Puritan Board Freshman
ESS explicity denies ontological subordination, does it not? It seems unfair to just label Grudem et al as Arian heretics when they explicitly affirm homoousia. You could argue that logically you end up with two wills and tend toward Arianism, but you can’t just say Nicea already dealt with this. It seems they didn’t, at least not in the way Grudem frames the issue. Grudem affirms Nicea. The confusion to me seems to come with the terms eternal paired with functional, and the debate seems blurred by various (mis)understandings of where the concept of ontology ends and economy begins.