Quote
Nope, and neither did John, because the incarnational viewpoint doesn't deny that the father and the son are eternal in their nature. The position teaches that the term "son" speaks to Christ in his humanity. In the mind of the eternal God, the second member of the Trinity purposed to take on flesh and take the roll of a son to die in the place of sinners.
Now, I disagree with that, as I disagreed with John when he held this position, but I know what he was talking about and he wasn't advocating heresy as you claim.

What do you disagree with, merely that John denied that the name "Son" applied to the Second Person in eternity? Is that what you think this was all about, a mere designation without a theology behind the word? What does it mean that the Second Person is the Son? John denied that the the Second Person of the Trinity was the Son in eternity. What does this mean? Does it merely mean that the Son wasn't yet incarnated? No, because that would presuppose the Son, whom John denied; he affirmed the Person but not the sonship, which is essential to his person.

Ron