“Eternally Begotten of the Father:”

The Necessity of Christ’s Eternal Sonship

Kimberly Nicolette Tanner

STH152: The Doctrine of God

April 12, 2016

 Introduction

Truth is polarizing. The world is fraught with fierce debates waged over issues of all

kinds. At times such debates are merely superfluous, stemming from a wont of intellect or an

excess of human pride. At other times they are absolutely necessary in order to resolve a critical

deliberation. The church is saturated with controversies revolving around doctrinal concerns.

One of these controversies, which arose in the fourth century and continues in modernity, is the

debate concerning the verity or falsehood of the eternal generation of Jesus Christ. This paper

will seek to prove that the affirmation of Christ’s eternal sonship is essential to orthodoxy. This

truth is made evident by looking at the history of the heresy that denies Christ’s eternal

generation and by reiterating the orthodox view that affirms his eternal sonship.

History of Heresy
Conception
In 318 A.D., Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, publicly refused to affirm the incarnation

of God in the person of Jesus Christ and resisted the claim that God’s Son could possess the

same essence as his Father. Arius claimed that the Christ was Son by virtue of his adoption, not

his essence.1 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, countered Arius with a firm declaration that

Jesus is the eternal Lord. He stripped Arius of his position as presbyter and declared his

teachings to be heretical.2 Nonetheless, Arius was not easily silenced. His views and the

controversy revolving around them spread throughout the empire.

Content

At the heart of Arius’s teaching was a denial of the eternal sonship of Jesus. Arius

penned appealing tunes that were cleverly infused with heretical lyrics, the most popular of

1
Parker Williamson, Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy (Springfield, PA:
PLC Publications, 1996), 10.
2
Ibid.

1
which declared, “There was a time when the Son was not.”3 He claimed that Christ was a

created Being and that at some point the Godhead gained a person. This contrasts with the

orthodox belief that there have always been three persons in the Trinity and that Christ gained a

human nature upon his incarnation, rather than the Godhead gaining a person. Arius writes,

[The] Son, having been begotten timelessly by the Father and created and established
before aeons, did not exist before he was begotten, but, begotten timelessly before
everything, alone has been given existence by the Father; for he is not eternal nor
coeternal nor co-unoriginated, with the Father, nor does he possess being parallel with the
Father….4

Richard Hanson observes several other claims at the heart of Arianism which stem from

the central denial of Christ’s eternal sonship. First, Arianism assumed that the inferiority of the

Son to God the Father was necessary. If he is not coeternal with the Father, he must necessarily

be inferior, since he would have a beginning. Second, Arius taught that “the weakness and

limitations of the incarnate Christ applied to the divine Word as well as to the human body,”5 and

these weaknesses and limitations were proof of the Son’s inferiority. Third, Arians believed that

God suffered. Since they cannot attribute suffering to the High God, and since the homoousia6

doctrine would entail that, they denied it.7

Parker Williamson quotes from Arius’s Thalia before elucidating some core tenants of

Arianism. “God exists ineffable to the Son, for he is to himself what he is, that is, unutterable; it

3
Andrew Burn, The Nicene Creed (London: Rivingtons, 1909), 6.
4
Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381
(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1993), 8.
5
Ibid., 106.
6
The Greek word ὁµοιούσιος (transliterated “homoiusios”) means “similar substance” and is the term
Arians used to describe Jesus, claiming that he possessed a different essence than the Father and was thus not fully
God; ὁµοούσιος (transliterated “homoousios”) means “same substance” and is the term which Alexander and
Athanasius used to describe Christ, professing that Christ shares the same essence as the Father.
7
Hanson, Doctrine of God, 100-112.

2
is impossible for the Son to explore the Father who exists by himself… for clearly, for what has

a beginning to encompass by thought or apprehension the one who is unbegun, is impossible.”8

With this reference point from Arius’s own pen, Williamson observes four central beliefs of

Arianism. First, God is absolutely sovereign; second, God created the Son; third, the Son is a

limited being; fourth, the Son achieved salvation through obedience, as an inferior being.9

In sum, Arianism denies Christ’s eternal sonship and consequently the immutability of

Jesus Christ, professing that he was created by the Father. Arius affirmed incarnational sonship,

and as a result, he claimed that Jesus was of a different substance than the Father. This implies a

denial of the full divinity of Christ. Soteriologically this denial of Christ’s eternal generation

would imply that Christ, as a mere man, could not save mankind because his person and work

would have been ineffective.10 Arianism disintegrated the doctrine of the Trinity, rejecting the

full divinity of Christ and his essential unity with the Father.

Condemnation

Emperor Constantine, who had so recently made an effort to unify the empire through the

Edict of Milan, intervened by calling a council, summoning over three hundred men of

ecclesiastical authority. Thus, the first Ecumenical Council commenced in Nicaea in 325.

Alexander and Athanasius, another champion of Nicene orthodoxy, presented a creed with which

to rebut the heretics. In the first section it established orthodox beliefs concerning Christology:

“We believe in… one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, of the

substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made,

8
Ibid., 34.
9
Williamson, Standing Firm, 32-36.
10
For a deeper explanation of this implication of Arianism, see Christopher Seitz, Nicene Christianity: The
Future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001), 35-38.

3
being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into existence….”11 In

the second section the creed renounces core tenants of Arianism, condemning those who said

that “‘there was a time when the Son did not exist,’ and ‘before begotten he did not exist,’ and

that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son of God is of a different

substance or essence [from the Father], or is alterable or changeable.”12

The description of Christ as being of one substance with the Father, sometimes referred

to as the homoousion, is explicitly incompatible with a denial of Christ’s eternal sonship.

Constantine eventually concluded the council with the verdict that the orthodox Creed was to be

accepted and that Arius was to be exiled as a heretic. All the bishops and other men who had

gathered at Nicaea dispersed, ready to begin circulating and reciting the Nicene Creed in their

parishes and combatting heresy with the newly established code of orthodox beliefs.

Continuation in the Fourth Century

The Council of Nicaea well addressed Arianism. Orthodoxy was maintained by the

proclamation that Christ is fully God, uncreated, and coeternal with the Father. The Council,

however, did not immediately end the controversy. Eusebius of Nicomedia was recalled from

exile around 328 A.D.,13 and he convinced Constantine to exile most of the Nicene leaders.

Unrest defined the next several decades, as Nicene leaders faced more persecution and bishops

were forced to sign Arian confessions of faith.14 As Jerome said, “The entire world woke from a

deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian.”15 It was at the Council of

11
Williamson, Standing Firm, 163.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., 190.
14
Hanson, Christian Doctrine, 791-823.
15
Ibid., 191.

4
Constantinople in 381 that Arianism at large was put to death, by the formation of another creed

which repudiated Arianism once again.16

Continuation in Modernity

The denial of Christ’s eternal sonship is not a purely antiquated or dead practice. Many

still choose to deny Christ’s eternal generation. An example is the Jehovah’s witnesses. They

infer from passages such as Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:15-17 that Christ was created by

God the Father.17 They deduce from passages in which Jesus prays to the Father, such as

Matthew 24, that Jesus is subordinate to and of a different essence from the Father. Another

example of modern denial of Christ’s eternal sonship is Mormonism. Mormons affirm the

“Eternal Father”18 but never directly state “Eternal Son,” and their writing affirms a belief in the

creation of the Son and in his becoming God at some point.19 A third example is found in the

views formerly proclaimed by John MacArthur. He writes that just a few years ago he greatly

revised his opinion on Christology. Whereas formerly he affirmed incarnational sonship,

believing that that “Scripture employed Father-Son terminology anthropomorphically,” he now

affirms that “Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ

the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship.”20 Christians should be aware of the popularity of

Arian sentiments in modernity and solidify their own affirmations of Christ’s eternal sonship.

16
Ibid., 791-823.
17
Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus Christ,” Watchtower Online Library, last modified 2016, accessed April 10,
2016, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?q=wisdom%20Jesus.
18
Brigham Young University, “Only Begotten in the Flesh,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, last modified
2014, accessed April 1, 2016, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Only_Begotten_Son_of_God#Only_Begotten_in_
the_Flesh.
19
Ibid.
20
John MacArthur, “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 21-23, accessed April 2, 2016, http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A235/
reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-Christ.

5
 Orthodoxy

An Explanation of Eternal Generation

Eternal generation was first officially and catholically affirmed in the Nicene Creed at the

first Ecumenical Council in 325. Bavinck notes three truths in particular about Christ’s

generation. First, his is a spiritual begetting. It is divine and simple, without division, separation

or flux.21 It does bring “distinction and distribution in the divine being, [but] it does not create

divergence and division.”22 Second, divine generation implies that the Father begets the Son out

of his own being, as the Nicene symbol says.23 Third, Christ’s generation is eternal, for there was

no time when the Son did not exist, despite what the Arians propounded.24 Thus, the doctrine of

eternal generation declares that Jesus is the eternal Son of God the Father— uncreated,

immutable, coeternal with and of the same essence as the Father.

Biblical Basis

The biblical basis for the doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship is manifold. First, it is made

evident by the Father-Son language used in numerous passages of Scripture. One example of

this is seen at Jesus’s baptism, recorded in Matthew 3, when “a voice from heaven said, ‘This is

my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” This is a fulfillment of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah

42:1. A second example is in Luke 2:49 when Jesus speaks of the temple, where Jehovah meets

with the people, as “my Father’s house.” He calls it this once more in John 2:16 when he casts

the traders out of the temple. Third, Jesus repeatedly claims that the Father sent him into the

21
Herman Bavinck and John Bolt, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 309.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid., 310.

6
world, that he and the Father give life, raise the dead, and judge the world.25 Jesus asserts his

identity in the face of opposition from the Jewish leaders, as in John 5:16-47, when they try to

kill him for breaking the Sabbath and for calling God his Father, thereby making himself equal

with God. In John 14:24, Jesus says that his words are from his Father: “Whoever does not love

me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent

me.” He is claiming to be both the Prophet of and Son of God the Father. Jesus also coordinates

himself with God as the object of faith in John 14:1, saying, “Believe in God; believe also in

me.” Also worthy of note is the fact that Paul’s characteristic name for Jesus is κύριος, which is

the Greek word used to translate “Yahweh,” the covenant name of God in the Old Testament. In

applying it to Jesus very frequently, Paul demonstrates that he considers Jesus to be fully God.26

This is particularly clear in Philippians 2:9-11.

Athanasius and Augustine argue that the very title “Father” implies a son.27 Concerning

eternal self-differentiation, Athanasius writes, “The Father has begotten the Son, and therefore he

who is Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and therefore he who is the

Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit….”28 This does not negate the homoousion doctrine

but affirms it. The Godhead is three distinguishable persons with the same divine essence or

homoousia. He also says that to be a son implies begetting, mentioning that Psalm 2:7 and

Proverbs 8:25 point to Jesus.29 Augustine associates the language of one being begotten with

sonship: “When we say begotten we mean the same as when we say ‘son.’ Being a son is a

25
Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Pub, 2004), 36.
26
Ibid., 43.
27
Athanasius, and John Henry Newman. Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians
(London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1900), 316.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.

7
consequence of being begotten, and being begotten is implied by being son.”30 Thus, God the

Father is eternally the Father, and Christ the Son is eternally the Son.

Second, Christ’s preexistent, eternal sonship is evidenced particularly in Scripture’s use

of the language of the Father “sending” the Son31 and of Christ’s “coming into” the world.32

Kevin Giles notes that “speaking of the Son as coming into the world and as sent by the Father

presupposes that the Son existed before his incarnation.”33 Jesus existed and was the Son before

the incarnation. The most vivid verse on this point is perhaps Galatians 4:4, “But when the

fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem

those who were under the law….” There was not “a time when the Son was not,” as Arius said.

In order to be sent by God the Father, God the Son had to exist. The language of Galatians 4

shows that the Son was forever with the Father. While Jesus became incarnate at a certain point

in time, thus gaining a human nature, he did not suddenly become the Son upon his incarnation.

His essence did not change. He was forever the Son. Likewise, John 1:1 reiterates Christ’s

eternality by declaring he was with God even at creation and that when God sent him to become

man he merely gained a nature, becoming flesh; he did not lose or change any of his divine

essence, and he did not attain sonship upon the incarnation.

Third, the Scriptures affirm Christ’s eternal sonship by the use of “I am” language. In

John 8:58 Jesus tells his accusers, “Before Abraham was, I am.” This is a direct reference to

Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel,

‘I am has sent me to you.’” Christ was the Son before Abraham, long before Jesus’s incarnation,

30
Augustine, Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle, The Trinity (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991), 193.
31
John 3:17; 8:42; 17:3; Galatians 4:4.
32
Mark 10:45; Luke 12:49; John 6:38; 16:28.
33
Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 74.

8
and truly, before the foundations of the earth were formed. In John 8:12-30, Jesus says that he is

“from above” and “not of this world” and that “the Father sent” him. After making these claims

about his identity, he declares in John 8:24, “for unless you believe that I am he you will die in

your sins.” Jesus is identifying himself with God. Another reference is John 14:6, where “Jesus

said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through

me.” This is Christ claiming to fulfill Isaiah 43:11, which declares, “I, I am the Lord, and

besides me there is no savior.” A final reference is John 10:30, in which Jesus declares, “I and

the Father are one.” This verse is an exemplary microcosm of the entire argument for the

necessity of Christ’s eternal sonship. What is essentially one cannot be essentially two. If Jesus

is one with the Father, Jesus must be homoousios with the Father. If Jesus is homoousios with

the Father, he must be eternal, since eternality is an essential attribute of the Father. Giles notes,

“What is created is temporal; what is divine is eternal.”34 If Christ is eternally homoousios with

the Father, he must also be eternally the Son of the Father, for if he at some point began to be the

Son of the Father, the essential nature of God would have been changed, which is impossible,

because each person of the Godhead– Father, Son and Spirit– is immutable.

Key Doctrines Protected by Eternal Generation

Eternal generation protects three primary, essential doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

First, it protects divine immutability. “To say that God is immutable is to say that He never

differs from Himself.”35 God the Son could never have not been God the Son; he must always

have been God the Son. Immutability, as Bavinck declares, is an essential attribute of each

person of the Godhead. Although Jesus gained a human nature when he was conceived in

34
Ibid., 74.
35
A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian Life
(NY: Harper & Row, 1961), 35.

9
Mary’s womb, his divine essence, homoousios with God the Father, was unchanged. He is one

Person with one human nature and one divine nature. Immutability is taught explicitly by the

Scriptures. Hebrews 13:8 declares that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.”

Malachi 3:6 is God’s self-declaration of his immutability: “For I, the Lord, do not change.” If

Christ were not eternally the Son, but instead became the Son at some point, it would imply that

his divine nature is subject to essential change, which is false.

A. W. Pink offers insights concerning the essential immutability of God. He declares that

since God’s nature and his being are infinite, they are not subject to change. There was never a

time when God was not, and there will never come a time when He will cease to be God.36

Calvin also remarks in his commentary on John 1:1 that “in this introduction John asserts the

eternal divinity of Christ, in order to inform us that he is the eternal God, who was manifested in

the flesh, I Timothy 3:16.”37 Calvin is affirming that Jesus has always been the Son of God.

When incarnate, he took on a human nature but never did he dispossess his divine nature. There

is no time at which Christ was not fully the Son of God. Even “in the beginning was the Word,”

as John 1:1 proclaims.

Second, eternal generation preserves a homoousios Son and Father. Scripture affirms

Christ’s oneness with the Father, and it would fall apart if Christ were not eternally God the Son.

John 1:1, 14 says that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the

Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,

glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Deuteronomy 6:4 declares,

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Jesus proclaims in John 10:30, “I and the

36
A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), 37.
37
John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1989), 25.

10
Father are one.” Jesus cannot be of a different essence from the Father, for as Tozer stated,

God’s immutability prevents him from differing from himself, and both the Father and the Son

are God. Thus, Jesus is of one essence with the Father, and he must eternally share this essence;

it cannot have had a beginning and cannot have an end.

Vine makes an astute observation that the life essentially within Christ, mentioned in

John 1:4; 11:25; 14:6 and I John 5:20, was not possessed independently from the Father.38 In

fact, Jesus in John 5:26 declares, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son

also to have life in himself.” Vine notes,

The very comparison, ‘As the Father hath life in himself,’ precludes the idea that the
Lord was referring simply to the human life upon which he entered at his birth. It is not a
case of cause and effect, or of consequence upon a condition…. The statement is one of
comparison; the measure of the life of the Son is the measure of the life of the Father.
The Father did not give life to the Son as he gives it to his creatures. The unity of the two
Persons forbids the thought. Life essentially resides in the Son, and has ever done so, as
One possessing an eternal communication of it from the Father, in virtue of the
unoriginated relationship in the Godhead.39

If Christ had life separate from God the Father’s, this would disintegrate the essential unity

among the Godhead. His life and essence are inextricably bound up in those of the Father,

though they remain two distinct persons.

Third, Christ’s eternal generation upholds a triune Godhead. If Jesus was not eternally

the Son, then God was not eternally the Father. This indicates that he was God before he was

Father, and that he became Father later, at a point in time. Thus, denying Christ’s eternal

generation not only implies his non-deity, but it also brings into question the Father’s. It makes

the Father “changeable, robs him of his divine nature, deprives him of the eternity of his

fatherhood, and leaves unexplained how God can truly and properly be called ‘Father’ in time if

38
W.E. Vine, Christ's Eternal Sonship (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1900), 107.
39
Ibid., 108.

11
the basis for calling him ‘Father’ is not eternally present in his nature.”40 The Father was never

unregenerative. He is eternally the Father. Likewise, Jesus was never unbegotten. He is the

eternally begotten Son.

Conclusion

Therefore, Christ must be the Son of God for all eternity. He was the Son in the

beginning,41 while on earth as a man,42 and while in heaven at the right hand of the Father.43 He

was not ever created, nor did he at some point begin to exist, nor did he at some point begin to be

the Son. There was not “a time when the Son was not,” as Arius said. The doctrine of

incarnational sonship which MacArthur formerly held and which still infests modern thought is

false. Christ is eternally the Son. This doctrine protects divine immutability, a homoousios

Father and Son, and a triune Godhead. May Christians delight in the loving Lord they serve and

seek to magnify him in all things, for he is worthy of all praise.

40
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 310.
41
John 1:1; 17.
42
John 10:30.
43
Romans 8:34.

12
 Bibliography

Athanasius, and John Henry Newman. Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the
Arians. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900.

Augustine, Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. The Trinity. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991.

Bavinck, Herman, and John Bolt. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2011.

Brigham Young University, “Only Begotten in the Flesh,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, last
modified 2014, accessed April 1, 2016,
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Only_Begotten_Son_of_God#Only_Begotten_in_the_Fles
h.

Brown, David. The Divine Trinity. La Salle, IL: Open Court Pub. Co, 1985.

Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989.

Dods, Marcus. Christ and Man: Sermons. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1909.

Farnell, Lewis Richard. The Attributes of God: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University
of St. Andrews, in the Year 1924-25. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1925.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub, 2002.

Giles, Kevin. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian
Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381.
Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1988.

Hegel, and F. Louis Soldan, “God as the Eternally Begotten Son” 1881. Journal of Speculative
Philosophy 15, 4. Penn State University Press, 395–404, accessed March 15, 2016,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25667879.

Holcomb, Justin S. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.

_______________. Know the Heretics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus Christ,” Watchtower Online Library, last modified 2016, accessed
April 10, 2016, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?q=wisdom%20Jesus.

Kidd, James, and Robert S. Candlish. A Dissertation on the Eternal Sonship of Christ. London:
Adams Hamilton, 1872, accessed March 10, 2016, https://ia801407.us.archive.org/21/
items/dissertationonet00kidd/dissertationonet00kidd_bw.pdf.

13
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg,
NJ: P&R Pub, 2004.

MacArthur, John. “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ,” Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 21-23. Accessed April 2, 2016. http://www.gty.org/
resources/articles/A235/ reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-Christ.

Norris, Frederick W. Gregory Nazianzen's Doctrine of Jesus Christ. New Haven: Yale
University, 1970.

Pink, A.W. The Attributes of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996.

Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.,1990.

_______________. What Is God?: An Investigation of the Perfections of God's Nature. Fearn:

Mentor, 2007.

Ross, Bob L. The Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ: A Defense against "Oneness"
Pentecostal Attacks on Historic Christianity. Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1993.

Tozer, A.W. The Attributes of God. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1997.

_________. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian
Life. NY: Harper & Row, 1961.

Vine, W.E. Christ's Eternal Sonship. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1900.

Williamson, Parker T. Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy.

Springfield, PA: PLC Publications, 1996.

14