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.
I see several problems with this. First, the covenant of redemption aspect, to which you refer, John has always embraced being a Calvinist! Consequently, John thought that the First Person of the Trinity gave the elect to the Second Person of the Trinity without the elect being given to the Son!
Secondly, the eternals sonship is pre-Reformation doctrine, so obviously it has significance apart from the doctrines of the divine decree that became more apparent at the time of the Reformation.
Now a question: Since John (and presumably you) believes that the Second Person was given the elect by the First Person in eternity, how can this be without the Second Person being the Son? If it can’t be, then the eternal sonship is essential with respect to a doctrine John held to, predestination in Christ. So I’ll ask you, a Calvinist, could the First Person have given the elect to the Second Person without the relationship of Father-Son? Yes or No. This has nothing to do with the distinctions between dispensationalism and covenant theology.
Finally, by not distinguishing between Father-Son, then for all eternity there would have been no eternal distinction of persons or ontological role of Father-Son within the Godhead. If the relationship were to have evolved into Father-Son at the incarnation, then there would be evolution within the Godhead with respect to the relationship within the Godhead, which would undermine the immutability of God. Again, you seem to think that the relationship of Persons does not go into defining the Godhead. You would like to think that the First and Second Person’s relationship could be non-Son and non-Father without destroying the essence of the ontological Trinity.
Quote
Those who disagree with CT and the theology's definition of terms are not heretical.
While John held this aberrant view he was embracing the covenant of redemption yet in a way that was in violation of the doctrine of the eternally begotten Son of the Father, which was held by all of Christendom prior to the full development of covenant theology.
I stated: “Is the eternal Sonship essential to the Son and to the Trinity? Yes”
You Replied:
Quote
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.
Let me see if I have this.
Premise 1: James White says that eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology Conclusion: Eternal Sonship is not essential to Trinitarian theology
