May I recommend that those who have been among the so-called "London Brethren" read this document through carefully? 

John the Apostle wrote in the simplest of Greek, and the KJV, and the Darby Translation, the latter with its helpful footnotes teach clearly that "The Word" - i. e. 'The Logos' - and "The Son" are names that apply "from before the foundation of the world" to the One who became by incarnation a Man. 

John did not write that He became the Word. Rather, he wrote, 'In the beginning was the Word' (Jn. 1.1) and then by His incarnation that  'the Word became flesh'. (Jn. 1.14). Simple! 

(See and read through the lengthy "note e" regarding  ginomai in the Darby Translation on page 1266. Notice in John 1 verse 1 that 'the Word was' but in verse 14 He 'became flesh'.) 

The Lord Jesus spoke of Himself as the One whom 'the Father has sanctified and sent into the world' (Jn. 10.36) Notice the word order here, please. To get round this, because the doctrine of "incarnation sonship" demands it, is the notion that the Father sent the Son into the world at His baptism! Really? 

Again, the Lord Jesus said, 'I came out from the Father and have come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father' (Jn 16.28). I am aware of how this statement spoken by the Lord to His disciples has been explained away by use of the notion just described, but it is simple enough, and easily understood. It would take quite some innovative skill to make out that His words 'I came out from the Father' do not mean precisely what they say. 

Who has the right to explain away the very words of Christ? How dare anyone give His words a meaning He never intended! 

Mark