THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON OF GOD

__________________

A Position Paper
Presented to
Dr. Stephen J. Wellum
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for
Systematic Theology II (1314-SP-27070B)
__________________

by
Terry L. Irwin
May 11, 2014
On my honor, I have neither given nor taken improper assistance in completing this
assignment.

THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON OF GOD

The doctrine of the Sons eternal generation has been a central feature of classic
orthodoxy Christology since its earliest expositions in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and
Chalcadonian creeds. In so much as these early creedal statements were determined to set forth a
recognized understanding of the nature of Son, each affirmed the importance of the Sons
begotten nature.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten,
Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not
made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made..1
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according
to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father
according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood2
Though we are certainly indebted to these creeds (for they represent a meticulous
attempt to present a biblically distilled Christology) we must not simply rest on their word alone.
It is incumbent upon us to see what they saw, and to understand the veracity of these ideas for
ourselves. With this in mind, the goal of this exposition will be to set forth the truthfulness of this
doctrine both theologically and biblically.
First, we shall outline as basic understanding of the doctrine and then we shall
explore a more in-depth understanding through a brief history of its interpretation. Then, we will
examine the important biblical data which has given rise to the theological considerations
1

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.)

The Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)

previously outlined. Throughout this presentation, we will discuss the relevancy of the doctrine
itself and answer some of the common objections which have been leveled against it.
What is Eternal Generation?
At its core, the doctrine of eternal generation seeks to grasp an understanding of the
ontological nature of the Sons preexistent life, especially in its relationship to the divine nature.
Furthermore, it seeks to say some about the essential relationship that exists between the Father
and the Son. Considering these two things, it should not surprise us that the issues involved in
this discussion are weighty and to large degree ineffable.
Nevertheless, as we press into doctrines such as eternal generation, we should be
encouraged to stretch ourselves and allow ourselves to contemplate that which is deeply
mysterious, while humbly acknowledging our own limitations. Jonathan Edwards once remarked
that weighty doctrines such as this are glorious inlets into the knowledge and view of the
spiritual world, and the contemplation of supreme things; the knowledge of which, I have
experienced how much it contributes to the betterment of the heart.3 As we push into a greater
understanding of the nature of the Son, and the divine life, we should pray that our own hearts
will be made better for having a larger sense of the divine life.
Keith Johnson (PhD in Christian Theology and Ethics, Duke University) provides us
with a helpful working definition of eternal generation, This doctrine teaches that the Father
eternally, necessarily, and incomprehensibly communicates the divine essence to the Son without
division or change so that the Son shares an equality of nature with the Father yet is also distinct
from the Father.4
3
Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. XIII, the "Miscellanies," a-500 (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1994).
4
Keith E. Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, and evangelical Trinitarianism. (Trinity Journal 32,
no. 2: 141-163, 2011). ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost accessed May 1, 2014.

In other words, the Sons receives his divine essence (that nature which he possesses
which makes it proper for us to consider him divine) from the Father, eternally and in such a way
that his divine essence is the very same essence which the Father himself possesses. The Father
communicates, in infinite fullness, all things which are properties of his divinity to the Son, and
the Son is one with the Father in essence and divinity.
Major Historical Interpretations
As we saw before, both of the early Nicene and Chalcedonian creedal statements
affirmed this eternal communication, or generation of essence, in terms of the Son being
begotten of the Father.5 On the one hand this is the simplest way which we can speak of this
doctrine. If we consider the relationship of the Divine Son and the Divine Father, then it seems
apparent to say that the Father beget the Son, for what is more essential to the relationship
between a father and a son than the one begetting the other. On the other hand, the problem is of
course complicated by the fact that we are dealing with the divine nature.
This issue was keenly felt in the Arian debate. Arius took the begotteness of the Son
as the basis for the essential point of his own position, if the Father begat the Son, he that was
begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the
Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."6
Of course the Nicene theologians understood the problem with this line of thinking
and they were careful to reject any notion of creating or making in their creedal statement. What
is important to note here is that they still saw the doctrine as essential to a proper understanding

5
Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 148, notes that, Some ante-Nicene theologians like
Tertullian understand the generation of the Son to be temporal (immediately prior to creation) rather than eternal.
6
Socrates. "The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.". The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates
Scholasticus, p. 3.

of Christology. Rather than throwing it out, they sought to clarify the language of the doctrine, in
order to preserve its veracity while disqualifying Arius error.
Athanasius, Arius staunchest opponent, clarified the difference this way, nor is the
Son's generation like a man's from his parent, involving His coming into existence after the
Father. Rather He is God's offspring, and since God is eternal and He belongs to God as Son, He
exists from all eternity.7 Athanasius point is made evident from the way the creed itself was
designed. The text is careful to clarify that the Son is begotten, not made, rejecting any sense
that the Sons generation might imply that there was a time when he did not exist.
Athanasius western counterpart, Hilary of Pointers, also affirmed the importance of
this doctrine as it is highlighted by the cosubstantial nature of the Father and the Son:
Is not the meaning here of the word [in the Nicene Creed] that the Son is
produced of the Father's nature, the essence of the Son having no other origin, and that
both, therefore, have one unvarying essence? As the Son's essence has no other origin, we
may rightly believe that both are of one essence, since the Son could be begotten with no
substance but that derived from the Father's nature which was its source.8
Hilarys concern was to stress two important ideas. First, the Son possesses the exact
same essence () as the Father, and this is by virtue of his being begotten. Because he
sees the Father as the only possible source of the Sons essence () then the Son is
cosubstantial with the Father.
Though many of the other Pro-Nicene theologians echoed Athanasius and Hilarys
sentiments, it was Augustine who gave this doctrine its first full treatment. Johnson, in analyzing
Augustine, outlines six distinctive features of his view on eternal generation. First, Johnson states
that, for Augustine the generation of the Son is incorporeal and should not be understood in the

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth Edition (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978), p. 244.

8
Hilary of Poitiers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899.), p. 27.

manner of human generation.9 In other words, like Athanasius, Augustine felt it was important
to discriminate between the generation of the Son and human reproduction. Second, also in
keeping with the Nicene understanding, Augustine affirmed that the Father bestows being on
the Son without any beginning in time.10 This similarly addresses the dangers of any possible
Arian interpretation of divine generation and affirms the eternality of the Sons being ().
Third, there is an equality of nature between the Father and the Son. Johnson puts it this way,
the Father did not beget a lesser Son who would eventually become his equal.11 Forth, and
most distinctively, Augustine believed that it was important to see the generation of the Son as
something that was a necessary consequence of the Fathers nature rather than a generation by
the Fathers will. This speaks to the difference between Divine and human generation because it
means that the Sons generation wasnt a result of some decision on the part of the Father, rather
it is a constituent element of the Fathers essential nature that he generates the Son. Johnson
remarks that, to say that the Son is generated by the will of the Father is to assert that the Son
is a creature.12 Fifth, Augustine attempted to provide two unique analogies that might aide in
our comprehension of divine generation. First, he likened it to the nature, or generation of, light,
saying that it is like light flowing from light.13 Second, he compared it to the generation of a
word by the human mind. This second analogy will become important later on when we see how
Jonathan Edwards develops it even further. Finally, even with his attempts at analogy, Augustine
upholds that, at the end of the day, eternal generation is an incomprehensible divine mystery.
9

Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 148

10

Cited by Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 148.,

11

Ibid.,

12

Ibid., 149

13

Ibid.,

Lewis Ayres tells us that, Augustine does not imagine that we can grasp the dynamics of such a
divine generation at other than a very formal level we have no created parallel that offers
anything other than a distant likeness."14
Jumping ahead to the Reformation, we see two theologians address this doctrine and
asses its meaning. The first was John Calvin. Rather than accepting the traditional understanding,
Calvin saw a problem with being able to uphold the aseity of the Son if his essence was in any
sense derivative. In his mind, whoever says that the Son has been given his essence from the
Father denies that he has being from himself."15 So Calvin was content with rejecting the idea
that the Sons essence was from the Father. In order to account for the biblical data, he simply
acknowledged that there was a communication of personhood between the two. So in that sense
the Sons person (hypostasis) was begotten of the Father but not his nature.
As important as his concerns were Calvins position did little to shift the consensus.
Not long after, the Calvinistic Scholastic Francis Turretin masterfully defended the doctrine. Like
Augustine, Turretins understanding of the doctrine included the important issues of incorporeity,
timelessness, and equality of essence. He even employed Augustines analogy of light in
explaining it. What made Turretins discussion so helpful was his expansiveness and precision on
the ideas above:
Therefore division applies only to physical generation where the begotten passes over from
not-being to being. But it cannot be accommodated to this hyper-physical generation, which
is an eternal act of the eternal Father (from whom the Son emanates and in whom he
remains without any abscission [praecisione] by coexisting). Hence the Son was not
properly before generation, nor did he begin to be through generation, but always emanated
from the father by an eternal and internal act (like the rays emanating simultaneously with
the sun, in a more imminent, inexplicable manner)by generation the divine essence is
communicated to the begotten, not that it may exist, but subsist. Thus it is not terminated on

14

Cited by Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 149

15

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.xiii.23

the absolute existence, but on the mode of subsisting; nor by it is he constituted God
absolutely, but the Son relatively. 16
We see that when comparing eternal generation to physical generation Turretin
emphasized the distinction in terms of division of essence. In human generation, division of
essence occurs because he who begets communicates a part of his substance to another, and the
begetter is essentially different from the begotten.17 In contrast, infinite and eternal generation
lacks such a division so that the essence which is generated is one and the same as that which it
emanates from. For Turretin, the result is not even a perfect reduplication or a cloning of essence,
but an eternally distinct mode of subsistence (person) within the same essence. We should
distinguish here between his and Calvins position because Turretin does affirm a
communication of essence from the Father in the most perfect manner (viz., by generation).18
but, as we shall see later, the reason he rejects Calvins problem has to do with this same
question of division of essence.
Our final major theological interpretation comes from Jonathan Edwards. Though
Edwards did not discuss this issue at length like Turretin and Augustine, he did provide us with a
profound expansion on ideas present in these previous formulations. Edwards defined generation
this way:
The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or
the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or
having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea.19

16
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison and Jr (Phillipsburg, NJ: P &
R Publishing, 1992), pg. 300-301
17

Ibid., pg. 302

18

Ibid., pg. 300

19
Jonathan Edwards, Treatise On Grace: and Other Posthumously Published Writings (London, UK:
James Clarke & Co, 1988), pg. 118

We can see some similarities between Augustines analogy of a thought generated by

a mind, only in this case Edwards doesnt consider it to be simply an analogy. He posits that the
generation occurs through Gods perfect self-understanding. In other words, the Son is an eternal
personification, in the truest sense of the term, of Gods own idea of himself. Edwards reasoned
that Gods own idea of himself was a perfect representation of his own essence:
This representation of the Divine nature and essence is the Divine nature and essence again:
so that by God's thinking of the Deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another
person begotten, there is another Infinite Eternal Almighty and most holy and the same
God, the very same Divine nature.20
The importance of this aspect of the Sons filial nature is that he is such an eternally
perfect representation of the Fathers essence that his essence is numerically the same as the
Fathers essence, and for Edwards, this is definitional of what it means for him to be the Divine
Son of the Divine Father.
Whats unique about Edwards understanding is how he addresses the particular
manner in which the Son is generated. While many of the previous theologians defended the idea
of generation, they all felt that it was quite impossible to comprehend the manner of this
generation. Lest we worry that Edwards is overstepping his bounds, we can be comforted by the
fact that he was attempting to make sense out of biblical categories such as the Son being the
logos, wisdom, and image of God. He saw in these various descriptions, an indication of the
Sons eternal generation.
All we can say is that this very well may be an accurate description of the mode of the
Sons generation. But perhaps, on this matter, we should keep Turretins words in mind, here (if
anywhere) we must be wise with sobriety so that content with the factwe should not anxiously

20

Ibid.,

busy our thoughts with defining or even searching into the mode (which is altogether
incomprehensible), but leave it to God who alone most perfectly knows himself.21
Biblical Data
Having set forth both a basic idea of the doctrine and some major interpretations, we
must now turn to the scriptures and examine the relevant biblical data regarding eternal
generation. Such an examination will demonstrate that the eternal generation of the Son is in fact
a central feature of biblical Christology.
Monogenes Passages
Traditionally, the doctrine of eternal generation stemmed forth from a number of
Johannine passages which characterized Christ as the only begotten Son of God. The most
famous of these being John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (NASB).22 Other
examples include John 1:14 & 18 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw
His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth No one has
seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained
Him. It is very likely that these passages served as the basis for the language of the early creedal
statements themselves, which used the same Greek word (monogenes) to characterize the eternal
generation of the Son. For a long time these passages were seen as some of the strongest biblical
affirmations that Christ was the Son of God by nature rather than by title only.
Unfortunately, in recent years, textual debate over the correct translation of this word
has caused controversy over its usage, especially in defense of the doctrine of eternal generation.
Due to an etymological study of the root elements of the word, Scholars have argued that, rather
21

Turretin, Elenctic Theology, pg. 302

22

c.f. 1 John 4:9

than being translated as only begotten, the world seems to be convey the sense of being
unique instead. So in translations such as the English Standard Version, we have the following,
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (John 3:16).
Although some debate still surrounds this issue, the consensus seems to be that this is
the more appropriate translation. Obviously this has implications for our doctrine. However,
there are a two important issues that should give us pause when it comes to accepting this newer
translation. First, whatever the proper translation, the fact that the Greek speaking Nicene
Fathers seemed to see generation as a constituent element of this word is very convincing.
Second, it is worth noting that every time this word is used in the Johannine corpus, we find it
within a larger context where begetting itself is a central theme. In John 3 for example, Jesus
begins this exchange by telling Nicodemus that unless one is born again he cannot see the
kingdom of God (v. 3). In fact, some form of the root word is used at least eight times
immediately preceding verse sixteen. We see a similar thing happening in John 1. Immediately
preceding verse fourteen, John refers to those who have received Christ has having been born of
God ( ). Although this in no way proves that monogenes should retain the
sense conveyed in the root , it certainly shows a thematic relationship between our being
born of God by virtue of our relationship to the unique Son of God.
Nevertheless, even if we dismiss these passages we must ask ourselves, have we have
lost the heart of this doctrine with a single word? Several things are worth noting. First, there is
still at least one verse in Scripture that refers to Christ as begotten without using monogenes. In 1
John 5:18, the apostle tells us, We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep
on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him
(ESV). Most agree that John has Christ in mind as the begotten one who protects believers.

10

Therefore, at least in this instance, we must affirm that the Bible teaches that the Son is begotten
of the Father. Second, the removal of the term begotten itself does not render these verses
inadequate at supporting this doctrine. We should acknowledge that the larger context of these
verses still emphasize a real filial nature and relationship between the Father and the Son. Thus,
we are still left with an assortment of passages the talk about Christs nature in terms which
strongly imply generation. Finally, as we shall now see, there are plenty of other passages which
provide even greater support for this doctrine.
John 5
Augustine believed that the passage which gave the greatest support to this doctrine
was actually John 5. Jesus opponents found themselves enraged because he was even calling
God his own Father, making himself equal with God (v. 18). In response, Jesus defends himself
with a speech which sheds massive light onto his essential relationship to the Father:
Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees
the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father
loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doingFor as the Father raises the dead
and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he willWhoever does not honor
the Son does not honor the Father who sent himTruly, truly, I say to you, an hour is
coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those
who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to
have life in himself (John 5:19-26).
This passage is so full of profound truths that we could rightfully take an entire
treatise to examine it; however, we will only briefly note its importance for our purposes. First,
we should note that Jesus establishes the idea that his actions are inherently derived from the
Fathers. Whatever the Son does, we can find the prime parallel in the Father. Next, we see that
the Father and Son not only share action but honor as well. There is such a unity in their
relationship that a communication of honor to one is a communication of honor to the other.
Finally, and most importantly, Jesus tells us that the Father has granted the Son also to have life
in himself.
11

Considering the implications of Jesuss words, we cannot overstate the importance of

this passage for our examination. The idea that the Son receives his self-existance (essence) as an
eternal grant from the Father strongly attests to the truth of eternal generation. Augustine saw this
as clear biblical language in support of eternal generation. Commenting on this passage he
remarked that the reason for these statements can only be that the life of the Son is unchanging
like the Fathers, and yet is from the Father [5:26]; and that the work of Father and Son is
indivisible, and yet the Sons working is from the Father just as he himself is from the Father.23
D.A. Carson, commenting on this passage, saw it as having massive implications for this
doctrine as well, this eternal grant [of having life in himself] establishes the nature of the eternal
relationship between the Father and the Son.24 One final thing to note about this passage, if it
truly does address our understanding of eternal generation then it seems to directly address what
Calvin found most problematic about it. As we remember, Calvin considered it important that, in
order to be properly considered deity, that Son possess aseity (self-existence). What Jesus seems
to be saying here is that he receives his aseity (life in himself) from the Father. This is how
Turretin understood the issue,
Although the Son is from the Father, nevertheless he may be called God-of-himself
(autotheos), not with respect to his person, but essence; not relatively as Son (for thus he is
from the Father), but absolutely as God inasmuch as he has the divine essence existing from
itself and not divided or produced from another essence (but not as having that essence
from himself.)25
In other words, because the Sons essence is the very same essence as the Father, and
since that essence has life in itself (aseity), then the Son can properly be said to also have life in
himself. In other words, the Son has a properly underived nature which he eternally derives from

23

Cited by Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 150

24

Ibid., pg. 151

25

Turretin, Elenctic Theology, pg. 291-292

12

the same underived nature of the Father. What a marvelous paradox! It is here that the
ineffableness and mystery of this doctrine must be embraced.
Image of God Passages
The next set of passages which point to the truth of this doctrine deal with the Son as
a reflection or image of the nature of God. Colossians 1:15 states that the Son is the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Turretin believes that the idea expressed here is
that Christ is the image of God considered hypostatically (i.e. of the Father and of the same
essence with him).26 We find an elaboration of this in the opening chapter of Hebrews. The
author tells us that the Son is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his
nature (Hebrews 1:3). We see that idea that the Son is properly a perfect imprint of the nature of
the Father. The language is stronger in this case and certainly seems to have generation in view.
One translation even renders it, the representation of his essence (NET). Of course we saw
how Edwards incorporated this language into his own understanding of generation, even seeing
the Son as the perfect expression of Gods own self-understanding. Whatever the case, we cannot
deny that to speak of Christ as a perfect representation of the Father yet properly distinct from
him certainly supports our understanding of the doctrine of eternal generation.
Other Notable Biblical Themes
Finally we point to some of the larger biblical themes which support this doctrine.
First, we shouldnt hesitate to take into account the Biblical emphasis on the unity of the Father
and the Son, which certainly seems to support a unity of essence. Passages such as John 10:30, I
and the Father are one, and John 14:9, whoever has seen me has seen the Father,27 present a

26

Ibid., pg. 299

27

c.f. John 12:45

13

unity of essence that exists between the Father and Son which strongly supports what we have
already said about this doctrine.
Next, we should note that any developed biblical understanding of the doctrine of the
Trinity has eternal generation as an essential underpinning. Robert Dabney explains that, the
generation of the Son, and procession of the Spirit, however mysterious, are unavoidable
corollaries from two facts. The essence of the Godhead is one; the persons are three. If these are
both true, there must be some way, in which the Godhead multiplies its personal modes of
subsistence, without multiplying its substance.28 Therefore, for us to talk about the Son, in terms
of his essential divinity within the Godhead, heavily points to his being consubstantial with the
Father.
Finally, we must account for the broad range of Biblical data which expresses a real
filial-paternal relationship between Christ and the Father. As Turretin himself says, the filiation
of Christ, which (as most peculiar and perfectly singular) ought necessarily to imply a
communication of essence from the Father in the most perfect manner (viz., by generation).29
Whatever we think about eternal generation we must not make the mistake of denying that a very
real and essential relationship characterizes the bond between the Father and the Son.
Conclusion
With these numerous and widespread themes in mind, we can see that the Biblical
data which we have examined more than adequately supports the historic and developed
understandings of this doctrine. Johnson summarizes the biblical data for eternal generation and
helps illustrate the pervasive nature of this doctrine:

28

Robert Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), p. 209

29

Turretin, Elenctic Theology, pg. 298

14

The biblical evidence for eternal generation is far broader than a handful of isolated texts. It
includes numerous passage that offer a window into the Father/Son relationship including
sending texts, giving/receiving texts, texts reflecting an ordered equality among the
Father and Son, the names Father and Son, and even texts regarding the relation of the
Holy Spirit to the Son. Moreover, the truth of this doctrine does not depend on the
translation of monogenes as only begotten (as some critics seem to assume).30
Considering the theological and biblical importance of this doctrine we must not be
content with abandoning like others have. Too often this doctrine has been disregarded because
its value has not been properly acknowledged by theologians. It is essential to any Christological
formulation that seeks to present a full-orbed understanding of the nature of the Son. Just as the
Nicene Fathers strove to uphold and defend this doctrine in spite of controversy, I pray that the
same would be true today.

30

Johnson, Augustine, eternal generation, pg. 161

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John Institutes of the Christian Religion I.xiii.23

Dabney, Robert. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. XIII, the "Miscellanies." New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1994.
Edwards, Jonathan. Treatise On Grace: and Other Posthumously Published Writing., London,
UK: James Clarke & Co, 1988.
Hilary of Poitiers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899.
Johnson, Keith E. 2011. "Augustine, eternal generation, and evangelical trinitarianism." Trinity
Journal 32, no. 2: 141-163. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed May 12, 2014).
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth Edition San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978.
Socrates. "The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.". The Ecclesiastical Histories of
Socrates Scholasticus.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison and Jr.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992.

16