__________________
A Research Paper
Presented to
Dr. Timothy Paul Jones
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 28700WW – CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
__________________
by
JonChristopher Alan Collins
jcollins580.students.sbts.edu
July 17, 2023
*I affirm the honor code.
INTRODUCTION
The deity of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine of the faith. Christ’s deity has faced attacks throughout history. While it is still opposed today, one of the earliest attacks on the divinity of Jesus rose in the form of Arianism. This paper will examine Arianism and provide a robust defense against it. Christianity stands or falls on the deity of Jesus. Arianism is an invalid doctrine of the past and present.
This paper’s methodology consists of a look at historical Arianism, modern day Arianism, and a rebuttal of both. This will all come from scholarly books and journals as well as primary sources.
Historical Arianism
The preface to the Orations of S. Athanasius Against The Arians provides an excellent starting point for grasping Arianism. It cites words tacked onto the Nicene Council symbol. “The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son was not; and that He did not exist before He was born; and that He was made of what did not exist; or that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence from the Father, or that He was created, or is variable and changeable.”[1] Athanasius provides most of the original dialogue surrounding historical Arianism.
Athanasius cites Thalia, a work by Arius. He explains that Arius holds views which do not align with orthodoxy; basically, according to Arius, there was a time when God was not known as father. The ancient heretic asserts that Jesus, the Son of God, “had not always a being, for, as all other creatures were made out of nothing, so likewise was the Word of God; and there was a time when He was not; nor had He any being till He was created.”[2]
Historical Arianism: How Well Does the Son Know His Father?
Where Christians would understand John 1 to teach that Jesus was and is the Word and that he is God, Arius holds a far different view. Athanasius states that Arius understands God to have an additional Word. “In like manner, he makes out that there is another Word in the Godhead besides the Son, by partaking of which, the Son, through grace and favour, becomes the Word of God and the Son.”[3]
The ancient Christian apologist goes on to explain one of the clear implications Arius’ beliefs promotes is “that the Father is invisible to the Son, and that the Son is incapable of a true and perfect knowledge of the Father. When the Son is said to know and behold Him, it is only meant that He does so as far as He has the capacity to do so, just as we imperfectly apprehend Him.”[4]
This assertion appears to hold serious problems for Christians. If Jesus truly is incapable of a complete and genuine knowledge of God the Father, then it seems Jesus can not truly have even a special relationship with the Father. Even if one wanted to argue that Jesus has a special relationship with the Father that humanity does not have, this line of thinking appears to have a glaring issue.
The issue is that even if it is maintained that Jesus has such a relationship that humans do not enjoy, he is still like humans in one critical way. Even if he knows more about the creator than humans, it still would not be impressive. Arianism paints a Jesus who knows more about the creator than humans do but not everything. Focus will turn to Arius himself.
What Arius Said:
What we Know Despite a Lack of Surviving Sources
According to The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, Arius does not have many surviving works apart from a few fragments of his own writing in the form of letters, and aside from this, what’s known of the doctrine of Arius comes from Athanasius and letters penned by others who stood in support of Arius.[5] So, granted, combating Arianism might be a suspicious effort to some, but there’s plenty of material to engage with. Maurice Wiles starts his In Defence of Arius article by stating that abuse of an opponent is indicative of a weak argument.[6] While this is not the whole of Wiles’ work, refuting Arianism does not require bashing Arius.
In a letter he wrote to Eusebius, Arius complains of Arianism not receiving a warm welcome but instead falling victim to resistance. After this, he states the following:
But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.[7]
Arius admits to having a view outside that of orthodox Christianity. Another ancient letter renders readers with a glimpse of Arian theology. It’s a letter by another Arian, Auxentius of Durostorum.
The letter is in regard to a missionary named Ulfilas, yet another adherent to Arianism. Speaking of the missionary, the letter says that he did not hide that, “according to the authority and tradition of the Holy scriptures,” Jesus existed by the Father, after the Father, for the Father, and for the glory of the Father.” The letter actual refers to Jesus as a “second God” and labels God the Father as “a greater God.”[8]
Biblically, there are serious issues with this theology. Again, John 1 is crucial here. In his commentary The Gospel according to John, D.A. Carson states that John begins his Gospel account further back than the life and ministry of Jesus, than his birth, and even creation itself. “The account must reach back to the eternal, divine Word, God’s agent in creation and the fount of life and light.”[9] To anyone who would argue that this does not denote the very beginning, Carson has a different view.
“Both in Genesis and here, the context shows that the beginning is absolute: the beginning of all things, the beginning of the universe.” He goes on to dive into the Greek. According to D.A. Carson, beginning has a meaning of origin. Since, the maker of all things must exist before creation, he concludes “that the Word enjoyed this role, it was inevitable that at the origin of everything he already was.” He refers to Arius directly, stating, “Stretch our imagination backward as we will, we can find no point in time where we may agree with Arius, who, speaking of the Word, said, ‘There was once when he was not.’”[10]
This is yet another strike against Arianism. The doctrine is incompatible with orthodox beliefs. It seems as though the only way to make it compatible is to play semantic games, games which have no place in this arena. If what Carson asserts is true, the word beginning is indeed absolute, not allowing for a later point in time to define it. Arianism plays with the meaning of “beginning” to allow the word to mean something it does not.
It is like saying a child is with their parents in the beginning; in this case, assume that beginning refers to the beginning of the child’s life. This is simply unbiblical. The notion that the Son of God can be created, still be called God, still be said to be in the beginning, but not truly exist from eternity into eternity appears to ignore exegetical work. Another Bible reference must come under examination.
Colossians
Colossians 1:15 states that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (ESV). Zeroing in on the word “firstborn” may seem to reveal an endorsement of Arianism. Careful study is needed.
Douglas Moo acknowledges the issue of the word and the possibility of aligning with Arius because of the translation. However, Moo does not end there. He explains that although the word is “often used in the literal sense of the first to come from the womb,” the word can, in fact, have “a metaphorical significance based on the ancient attribution of preeminence to the first to be born.”[11]
In this sense, it seems better to understand the text as saying that the Son is over creation, not that the Son was born or created. This reading also fits more naturally with the rest of the passage in Colossians 1:16-17. “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (ESV). From this, it should not be a stretch to see the connection between that section and verse 15. The verses proceeding verse 15 speak of Jesus Christ creating all things. He cannot truly be said to have created everything if he was created.
Furthermore, not only is Christ the creator, but Christ also truly created everything whether it is in the physical realm or the spiritual one. Again, this statement would be false if Jesus were created. Time will now be taken to interact more with Athanasius; more must be said about historical Arianism before considering the modern iteration of such theology.
More From Athanasius
Athanasius suggests that holding to false doctrine about Jesus Christ taints one’s clarity on other critical topics. The apologist said of Arius, “For how can he discourse about the Father who denies the Son, since it is from the Son we derive knowledge of the Father? How can he have right opinions about the Holy Spirit who thus impiously speaks against the Son, by whom the Holy Spirit is given to us?”[12] In other words, a false Christ is a false faith.
This is yet another reason Arianism ought to be rejected. A created Christ is no Christ at all; a created Christ cannot be an object of real faith. Thus, a Christ that is created is one that cannot save.
Athanasius contrasts this with the Christ of true Christianity. “We assert that the Son is naturally and essentially the Son of the Father, of the same substance with Him, His Only-begotten Wisdom, the true and only Word of God; that He was not made nor created, but begotten of one substance with the Father. Therefore, we say that He is true God, being of one substance with God the Father.”[13]
This is the difference between the doctrine of Christianity and the doctrine of Arius. The Son is truly the son of the Father, but Jesus was not created. He is equal with God the Father. This is not an argument for two deities. It is an affirmation of one. Athanasius dives into just how different this is from Orthodoxy, and it demonstrates the implications this thinking has for God the Father.
More From Athanasius: The Identity of God the Father
Athanasius explains that Arianism means “God was not always a Father, but afterwards became so. The Son did not always exist, nor had He any being until He was begotten. He does not owe His being to the Father, but He was produced out of nothing.”[14] This is crucial.
It would appear that attached to Arianism is a belief in a mutable deity. This does not necessarily mean God changes in power, but God’s identity certainly seems unstable. It is unreasonable to believe that the unchanging God of the Bible changes. It is unreasonable to hold that the unchanging God that believers love changed in terms of relation because the Son came into existence at a later point. It would seem as though the Father’s identity shifts.
More From Athanasius: Appeal to Ancient Deity Worship
Athanasius proceeds to make an appeal to the worship of ancient deities. He briefly explores the question of how the ancient people would react if told that their deities were less than they believed. “For would anyone, Greek or Barbarian, who worshipped any god, venture to say He was one of His own creatures, and had no being till He was made? Would anyone who believes his own existence disbelieve God Himself when He asserts that such a one is His Beloved Son (S. Matt. 17:5), and say instead that He is not His Son, but only one of His creatures?”[15]
This is a good argument in the sense that like the apostle Paul in the book of Acts, Athanasius appeals to culture to support his point. In summary, the apologist is pointing out that even people of the faiths he is referring to would not worship a deity who claimed to be a creation and a god simultaneously. As he states in the above quote, would believers look to God who calls Jesus the Son only to claim the Son was created?
His citation of Matthew brings into focus an interesting issue. At the transfiguration in Matthew 17, God the Father proclaims that Jesus is his “beloved son” (Matt 17: 5 CSB). Only two responses to this seem possible. Hearers can either take God at his word or modify what he meant. Modifying God’s words would seem equal to rejecting his words.
Athanasius’ response to claiming Christ is a creature gives no quarter to Arian theology. “It cannot but follow that all mankind are indignant with this ridiculous nonsense, which is so extremely unintelligible. Besides, there is no foundation for such doctrines in Holy Scripture. As has been shown before, and as shall be shown again, Holy Scripture gives them no warrant at all.”[16]
Athanasius: Jesus Christ the Son of God in the Book of Revelation
The ancient apologist bolsters his argument against Arianism by gazing at the triumphant return of Christ. “And in the Book of the Revelation he says of Him, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come” (Rev 1:4). And who is there who dares to deny that these words refer to His eternity.”[17] In the mind of Athanasius, this is a clear example of the eternality of the carpenter God-man.
Taking a step further into Revelation, Jesus declares the following Revelation 22:12-13. “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (ESV).
Earlier in Revelation, Father God uses this title of himself. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1:8 ESV). If Jesus is not truly God, it seems suspicious that he would apply a title to himself used of God the Father. One more aspect of Jesus in Revelation must be examined.
Jesus Christ receives worship in the book of Revelation. This too would be problematic if Jesus was not God in the flesh. In Revelation 5, the Lamb, who is Jesus, takes the scroll when no one is found worthy to break the seals. In verse 6, John describes the Lamb had the appearance of one who was killed. In verses 8 and following, readers are presented with a picture of this Lamb receiving worship. Verse 8 begins by saying that once he took the sealed scroll, “the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying” (ESV).
If that was not evidence enough, the chapter moves forward with descriptions of the Lamb being worthy to do as he did with the scroll. The last two songs sang of Jesus are even more explicit; even angels sing his praise. John describes “the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” declaring praise. He writes that they said, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (Rev 5:9-12 ESV).
Yet another example is further support that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, receives worship. He silences nobody and neither does God the Father. Picking up in verse 13 and following, the text states that John heard “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them” openly worship the Lamb. He records that they said, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” Verse 14 ends by saying that “the elders fell down and worshiped” (ESV).
It cannot be overstated. The text describes the Lamb as unapologetically receiving worship. Not only that, but this is occurring in a cosmic situation. Now, attention must focus on Jesus as God in a monotheistic Jewish context.
Jesus Identifies Himself as God to a Monotheistic People
Additionally, if the Son is created, as Arianism suggests, it ought to trouble readers that a created being would align himself with the Father in this way. The Jews of Jesus’ day sought to stone him for something similar. In John 8, the Jews asked to Jesus, how he saw Abraham despite his age. Jesus said, “I say to you, before Abraham was, I am,” and the text goes on stating that they were going to stone Jesus Christ (Jn 8:57-59 ESV).
Again, if Jesus were not the true God, a statement like the above is a serious problem. The reaction the Jews had was not passive or accepting. The statement Jesus uttered was a real offense to the Jews. It does not look like there is any possible way for Arianism to address this.
The reason this seems so is simple. Deuteronomy 6:4-5 puts Arianism in a seemingly unsolvable puzzle. It states, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (ESV). So, there is one God. Jews worship one God.
Earlier in the Bible, God himself makes it clear that there is only one God, and he is the only one to worship. It’s written in Exodus that, “(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God) (Ex 34:14 ESV). The prophet Isaiah records an assertion of monotheism too.
Isaiah 42:8 quotes God the Father saying, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols” (ESV). David Payne and John Goldingay comment on the significance of the verse. “People are inclined to give honour and praise to other gods and images. In combination, ‘another’ recalls the command in Exod 34:14 regarding the worship of ‘another god’, and the plural ‘images’ recalls the command in Exod 20:3 regarding ‘other gods’ (†Kim, pp. 186–89, 201–3).”[18]
At this point, the apostle Thomas has not been considered. In the Gospel of John chapter 20 and verse 28, Thomas is recorded calling Jesus his Lord and God. This verse alone raises a serious question. Knowing Thomas knows that there is only one God, one may ask why he calls Jesus his God.
J. H. Bernard states that when Thomas actually saw Jesus, he did not go through with investigating whether or not Jesus was actually there. Bernard makes note of the confession of the apostle made. The scholar notes that Thomas went above calling Jesus his Lord because he understood Jesus Christ was “his Lord in a deeper sense than he had understood before; he may henceforth be called ὁ θεός μου. This, indeed (as the Jewish ecclesiastics had vaguely suspected, 5:18), was involved in the claims that Jesus had made for Himself, but He had not expressed them so explicitly.”[19]
The above examples present a conundrum for Arianism because, as shown earlier, it supposes Jesus to be a second deity. Logically, affirming the existence of and worshipping another God would be an inconsistency for Christians and Jews.
The Trinity as an Apologetic Against Arianism
The solution, it would appear, is the doctrine of the Trinity whereby Christians hold to one God who exists in three persons. Keeping in mind the commitment to the Trinity, historical quotations support the Trinity and thus refute Arianism eloquently. Writing about heresies, Gregory of Nazianzus said, “We would keep equally far from the confusion of Sabellius and from the division of Arius, which are evils diametrically opposed, yet equal in their wickedness.”[20] Gregory also maintained the Trinity.
He declares that “For to us there is but One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things; and One Holy Ghost” and continues by saying that these different names are not indicative of different or separate natures but that “they characterize the personalities of a nature which is one and unconfused.”[21]
Gregory later asserts that Father God is “Unoriginate” in that there’s no source that brought him into being. While he says the same of the Son, he adds that “He is of the Father.” The apologist clarifies his position by saying that “if you take the word Origin in a temporal sense, He too is Unoriginate, for He is the Maker of Time, and is not subject to Time.”[22] Gregory affirms that the Son is outside of time by nature of being the maker. It is reasonable to assert that if Jesus made all things, then time has no hold on the Son. If God the Son made all that’s seen and unseen, time must fall under the created category. Therefore, Jesus Christ cannot correctly be viewed as a creation because creations exist in time. As Gregory argues, the Son exists outside of the constraints of time.
Cyril of Jerusalem also provides words by which Arianism is exposed. Cyril confronted the same false teachings that Gregory did. Writing of Cyril, Edwin Hamilton Gifford said, the loudest heresies of Cyril’s day were that of “Sabellianism and Arianism,” and that one of them tried muddling the persons of the Triune God while the other heresy was aimed at “dividing the substance” of the divine Trinity.[23]
Cyril argues that the Christian faith “is indivisible; the worship inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some (that is the Arians); nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion.” Referring to the words of Jesus, he tethers his argument to the Son of God’s words. ““He says not, I am the Father, but the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father. And again He said not, I and the Father am one, but, I and the Father are One, that we should neither separate them, nor make a confusion of Son-Father.”[24] The message is clear. Arianism is heresy.
The Bible and early Christianity stands in solid disagreement with the claims of Arianism. Prior to moving on to address modern Arianism, one more point ought to be considered in contending against the heresy.
God’s Sovereignty as an Apologetic Against Arianism
It seems well within reason to view God’s sovereignty as a built-in apologetic defense against Arianism. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of God’s eternal decree by asserting that “GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”[25]
The confession, and the above portion especially, backs up a strong understanding of the God’s sovereignty. Proverbs 16:9 speaks to God’s sovereignty. “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps” (ESV).
Proverbs 19:21 also proclaims God’s sovereign will. “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand” (ESV). Crawford H. Toy comments on this.
Toy states that there’s a contrast at work. “The absolutely wise and sure divine purpose in the government of the affairs of men is contrasted with the diversity and uncertainty of human plans; cf. 16:1, 9, 33; 20:24; 3:6.”[26] Psalm 115:3 illustrates just how much control God has.
It says that “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (ESV). This is a powerful acknowledgement of where God is and who God is. He does all that pleases him and does not ask for permission because he is the one true and living God. Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs observe God’s sovereignty as depicted in this verse.
Writing about Psalm 115:3 they said, “His divine sovereign will knows no restrictions or restraints.”[27]Granted, these verses are not discussing Arianism or any heresy, but that is not the point. In the context of this research, the Westminster Confession and these verses could be a lens through which disciples of Jesus Christ, Christians all over the planet, view history. If God truly is more sovereign than humans can totally comprehend, it is not outside the realm of possibility and reason to suggest that part of God’s sovereign will was and is that Arianism and other heresies are exposed and rejected. Presumably, if Arianism were true, God’s decree would have it remain. Arianism was rejected and has remained heretical. Therefore, it was God’s will that it was revealed and rejected as such.
Excursus: On Modern Day Arianism
While Arianism has and continues to be recognized as heresy, it persists among cults. Cults seem to still draw people in, so it is necessary to address the heretical sources of today. For the purpose of this paper, the Jehovah’s Witness belief about Jesus is contemplated.
Bruce Metzger does not attack any heresy first; instead, he recognizes some of the good in the Jehovah’s Witness organization while pointing out what seems like the central problem in their hermeneutics. He points out that “their diligence in searching the Scriptures (albeit to seek support for a prearranged system) puts to shame the indifferent ignorance of the Bible which characterizes a large number of professed Christians.”[28]
This diligent effort is honorable, but this does not validate their theological conclusion. “According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Metzger explains, “Christ before his earthly life was a spirit-creature named Michael, the first of God’s creation, through whom God made the other created things.”[29] So, it is Arian theology with a twist, a new flavor.
Metzger tells readers that this modern version of an old heresy imagines a Jesus born on Earth minus the belief that he is God incarnate. Jehovah’s Witness doctrine promotes a Jesus who, Metzger writes, “became a perfect human being, the equal of Adam prior to the Fall. In his death Jesus’ human nature, being sacrificed, was annihilated. As a reward for his sacrificial obedience God gave him a divine, spirit nature.”[30]
So, in this theology, Jesus has been demoted from the true God to a perfected creature. He simply became perfect. In a sense, this does not sound different from the perfection believers will enjoy after death. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation gives readers an account of John 1 that makes Jesus sound less than what he is as the Word of God. This translation renders John 1:1 to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”[31]
Of course, this does not match historical Christianity, but it does echo Arianism. Rather than correctly recognize Jesus as God, the New World Translation labels Jesus as just another God; in reality the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes Jesus a creature. One implication from this that is obvious is that if Jesus is a creature, his sacrifice seems void of power.
Metzger sees this issue and writes of Jesus from this theological perspective. “While he was on earth he was nothing more than a man, and therefore the atoning effect of his death can have no more significance than that of a perfect human being.”[32] Put another way, the sacrifice on the cross is ineffective and powerless if Jesus is who Jehovah’s Witnesses say he is.
Of interest is how Metzger also cites the confession of Thomas. He states that, “If Jesus were not truly divine as God is divine, Thomas erred seriously in thus adoring him as God. Furthermore, if his Apostle had been in error, it is passing strange that Jesus made no effort to correct him.”[33] Metzger agrees that if Jesus is not divine, the statement from the apostle is a massive error. It cannot be emphasized enough that Jesus did not correct his disciple.
Finally, reference will be made to another point Metzger makes. He points to a passage that Arians of old and Jehovah’s Witnesses use. They often translate Proverbs 8:22 to say, “Jehovah made me [that is, Wisdom, interpreted as the Son] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old,” but Metzger said that according to another scholar, it needs to be translated “The LORD begat me as the beginning of his way.”[34]
Ultimately, the choice that arises as a result of investigating this matter is whether or not readers will take Jesus at his word. Metzger sums it up poignantly by asserting that the claims of being one with God the Father is but “the epitome of the constant claim of Jesus,” and that if this claim from Jesus is true, he is indeed the true God. If it is a false claim, the scholar states that it leaves only the options of Jesus being a deceiver or delusional.[35]
Conclusion
The research shows that Arianism, in its historical and modern iterations, is inconsistent and incompatible with Christianity. The divinity of Jesus Christ is essential and necessary. It must be a true divinity, not a lesser version bestowed upon Jesus. For historical Christianity to be true, Jesus must be true God. For Christianity to be true and acceptable to the ancient Jewish Christians, Christ cannot be a lesser, second God but must be the one true and living God. For the cosmic return and triumph of Jesus to make sense, he must be just as divine as the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Arianism is or ever was true, God would have sovereignly decreed it so. In actuality, it was rejected as heresy, and God has continued to direct Christians to reject heresies in favor of embracing the truth.
I have written this paper exclusively for 28700WW. If I received any editing or proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style manuals.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abogado, Jannel N. “The Anti-Arian Theology of the Council of Nicea of 325.” Angelicum 94, no. 2 (2017): 255–86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26506514.
Athanasius. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians. The Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature. London: G. Farran 1893.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: An approach to fourth-century trinitarian theology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Alan Hugh McNeile. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’ Sons, 1929.
Bird, Michael F. How God Became Jesus : The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature–A Response to Bart Ehrman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
Brennecke, Hanns Christof, “Arianism”, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, General Editor David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Consulted online on 19 June 2023 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000280>First published online: 2018.
Brennecke, Hanns Christof (1999). “Arianism”. In Fahlbusch, Erwin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 121–122. ISBN 0-8028-2413-7.
Briggs, Charles A. and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press 2003. ISBN 978-0-19-972712-4.
Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God : The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee First ed. New York, NY: HarperOne 2014.
Geffert, Bryn, and Theofanis G Stavrou. Eastern Orthodox Christianity : The Essential Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2016. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=2.++3.+Geffert%2C+Bryn%2C+and+Theofanis+G+Stavrou.+2016.+Eastern+Orthodox+Christianity+%3A+The+Essential+Texts.+&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true.
Gifford, Edward Hamilton. “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894.
Gilliam, Paul R. “Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language,” Volume 140. Leiden: Brill. 2017. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=au%3D%22Gilliam%2C%20Paul%20R%22%20AND%20au%3D%22III%22&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true&subformat=Book%3A%3Abook_digital&changedFacet=format&groupVariantRecords=false.
Goldingay, John, and David Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Gruss, Edmond C., and Jay Hess. “Is It Proper to Worship Jesus? : Examining a Jehovah’s Witness Doctrine.” Christian Research Journal 23 (4): 22–25. 2001. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=33h&AN=413132.
jw.org. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition). Accessed July 13, 2023. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/#v4300100.
Hanson, R P C (Richard Patrick Crosland) Bp. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 318-381. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001644761.
Haas, Christopher. “The Arians of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 47, no. 3 (1993): 234–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/1583805.
Metzger, Bruce Manning. “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10, (1) (1953): 65–85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000654784.
Moo J., Douglas. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008.
Nazianzen, Gregory. “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894.
Pollard, T. E. “THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM.” The Journal of Theological Studies 9, no. 1 (1958): 103–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23953621.
Toy, Crawford Howell. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899.
Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851.
Wiles, Maurice. Archetypal Heresy : Arianism through the Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=5.+Wiles%2C+Maurice.+1996.+Archetypal+Heresy+%3A+Arianism+through+the+Centuries.+Oxford%3A+Clarendon+Press&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true.
[1] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden, & Welsh, 1893), 8.
[2] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 15.
[3] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 15.
[4] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 16.
[5] R P C, Hanson (Richard Patrick Crosland), The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy. (Bp. 2005), 318-381. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001644761.
[6] Maurice Wiles, “IN DEFENCE OF ARIUS.” The Journal of Theological Studies 13, no. 2 (1962): 339–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23961211.
[7] EDWARD PETERS, ed. “Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,” University of Pennsylvania Press. 1980. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fh8qt. 41.
[8] Web server. Accessed June 27, 2023. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html.
[9] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 113.
[10] Carson, John, 114.
[11] Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008), 119.
[12] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 17.
[13] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 18.
[14] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 19.
[15] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 20.
[16] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 20.
[17] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 21.
[18] John Goldingay and David Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 230–231.
[19] J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Alan Hugh McNeile, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’ Sons, 1929), 683.
[20] Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 356.
[21] Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, 356.
[22] Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, 356.
[23] Edward Hamilton Gifford, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), xlviii.
[24] Gifford, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second, xlviii.
[25] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26.
[26] Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 378.
[27] Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907), 394.
[28] Bruce Manning Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10 (1): (1953): 65–85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000654784.
[29] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[30] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[31] jw.org, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition). Accessed July 13, 2023, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/#v43001001
[32] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[33] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[34] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[35] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.
[KD1]Use the full name the first time you mention someone in the paper. After that, use only the last name.
JonChristopher Collins 