Right, because it was the only thing of substance I could get out of the discussion.
Sure and people argued over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Just because they debated about ontological subordinates doesn’t mean it is a real thing. To me it sounds like the theological analog of phlogiston.
I didn’t see anything unorthodox in what was quoted. That is why I could not understand @Daniel_Fisher claiming this should be the basis of accusing Packer of heresy.
Then I don’t see how the Trinity helps to justify this unless He is advocating Arianism.
Some people have the same reaction to some of the topics in physics. But in that case I think there is solid grounding in measurements and mathematical equations. Despite an MDIV from a theological seminary I am not so confident that all these theological debates are more than empty words and abracadabra.
“Theological weeds” I like that! I think my writing teacher would have praised this turn of phrase.