Quote
Your post is smoke. I’m sorry. Let’s define our terms. Those who hold to the “incarnational sonship”, as did John, deny the eternal sonship. Accordingly, they deny the eternal-ontological Son-Father relationship.


(Fred) I disagree bud. John denied the eternal aspect of Christ's sonship, but not his sonship. Again, I would point out that the ontological aspect of the Eternal son is only relevant to Covenant Theology, because the Covenant of Redemption that the CT system is built upon is dependent upon the eternal sonship doctrine. Those who disagree with CT and the theology's definition of terms are not heretical. First, the CTer must demonstrate an actual Covenant of Redemption being outlined in scripture. I would agree there was a decreed purpose of redemption, but I do not equate that with a "Covenant." The two are distinct.

Quote
Did John deny the eternal sonship of the Second Person? Yes, by saying that the Son was begotten in time and became the Son.

(Fred) Did John deny the eternal sonship of the 2nd person as CT argues for that distinction? yes. Did he deny Christ's sonship? no.
I would also add that you are still in need of defining the word "begotten" or at least describing the concept as far as it is taught in scripture. What exactly does it mean that God "begot" the Son? Keep in mind that I am not arguing for begotten to mean Christ was created.

Quote
Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes

(Fred) That is where I believe you are dead wrong. In fact, some one wrote me and told me tha James White was asked in his chat channel if the eternal sonship doctrine is necessary to maintaining the Trinity and he stated that it is not. Thus, denying the eternal sonship of Christ does not equate to denying the Trinity, and I would add, or the ontological relationship between the Father and Son.

Quote
Was this heresy? Of course it was. If you wish to deny John's former heresy, please interact with the specifics of the case.

(Fred) It is only heresy for the CTer and his system. Is it biblical heresy? No it is not. Further, I do believe I have interacted with the specifics of the case, and as I wrote in a previous post, the specifics of the case as they pertain to John are no longer relevant seeing that John changed his position. My point of contention is that incarnational sonship is not heretical, even though I do not agree with it.

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