Quote
What did John repent of if it wasn't heresy?

(Fred) John did not "repent" of any heresy. That is your word, not his. If you read carefully John's statement about his doctrinal change, it is his coming to a different conviction with regards to the incarnational language. MacArthur's view on the Sonship of Christ

Quote
He tampered with the second person of the Trinity in a way that was outside orthodoxy did he not?

(Fred) No, he did not tamper with any aspect of the second person of the trinity; your definition of orthodoxy not withstanding. He specifically believed the disagreement came to how one understands the incarnational language concerning Christ. Read John's statement on the matter. In fact, I will quote the relevant portion of the text:

Quote
My aim was to defend, not in any way to undermine, Christ's absolute deity and eternality. And I endeavored from the beginning to make that as clear as possible.

Nonetheless, when I first published my views on the subject (in my 1983 commentary on Hebrews), a few outspoken critics accused me of attacking the deity of Christ or questioning His eternality. In 1989 I responded to those charges in a plenary session of the annual convention of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (the denomination that ordained me). Shortly after that session, to explain my views further, I wrote an article titled "The Sonship of Christ" (published in 1991 in booklet form).

In both instances I reemphasized my unqualified and unequivocal commitment to the biblical truth that Jesus is eternally God. The "incarnational sonship" view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy. The heart of my defense of the view consisted of statements that affirmed as clearly as possible my absolute commitment to the evangelical essentials of Christ's deity and eternality.

Ultimately, your quivel with the incarnational sonship view centers around the fact you hold to Covenant Theology as a system. As you point out the eternal sonship undergirds CT's covenant of grace and redemption. That is all fine and dandy if you choose to adhere to that theological system, however, to charge someone with heresy because he understands the Bible slightly different than what your favored theology dictates is a rather fallacious charge. It is as phoney a charge as calling someone an antinomian who doesn't necessarily view the Ten Commandments as binding law upon Christians today and rejects the CTers take on Mosiac law altogether - but that is a discussion for another post. The same would apply to believers baptism, how we understand the New Covenant, and a host of other biblical ideas that are impacted by our theological presuppositions.

Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns