Hi MaricoG,

Allow me to catch up a bit. :)

Quote:

It does not say God sent His Son...but that He sent His only begotten Son. The Second Person of the Godhead, was never begotten. Only the man Jesus was...we have both agreed to that, right?



Well, to be honest I have a couple problems with that statement. First, no, I believe he was begotten (not in terms of a physical birth) eternally, not just at the physical incarnation/birth. Second, I'm not comfortable with the term "the man Jesus" in contrast to "the Second Person of the Godhead". I *think* you're just trying to refer to the beginning of his humanness (and I'll agree with you in that sense), but "the man Jesus" is "the Second Person of the Godhead". He is God, manifested in flesh - not God with, but separate from, the flesh. I think you agree, but I'm a stickler for accurate Trinitarian doctrine. :)

Quote:

He does not say that He IS His Father, but that He WILL be TO Him a Father, and that He Jesus, SHALL BE TO Me a Son



True, but that doesn't preclude him being a Son already. For example, at my 50th wedding anniversary (assuming we live that long ;) ), she "shall be" my wife - even though she is already my wife now.

Also note that the verse is actually not saying that God says this to Jesus, but rather it is asking the rhetorical question: to which of the angels will he say of them, they "shall be" his Son? The answer of course is "none of them". He already has a Son.

Quote:

Brian, do you think it makes any difference whether He always was the Son, equal in all ways with the Father, but was called, Son, or had the relationship of Son to the Father? Do you think this is somehow a salvation issue? Just want to be clear, and the importance of knowing this.



I don't think it's a salvation issue. Mostly, it's just a terminology debate, and a rose by any other name is still a rose. However, I also don't think it's a pointless debate either - I think an accurate understanding of his relationship and role as the second person of the Trinity, not just now but in the past as well, is important.

Quote:

I have found some others which tell me that the relationship with the Father was always as Son.



If you agree that he was always "Son", then I don't think it's a big issue about disagreeing over "eternally begotten". I use "eternally begotten" to describe the eternal relationship of Son to Father. Since you agree he was eternally Son and had that relationship, I think you *do* believe in "eternally begotten" even though you don't like the term itself. Does that make sense? :)

Quote:

In a way, yes, but that is not what they meant in the Creed, they meant that Baptism literally the rite and the water absolves sins,



I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm a bit puzzled: how do you know it means one thing in the Creed, but another in the scriptures, while they both use the same wording?

Quote:

You have been doing a great job, because you have studied this and knew the question. You have also done a great job in putting up with me studying this out with you, and I sincerely appreciate that! This subject is much deeper than I first believed, and it is slowly coming clear as the word of God is showing me. I am very much enjoying this, as it is really fun to learn new and deep things of God.



Very cool. :) I've been really enjoying our discussion as well, and your iron has sharpened mine to. :)

Quote:

Why? Why do they want to destroy the KJ Bible, and those that love it and hold it as the time tested word of God?



They (we) don't. Shain, like many KJV-only supporters, takes things too personally and thinks that opposition to a doctrine about the KJV is opposition to the KJV itself.