Marico,

I know Brian did post this info but here it is so if you haven't read it please do.

Quote:
THE GREAT SEMANTIC BAMBOOZLE

(The Begotten God versus Eternal Sonship)

By Herb Evans



No Man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which
IS in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -- John 1:18

"If Wescott and Hort's reading, 'the only BEGOTTEN GOD,' is
correct, we have a new proof of Christ's ETERNAL SONSHIP."-- Augustus
Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 341 [caps mine]

Calvin waves aside ETERNAL GENERATION as an 'absurd fiction'"
-- quoting Allen, Jonathan Edwards p. 353, 354, Augustus Strong's
Systematic Theology, p. 341 [caps mine]

"The Greek text of John 1:18 refers to Him as the 'ONLY
BEGOTTEN GOD.' Note that it says 'God' not 'Son' - the only begotten God."
-- Bob Ross, Biblical Evangelist, July 1991, (Bob Sumner also sponsored Bob
Ross statement in his Eternal Sonship tract) [caps mine]

To what Greek text, does this Bible Corruptor refer? To the TR
(any edition)? No! The majority text? No! The Byzantine text (any edition)?
No? Well, does he refer to any English type set Bible before the KJB? No?
To what does Bob Ross refer? The Greek Text, which Ross refers to, is the
sort found in papal libraries in Mount Sinai waste baskets or in eclectic
texts. You see Bob Ross' roots are Alexandrian. He is a link chain
descendant of Tischedorf, Tregelles, Wescott, and Hort. Actually, Bob
applauds Hort as "F. J. A. Hort, of Hort and Wescott fame "a noted
scholar" and "eminent linguistic master." (ECCLESIA, by Bob Ross, p. 5, 10)

We are not talking about only a challenge to the English
Bible, but we are also talking about a challenge to the Greek TR and
majority texts, which have the "begotten Son" and not the begotten God of
Ross, Augustus Strong, and the Jehovahs Witnesses. There is absolutely no
other passage, where such terminology is used in any bible. To oppose Bob
Ross' perversion is not to oppose some aspect of the Son of God's deity or
His Beings eternal preexistence as God as Ross charges King James Onlys.

The mere availability of some higher or nobler word or concept
in some obscure text does not demand its automatic insertion in our English
Bible nor its authenticity nor correctness. In his tract, Bob Ross cites A.
T. Robertson, B.B. Warfield (father of the Bible being inspired in only the
originals), W.G.T Shedd, A.H. Strong, Henry Alford, Alan Hovey, and John
Gill to prove either the Begotten God or eternal generation. Strange it
is that these folks are now linked to the Jehovah Witness bible,
Wescott/Hort, and modern versions of the Bible. Evidently, they were fed a
hook and grabbed it.



The Intimidation Trap

Bob Ross and Andrew the Apostate Sandlin play theology with
their Calvinist toy per Catholic standard operating procedure. They
intimidate folks by branding them as "heretics," if they attack or
refuse to bow down to their "ancient creeds" and "confessions" and church
councils (traditions of men and canned belief systems). They seek to
obligate believers to extra-scriptural language, which is not even FOUND in
the scriptures. Not to say that some creeds and confessions are inaccurate
nor that there is not some place for them.

A pastor friend raises dogs and sometimes has a need to cover
the floor with something. Well, one spoiler plus one apostate still equal
two losers! Bob Ross and Andrew the Apostate Sandlin had been doing their
best to get certain Bible believers (King James Onlys) to deny the
preexistent deity and eternality of our Saviour. Make no mistake about it;
this issue is not about the deity of the Son of God. This is about King
James Onlys, whom Ross would like to destroy along with their KJB. In a
letter to Dallas Bunch (5/11/96), Ross quotes Herb Evans as once saying in
the BBB:

"He (Evans) once slipped-up and asserted that 'only begotten
Son' referred to the 'same essence as His Father, even God,' (BBB Jan. '92,
p. 10) . . ."

Always check out Ross when he quotes you, for he takes tiny
excerpts and adds "Dan Rather" spins to your quotations. The truth of the
matter is that the article to which my comment refers, was an article about
Bob Ross' perversion of John 1:18 (in Bob Sumner's paper, The Biblical
Evangelist). Ross changed the "only begotten Son" to the "only begotten
God" without any justification from the English or any trustworthy Greek
(the corrupt Alexandrian Greek or Wescott/Hort eclectic Greek
notwithstanding). Evans was simply allowing Bob Ross' terminology about
Christ's deity to stand. No slip! No assertion! No big deal! Notice what
Evans actually said:

It is most noble to defend any aspect of the deity of Christ.
How can you find fault with an apologetic, which contends that Jesus Christ
was the same essence as the Father, EVEN GOD. -- Herb Evans

Herb Evans was endorsing Christ's "deity" (and still does) by
the words "the same essence as the Father," adding the careful adjunct
"even God." The Son of God must need be God (deity) just as the Son of man
must be man (humanity). Herb Evans meant nothing more than this nor was he
belaboring a spin on the word "begotten" as do Ross and other Calvinists.
Nor did Evans come by some new found view as Ross suggests. (Don't put
words in our mouths, Bobby, unless that is the only way that you can
snooker folks.) Still, for the record, the Word (in order to be God) must
be eternal without beginning and end (John 1:1,14). When the Word is MADE
flesh, He becomes the Son of God or the God/Man.

Herb Evans has no objection to the terms eternal Son, eternal
Christ, eternal King, eternal Lamb, eternal Saviour, eternal Word, eternal
High Priest, eternal order of Melchisedec, eternal God, eternal trinity,
if we are talking about His eternal Being or Person or Deity.

Nevertheless, we do have objections, if the function of the
title is said to be eternal in order to satisfy some inner craving for
Calvinist predestination and election support. God the Word, who was with
God, had the same preexistent essence in the sense of GOD IS SPIRIT.
However, something in that GOD IS SPIRIT essence changed, when God the
Son was born and CAME IN THE FLESH as the God/man, denial of which makes
one an antichrist.

Calvinists must inject their philosophy into the Bible by
inventing extra-scriptural terminology, i.e., effectual calling,
irresistible grace, unconditional election, eternal day, same essence,
eternal Sonship, eternal generation, and so forth. Nevertheless, is the
logical outcome of their "same essence (Father and Son)"
premise the "eternal generation of the Father" or an "eternally begotten
Father? -- If they are the same essence in the sense that eternal Sonship
advocates mean it, then they are both begotten. No? (Gets hairy, doesnt it?)

Still, such phrases as "eternal generation" and "eternally
begotten" are contradictions of terms and scripture in that an eternal
birth is ridiculous (oxymoron). These are phrases invented or
theologically interpolated by certain Calvinists, who would bind and/or
impose on others ancient "creeds" and "confessions (mostly Protestant and
Catholic)," which do not even agree with each other. We ain't buying their
theological semantic bamboozle! This is all doctrine by inference and/or
innuendo.



Why all the Eternal Sonship Fuss?

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee? And again I WILL be to him a FATHER,
and he SHALL be to me a SON. -- Heb 1:5

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou
art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN THEE. -- Psa. 2:7

"The dispute concerning the eternal filiation of our Lord
betrays more of presumptuous curiosity than of reverent faith. It is an
attempt to explain where it is far better to adore. We could give rival
expositions of this verse, but we forbear. The controversy is one of the
most unprofitable which ever engaged the pens of theologians. -- C.H.
Spurgeon, TREASURIES OF DAVID, p. 19

Further proof that the Spirit is NOT HERE TREATING OF THE
ESSENTIAL DEITY OR ETERNAL SONSHIP of Christ is seen by a glance at the
passage from which these words are taken . . . The reference (Heb. 1:5) is
to the second Psalm . . . -- An Exposition of Hebrews by Arthur Pink, p. 50

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).

Arthur Pink tells us that this does not refer to Eternal
Sonship nor Christs essential deity. One must make a difference between
the Lord's Eternal Being and the God/mans earthly titles, Christ, Lamb,
Servant, Son, King, and so forth. One must make a difference between the
preexistent Word and the God/Man's birth as the Son of God, MADE of a woman
and MADE of the Seed of David. (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3)



Chronology

God sent forth his Son, MADE of a woman made under the law . .
. -- Gal. 4:4

. . . Jesus Christ our Lord . . . was MADE of the SEED OF
DAVID according to the FLESH . . . -- Rom. 1:3

He . . . SHALL be called the SON OF THE HIGHEST . . . -- Luke
1:32

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
SHALL come upon thee, and the power of the Highest SHALL overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which SHALL be born of thee SHALL be called
the SON OF GOD. -- Luke 1:35

. . . every man that cometh into the world . . . -- John 1:9

. . . A man is born into the world . . . -- John 16:21

. . . that prophet that should come into the world . . . --
John 6:14

. . . Christ Jesus came into the world . . . 1 Tim 1:15

. . . he that CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, even the SON OF MAN . .
. -- John 3:13

Eternal Sonship advocates emphasize several passages
chronologically, regarding the "Son of God" being SENT or coming into the
world in order to take a sophist advantage of a nuance of language to
prove Sonship prior to the Lord's incarnation. If you do not agree with
this, you are branded a heretic. Yet what about "Jesus Christ" coming into
the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15)? Was "Jesus Christ" functioning
under this "eternal Sonship" title (Christ) in eternity or did it originate
in "time?" And what about "Prophet" Jesus coming into the world (John
6:14)? Was Jesus functioning as the "eternal" prophet before He came into
the world? And what about a "MAN" being born (begotten) into the world
(John 16:21) BEFORE starting as a baby?

Do deceivers enter the world as deceivers (2 John 1:7)? Was
Jesus the eternal God, eternal man, or the eternal God/Man? Still, is the
title "Christ/Messiah" an eternal term or a term of time, synonymous with
the Son of God (John 11:27 with John 7:42)? Do you see the implications of
such dogmatic, misapplied, exaggerated terminology and semantics? Even Adam
was the son of God without being eternally the son of God (Luke 1:38) or
being eternally begotten. Abraham also had an ONLY BEGOTTEN SON that was
neither eternally begotten (Heb. 11:17) nor eternally his son. The holy
thing, the Son of God, was born and made of a woman (seed of the woman)
made under the law (in time) of the Seed of David.

Saying that eternal Sonship existed before the foundation of
the world because it was in the mind of God and was so purposed and
ordained is one thing. This would not be unlike the "Lamb of God" being
slain from the foundation of the world. So, if eternal Sonship advocates
want to shift the argument (a cop out) to Gods foreordained plan, we can
all quit and go home, all believing that we were eternally saved as well as
eternal Sonship, eternal Lamb-ship, eternal Christ-ship, eternal
servant-ship, eternal Son of man-ship, eternal Kingship, and whatever else
they can factor into Gods foreordained plan. Yet, that is not what they
are saying. Nevertheless, the reality is that the Lamb was slain in
"time" and not in"eternity and the Word became the Son in time as
well." We welcome those, who want to make "theological hay" of such
things to also insist on the eternality of His "Lamb-ship" or Christ-ship
or Kingship or Servant-ship or Son of man-ship -- if they so choose.



Apostate Andrew versus Arthur Pink on THIS DAY

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and
was glad. --John 8:56

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the FIRST
BEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship
him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his
ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom. -- Heb. 1:5-8

This latter expression (V. 5) has occasioned not a little
difficulty to some of the commentators, and, in the past, has been made the
battleground of fierce theological fights. The issue raised was 'the
eternal SONSHIP of Christ.' Those affirming understood 'this day (or
'to-day')the Greek is the same as Luke 23:43to be TIMELESS, and 'this day
have I begotten Thee' to refer to the ETERNAL GENERATION of the Son by the
Father. Much of the fighting was merely a strife 'about words,' which was
to no profit. Though Scripture teaches the Godhead and absolute Deity of
the Son (Heb. 1:8, etc.) and affirms His eternality (John 1:1, etc., it
NOWHERE speaks of His ETERNAL 'SONSHIP,' and where scripture is silent it
behooves us to be silent too. Certainly this verse DOES NOT TEACH the
ETERNAL SONSHIP of Jesus Christ, for if we allow the apostle to define his
own terms, we read in Heb. 4:7, He limiteth a CERTAIN day, saying in David,
To-day,' etc.

This, it appears to us, illustrates the Spirit's foresight in
thus PREVENTING 'to-day' in 1:5 being understood as a TIMELESS, LIMITLESS
'day' -- eternity." -- An Exposition of Hebrews, Pink, p. 49

"Now it is the 2nd Psalm that the Father is heard saying to
the MESSIAH, 'Thou art My SON, this day have I begotten Thee" (v.7). The
whole context shows that it is the Father addressing the Son IN TIME, NOT
ETERNITY; ON EARTH, NOT IN HEAVEN; in His MEDIATORIAL character, NOT HIS
ESSENTIAL BEING . . . If further proof is needed that 'THIS DAY have I
begotten Thee' refers to the INCARNATION of Christ, Luke 2:11 supplies it,
'unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ
the Lord'--could so much be said of any but the only-begotten Son of God?
Thus 'THIS DAY' is here, by an angel's voice expressly referred to the day
of the Saviour's BIRTH. 'This day I have begotten Thee.' This, then, is
another verse which teaches the VIRGIN-BIRTH of Christ! His humanity was
'begotten' by God the Father. Though the Son of man, He was not begotten by
man. Because His very humanity was begotten by the Father it was said unto
His mother, 'That holy thing which shall be BORN of thee SHALL be called
the SON OF GOD' (Luke 1:35). An Exposition of Hebrews, Pink,
Ibid. p. 50, 51

Sandlin says that it was an eternal day, but God says that it
was on THIS DAY (a CERTAIN day). Andrew the Apostate suggests from John
8:56-59 (in order to explain away Heb. 1:5) that Abraham saw the filiation
of the eternal day." Yet, just how long did it take Abraham to see this
extra scriptural "eternal day?" Hmmmm? (Sandlin letter - May 10,
1996). Obviously, Arthur Pink believes that day was not timeless but the
incarnation of Christ in time, namely, the VIRGIN-BIRTH, telling us that
the woman-birthed God/man would be called the Son of God, which does not
refer to eternal Sonship.



Sandlin Versus Pink on the Father

"And again, I WILL be to Him a Father, and HE SHALL be to ME a
Son (v. 5). The opening 'and' connects the second quotation with the first;
what follows clearly and conclusively fixes the scope of the first part of
the verse. Here is indubitable proof that the Holy Spirit is speaking of
Christ NOT ACCORDING TO HIS ESSENTIAL GLORY, but in His MEDIATORIAL
character, as INCARNATE. Had the first part of V. 5 referred to the ETERNAL
relationship of the Son of the Father as practically all of the older
(Calvinistic) commentators insist, it would certainly be meaningless to
add the quotation which follows 'I WILL BE' does NOT take us to the
TIMELESS PAST! Nor was there any occasion for the first Person of the
Trinity to assure the Second that He would be a 'Father unto Him.' Clearly,
it is the Father accepting and owning as His Son the One whom the world
had cast out." -- An Exposition of Hebrews by Arthur Pink, p. 51

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that CAME DOWN
FROM HEAVEN, even the Son of man which is in heaven -- John 3:13

Denying Christs eternal Sonship, now Evans must logically
deny Gods essential Fatherhood--God became a father at Christs
incarnation. --5/10, 96 Andrew Sandlin.

Sandlin suggests that the logical outcome of denying the
eternality of Jesuss Sonship is to deny God's essential Fatherhood and
that it must logically follow that God became the Father at Christ's
incarnation. Yet, God was the Father of O.T. Israel apart from the Son in
both time and eternity (1 Chron. 29:10; Isa. 63:16; and 64:8) before the
incarnation and the also the Father of the human race (Acts
17:26). He was also the O.T. heavenly Father (Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1,
4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:29, 32, 33, 35, 37) before
the cross. Since Jesus had to be related to us as our kinsman redeemer, why
not take the position of an obedient Son of the FATHER from birth (the
incarnation), a position already in use? Calling God the O.T. Father as
such was not unusual for the Lord nor was encouraging His disciples to do
so. Obviously, Pink did not think the Father Son relationship was eternal
nor timeless nor did he think His essential glory was in view. The Son of
MAN cometh down from heaven Does this mean eternal manship or that the
Father is an eternal MAN?

The extra-scriptural Calvinistic term "essence" is not found in
any Bible passage. If Calvinists really want to deal with Father/Son
Essence, let them deal with the fact that Jesus is to be called the
everlasting Father. Do they believe in the Eternal Fathership of Jesus? God
is a Spirit, do they want to deal with the eternal spirit-ship of Jesus or
will they agree that He came in the flesh to avoid being branded an
antichrist. We have no problem, yea we endorse the concept that Jesus has
the same attributes as the Father, except where He voluntarily sets them
aside. Now, relying on a nuance of language as an argument (Sophistry 101)
to prove the Son of God was the Son of God in heaven (by emphasizing the
Son of God being sent to us to prove he had to be called the Son of God in
Heaven) is demolished by John 3:13. Unless you believe in the eternal SON
OF MAN-SHIP of Jesus. What about the eternal Spirit-ship? Does the
essence change, when the eternal Word becomes flesh as the God/man or
Son of God? Was God the Father eternally begotten, being of the same
essence as the Son?

Adam was His son ( Luke 3:38) . Do you believe in the eternal
sonship of Adam? Or the eternal nation-ship of Israel? Or the
Eternal offspring-ship of the human race? Calvinists have been preaching
to each other in the Choir too long. They know what all the older
Calvinists wrote, but when someone comes along with original challenges
that they have never heard of before and cannot find the answers in any
creeds, council decisions, or old Calvinist writings, it frustrates them,
as they attempt to find cracks in their non-calvinist opponents armour.



Sandlin and the Resurrection

God hath FULFILLED the same unto us their children, in that he
hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. -- Acts 13:33

God sent forth his Son, MADE of a woman, made under the law .
. . -- Gal. 4:4

. . . Jesus Christ . . . MADE of the SEED OF DAVID according
to the FLESH . . . --Rom. 1:3

He . . . SHALL be called the SON OF THE HIGHEST . . . -- Luke
1:32

"Heb. 1:5 is economical, not ontological statement, like Acts
13:33." [You can tell by their vocabulary, when a pointy headed
intellectual is trying to dig his way out of a hole -- Herb Evans] "Will
Evans and other heretics on the basis of the latter (Acts 13:33) now claim
Christ did not 'become' the Son until his [sic] resurrection? (May 10,
1996 Sandlin )

Well, it is not very hard to answer a question, when the
interrogator provides the proof-text. The answer is "NO!" The resurrection
"declared" the Lord's "Sonship" (Rom. 1:3,4); it didn't begin it. Having
said that, we may note that Acts 13:33 proves that Psalm 2 was a promise
and a prophetic utterance that must be regarded as a prophecy in time which
also had a fulfillment in time. The same can be said of other events
(Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17) in regard to the
Lord's Sonship, which were not chronological beginnings but were
declarations and a confirmation of His Sonship, which began at His
incarnation. In the incarnation, the Holy Ghost and the power of the
Highest produced the God/Man, the Son of God. He was MADE of the WOMAN and
the SEED OF DAVID at His incarnation and conception as the Son of God.



Sonship and the Ascension

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath
gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who
hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is
His Son's name, if thou canst tell? -- Pro. 30:4

"Like the Father, He is sovereign, ever present and
Almighty. He controls the waves, and, like His Father, He gathers the
wind in His fists. (Prov. 30:4)" --Calvinist Eternal Sonship Tract

Obviously, the passage is talking about creation and its
maintenance thereafter. This is in time and not eternity. The primary
subject of the passage, God, is performing these feats, although other
passages demonstrate that the eternal Word, also as God and with God, was
instrumental in creation (John 1:1) and by Him all things
consists. Still, it is a stretch to get all that the writer gets out of a
simple question, "and what is His Son's name?, reading Eternal Sonship
into the passage.

Unfortunately, for the writer, the verse establishes things
done in time, rather than in eternity. More important, the reference is to
the future time period between the incarnation (John 3:13) and the
ascension (John 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; or to descending into the heart of
the earth and ascending from it (Eph. 4:9-10). So, this future Son of man
came down from heaven in time and also ascended in time, but He is also
considered to be in heaven at the same time as he is on earth as the
omnipresent God (John 1:18) .



Well, What About Melchisedec?

. . . Melchisedec . . . Without father, without mother,
without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like unto the Son of God . . . -- Heb. 7:1-4

Bobby Ross, in his eagerness to nail King James Onlys, made a
curious statement in his same May 11, 1996-letter to Dallas Bunch. He says,

"While they hoot and holler about the KJV, they reject the
fundamental of doctrines which are taught in the KJV, especially the
teaching that the Son had no 'beginning of days'(Heb 7:3)."

Well, what have we here? Is Bob Ross saying here that
Melchisedec (the primary subject of the passage), who was "made" like unto
the Son of God (the secondary subject of passage), is eternally begotten?
Moreover is he saying that the Son of God had no "Father or mother?"
Perhaps, we have uncovered another new heresy??? We believe that the
Person or Being of the Lord had no beginning of days, being eternal. His
title is another matter. We believe the eternal Word did not have a Father,
but the Son of God did have a Father in time but not in eternity.



The Coup de Grace

After enduring years of Ross cartoons, complaining,
blubbering, and charging KJB believers with not believing in "eternal
sonship," we wrote two letters to a pastor. We used, in those letters,
the Spurgeon quote and many enclosed direct excerpts from Pink's
"Exposition of Hebrews (p. 49, 50, 51- included in this article),
sprinkling them with Ross' and Sandlin's names for effect. We knew
that snakes strike at almost anything, so copies of the letters were
allowed to find their way into our enemies' hands.

The enclosed resulting venom filled comments by Ross and
Sandlin that were meant for Evans, supposing he had originated these
comments, ended up really castigating Spurgeon and Arthur Pink. Andrew the
Apostate Sandlin and Bookstore Bobby Ross, the Spoiler, unwittingly
responded by snail mail (5/10/96 & 5/11/96), responding to what they
thought of Arthur W. Pinks words (summarized as follows):

Evans [really Arthur Pink], in his ineptitude, rejected and refused to
affirm Christ's eternal Sonship, denying Christ's eternal Sonship,
placing himself in the camp of heretical blasphemers. Evans is an Arian
and a Sabellian, having the marks of a saved man but winding up in hell.

What an unwitting condemnation to heap vicariously on Pink,
their fellow Calvinist. Bob Ross tried to exercise damage control
and intimate that Evans quoted Pink and Spurgeon out of context
and that they really did not believe what Evans wrote. But they were had.
If Evans took them out of their context and real belief system, why did
Ross and Sandlin respond to their comments the way that they did,
especially since Evans attached no commentary to these quotations? All the
damage control in the world wont offset that.

Of course, they cannot have it both ways. The reader may
examine these enclosed comments by Pink and Spurgeon and decide what they
are conveying to their readers. All the quotes in which Pink used the
term eternal Son will not offset the fact that Pink is referring to His
Person or Being and not to His title of Sonship. By the same token, we
believe in the eternal Being of the Son, the Christ, the Word, and the
trinity in eternity but not necessarily under those titles there. The
eternal Godship title, Yes! But eternal Sonship title, No! One must decide
whether or not the obedient servant Son was obedient to the Father in
eternity as well as in time. Three questions from Dallas Bunch to Bob Ross
and Andrew Sandlin remain unanswered:

1. Was there a time in eternity past, when God had no Son?

2. Was there a time in eternity past, when Christ was begotten
by God the Father?

3. Is Christ continually being begotten of God (eternal
generation)?



CONCLUSION

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which SHALL proceed out of thy
bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my
name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I WILL be his
father, and he SHALL be my son. according to all this vision, so did Nathan
speak unto David. -- 2 Sam. 7:12-17

Here is a very pertinent passage in time in regard to the
eternal Sonship question. It says that I WILL be his Father and he SHALL
be my son. It also says that HE SHALL proceed out of my bowels. Obviously,
the next thought is that He must not have been His Father, when this was
spoken in time and must not have been His Son, when this was spoken in
time. All is future when this was said to David, unless David is
Eternal (eternal David-ship?). Do you wonder why we call this issue the
Great Semantic Bamboozle?


-- by Herb Evans May 23, 2002



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)