the Father, like Isaac had with Abraham. Look at 1 John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." Does this not say that the person that was sent was the only begotten Son, and that the only begotten Son was sent into the world? I.e. that he was already "the only begotten Son" when he was sent, not just when he arrived?

Another small(?) issue - I noticed you said "conception", and not "birth". I'm not disagreeing with that (I usually simply use the word "incarnation"), and maybe it's just semantics, but the "conception" happened approximately 9 months (I presume) before the "birth". Does this have any bearing on the issue?

Quote:

OUr only difference....at least I think, is that I do not see the relationship pryor to the physical birth of Jesus.



How could there not be a relationship???

Quote:

Since you are wrestling with this one, maybe this will help.

For the remission of sins - Not merely the sin of crucifying the Messiah, but of all sins. There is nothing in baptism itself that can wash away sin. That can be done only by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be pardoned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our conviction that there is no other way of remission. He who comes to be baptized, comes with a professed conviction that he is a sinner; that there is no other way of mercy but in the gospel, and with a professed willingness to comply with the terms of salvation, and to receive it as it is offered through Jesus Christ. Barnes



Well, I'm not sure if I agree with "Barnes" on this, but regardless: if one accepts that interpretation for Acts 2:38, one could accept it in the same way in the Nicene Creed, right? ;)

If you feel I have not responded to anything you particularly wanted me to, just let me know. :)