I still confess myself dumbfounded. I read over the debate a bit more, and if Grudem et al were careless on particular minutiae (and yes, I’d classify eternal generation as such because I still can claim I don’t even know exactly what it means), then there’s that.
But the overwhelming hostility to their position seemed to be focused in the fact that they suggested that the subordination, or subjection, of Christ to the Father was not rooted in the Son’s human nature (whereas, as a human person he owed obedience to his father).
Rather, the hostility and core objection to Grudem’s position seemed focused on the idea that he suggested that the eternal Son of God, by his very nature, in his eternal being and nature within the godhead, existed in a relationship of economic subordination under the Father.
Packer’s description of the Son (and Spirit) being subject to the Father are rooted in their divine nature, not in any incarnational status (the Spirit, after all, being subject to the Father, while never being incarnate of course).
But the core objections and discussion I have read against Grudem and others seems to be not the various particulars, but against the core belief he certainly seems to share with Packer.
To clarify, then, may I ask… Do I understand you as concurring that the idea that the Holy Spirit’s being subject to the Father is fully orthodox? Also, the Spirit being subject to the Son?