THANK YOU Shain for your answers. It's good to be clear.

OK, no go WAAAAYYYYY back to the start of this discussion, the first post in the "Typical Bible Critic" thread. You quoted Bob Ross as saying "Many "King James Onlyites" believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" because of His being incarnated in the flesh, whereas Baptists and "creedal Christianity" (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) hold that He is the ETERNAL Son of God and that He is the "Son of Man" by the incarnation."

Since you (now) believe that Jesus was NOT eternally the Son of God, but rather became the Son of God at his incarnation in the flesh (we're not talking about his deity, his eternalness, etc. - rather only the title as "Son of God"), and you agree that Ruckman, Riplinger and others believe the same, do you not see that Bob Ross's statement was TRUE? Perhaps you thought he was talking about eternalness, deity, the Trinity in general, etc., but he was NOT - he was only talking about eternal Sonship.