LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

INCARNATION REVELATION:
BELOVED SON IN WILLING SUBMISSION

BY
JESSE WATKINS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. THESIS....................................................................................................................................iii
2. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
3. INCARNATION CONTROVERSY..........................................................................................2
1. ANCIENT OBJECTIONS...................................................................................................2
2. LATER OBJECTIONS........................................................................................................4
4. THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST......................................................................................7
1. BORN OF A WOMAN........................................................................................................7
2. IN THE FLESH OF A MAN...............................................................................................8
5. THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE SON....................................................................................9
1. CHRIST BELOW................................................................................................................9
2. ETERNALLY BELOVED.................................................................................................12
6. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................13
7. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................15

ii

THESIS:
The Incarnation reveals the Son of God who was an equal person with the Father that willingly
submitted in obedience to show humanity the depth of the Fathers love.

iii

INTRODUCTION
Inherent within the debate about the Trinity is the understanding of the Incarnation.
These two doctrines are inextricably linked together, because what is known about the Son has
been revealed to humanity through the person of Jesus Christ. John 1:14 says, And the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (KJV) This means that God entered into the depths of
humanity by becoming a man. Most denominations or sectarian groups throughout history have
affirmed that God became man, but what is surprising is how much the interpretation of this can
differ. The Jehovahs Witnesses claim that Jesus was a god, who is not equal with the Father.
The Mormons claim that Jesus was a god that was also brothers with Lucifer, and that anyone
who lives perfectly can become a god as well. Oneness Pentecostals claim that Jesus is the only
God. Modalists claim that Jesus was simply the Father who took the temporary role of the Son
during the Incarnation, thereby rejecting the historical doctrine of the Trinity. And most recently,
Joel Osteens wife said that Jesus did not become God until the Holy Spirit descended upon him
at his baptism. It seems that one of the prime roots for heresy concerns how one views the
Trinity and the Incarnation. Furthermore, pastors and theologians throughout the centuries have
affirmed that understanding the Trinity as revealed in the Incarnation is the locus of
understanding Gods redemptive work that has been accomplished on the Cross. Dietrich
Bonhoeffer eloquently states In Jesus Christ the reality of God entered into the reality of this
world.1 This paper will seek to affirm that the reality of the Incarnation reveals the Son of God
who was an equal person with the Father that willingly submitted in obedience to show humanity
the depth of the Fathers love.

1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge, trans. Neville Horton Smith (1955; reproduced., New York:
Macmillan Publishing, 1979), 194

INCARNATION CONTROVERSY
From the onset, there are philosophical and theological dilemmas with the Incarnation.
One of the central aspects of God is his immutability. The New International Dictionary of the
Bible says that immutability is The perfection of God by which he is devoid of all change in
essence, attributes, consciousness, will, and promises. No change is possible in God, because all
change must be to better or worse, and God is absolute perfection.2 However, doesnt the
Incarnation claim the opposite? The Incarnation claims the transcendent God became the
descendent God. The formless became form. The timeless entered time. The omniscient (allknowing) became limited. The omnipresent became individual. The creator became the created.
But instead of affirming the mystery of the Incarnation, throughout history man has tried to
explain the unity of the God-man in some a way that conforms to humanist logic.
ANCIENT OBJECTIONS
When pondering the Incarnation, one begins to ask such questions as: How can God be
infinite and finite at the same time? How can God be omniscient, but then become limited in the
capacity of a human? And furthermore, if Jesus is Gods Son, then how can he be God? The
controversies about the Incarnation have seemed to revolve around Gods immutability. Though
scholars assume that documents such as the Gospel of John were written to confront
Christological heresies, there is not much information detailing what these heresies were.
However, by the 2nd century the church was dealing with the Marcionites and Manicheans, who
said that Christ was an imaginary human being; that he only appeared to be a human being but
did not in fact assume flesh or suffer. Johannes Oecolampadius would conclude that It seems

2 Merrill C. Tenney and J. D. Douglas, eds., New International Bible Dictionary: Based on the NIV (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1987), 463.

quite shameful to them that God should be said to be both a human being and God.3 A century
later, one of the most famous debates in the early church spawned the need for the council of
Nicea. In 325 AD, the church needed to confront the teachings of Arius who claimed that the
Son was lower than the Father, because the Son was a created being. It is interesting that that
issue of the Sons subordination to the Father is still a highly debated facet within evangelical
scholarship today. He claimed that even though the Son created all things, there was once when
he was not.4 The Council of Nicea5 which was convened by Constantine produced the Creed
of Nicea, affirming that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father... begotten and not
made.6

Later in the 4th century after Nicea, the church had to respond to another type of

heresy by Appolinarius, who maintained that while God the Son did assume a true and full
human body at the Incarnation, the same could not be said about a full and true human mind.
Thus, in an attempt to solve the mystery of the Incarnation, Appollinarius conclusion actually
denied that Jesus was fully human.7 During the fifth century, Nestorius attempted to solve the
mystery of the Incarnation by positing that the second person of the Trinity was joined to a true
and full human inside Marys womb, but the human attributes and experiences of Jesus Christ
should be ascribed to a humanity that remains a subject distinct from God the Son.8 Although

Craig S. Farmer, ed., RCOS: John 1-12 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014) 29.

Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 28.

Tradition holds that St. Nicholas of Myra was in attendance at the council of Nicea, and he became so
disgusted with Arius that he slapped Arius in front of the whole council floor. "Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa
Claus Punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?" Roger Pearse. Last modified February 28, 2015. http://www.rogerpearse.com/weblog/2015/02/28/did-st-nicholas-of-myra-santa-claus-punch-arius-at-the-council-of-nicaea/commentpage-1/.
6

Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 29.

John C. Clark and Marcus P. Johnson, The Incarnation of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 33.

Ibid, 34.
3

the council of Nicea stated that Jesus was fully God and fully human, it did not describe how
these two states functioned together. Later in the fifth century, Eutyches claimed that the person
of Jesus could only have one true nature. He said that the divine nature of Jesus swallowed the
human nature, leaving Christ with only a divine nature.9 He agreed that Jesus Christ was fully
divine, but then contended that the human nature of Jesus was absorbed into the divine nature,
like a drop into the ocean. Eutyches attempted to solve the mystery of the Incarnation by
claiming that Jesus only had one true nature, but this denies that Jesus was God in flesh. The
problem with this is that when Jesus died on the Cross, it was not his flesh that was pierced, or
his flesh that received that wrath poured out on the sinfulness of man. Without the human
nature, he did not suffer as a human nor fully enter into the condition of flesh to identify and
redeem humanity. In response to Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism, the Church
produced the Definition of Chalcedon in 451, which says that Christ is made known in two
natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.10
LATER OBJECTIONS
After the production of such Creeds from Nicea, Chalcedon, and Constantinople, the
church had formulated its orthodox confession of Christ being of the same substance of the
Father, and in the full flesh of humanity. But there continued to be those who opposed the
creedal doctrine of the Incarnation. In the 16th century, a self-proclaimed prophet by the name
of Michael Servetus began rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation by publishing
books which were in opposition to the creeds of the church. The church considered these
doctrines so serious that it was a capital offense to oppose them. Servetus claimed that Jesus was
9

Ibid, 35.

10

Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 61.

4

the Son of the eternal God, but not the eternal Son of God. John Calvin responds to his doctrine
by saying, Christ is the only Son, the only-begotten of the Father. The future tense [he shall be
called the Son of the Most High] is tortured by that filthy dog Servetus to prove that Christ is
not the eternal Son of God but began to be considered so when he took our flesh on himself
But on the contrary, I take it that the words of the angel mean nothing more than that he, who had
been the Son of God from eternity, would be manifested as such in the flesh, for to be called
denotes clear knowledge.11 Later, Servetus was burned at the stake after being declared a
heretic. The message is clear that the church would not tolerate such heresy against the Trinity.
In more recent times, the debates about the Trinity among evangelical scholars has not
focused on the divinity of Christ, but rather about the functions of the three persons within the
economy of the Trinity. The view that there is an inherent authority structure among the persons
of the Trinity has been labeled by Millard Erickson as gradationism. Gradationism, which is
advocated by such theologians as Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, says that the Father is in the
supreme position of authority, and that the essence of the Son contains an inherent subordination
to the Father. The problem that Millard Erickson sees with this is that it advocates a form of
Arianism which states that the Son really is lesser to the Father, because subordination means
that he is not equal to the Father. Erickson notes the problem with this view; If authority over
the Son is an essential attribute of the Father, and subordination to the Father is an essential
attribute of the Son, then something significant follows. Authority is part of the Fathers essence,
and subordination is part of the Sons essence, and each attribute is not part of the essence of the
other person. That means that the essence of the Son is different from the essence of the

11

Beth Kreitzer, ed., RCOS: Luke (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015), 18.
5

Father. But this is equivalent to saying that they are not homoousious [of the same substance]
with one another. On face value, there seems to be an internal contradiction in this doctrine.12
The gradationists have tried to use the subordination of the Son to prove or justify the
subordination of a wife to a husband. However, Erickson concludes that they have read their
presuppositions about subordination from a husband and wife into the texts about the Trinity.
This issue will be discussed in the section on the equality of the Son with the Father.
Orthodoxy claims that the Son cannot change, because the Son is immutable like the
Father. The doctrine of subordination is tied with the belief that if the Son was subordinate on
earth, then he must have always been subordinate to the Father in eternity. However, the nature
of the Incarnation implies that by God taking on flesh, God is encountering something that God
has never encountered before. He is becoming limited in flesh in a way that that he has never
experienced a limitation before. The latter parts of this paper will show that because God the
Son took on flesh, he was assuming a conditional status of limitation and subordination to the
Father which he had never known before. It is because of the vulnerability of the flesh which
Jesus put on that shows the implications that the doctrine of subordination was attached to his
earthly work in the person of Christ and his mission as Savior, and not an eternal condition in his
economy of the Trinity.

12 Millard J Erickson, Who's Tampering with the Trinity? (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Academic &
Professional, 2009), Kindle, loc 1673.

THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST

Jurgen Moltmann says that the Holy Spirit is God in creation.13 This was true in the
Old Testament, as the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the water. Seeing that the Biblical
record testifies to this, and also that Colossians 1:16 says that in [Christ Jesus] all things were
created, then that means that Jesus is creation in God, or rather the unification of God and
creation. He is the physical God of creation. He is the tangible God, which can be touched with
human hands. This section will focus on the fully human nature of Jesus Christ which God had
never before encountered in eternity, and will ask the question: Did the Incarnation allow God to
change? In order for humans to be engrafted into the relationship of the Trinity, Gods Son had
to experience something that he never experienced before. This began in the womb of a virgin.
BORN OF A WOMAN
Elizabeth Gandolfo says that the essence of understanding the Incarnation begins by
realizing the inherent vulnerability which Jesus entered into by becoming not only a human, but
an embryo. She says, When divine love enters into the human condition in the Incarnation,
there is no supernatural exemption from the perils of existence.14 Even though Gods sovereign
hand was upon his selection of Mary, once Jesus entered the womb of a woman, Jesus gave up
his ability to control his own circumstance. Within a few hours, the cellular structure of his
existence began to change, multiply, grow, and expand. God was experiencing change. This is
the mystery of the Incarnation. Not just that God put on flesh, but that God entered into a
condition that was transient. The Incarnation is God becoming susceptible to change, to a
13 D.K. McKimm, Doctrine of Creation, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 2001), 305.
14 Elizabeth O. Gandolfo, "A Truly Human Incarnation: Recovering a Place for Nativity in Contemporary
Christology," Theology Today 70, no. 4 (January 2014): 386.

modification so that the souls who are saved become a part of his own being. Souls are the
product of creation. They are the product of matter. In order for these mortals to become one
with God, God had to become first One with mortality. God had to become finite. It is not
enough just to say that God put on finite flesh, but his actual nature changed in the hypostatic
union. It was conjoined with limitation; something that God had never experienced.
IN THE FLESH OF A MAN
Something different and new occured in the Incarnation. Gandolfo continues, The new thing
that God does occurs through flesh, through material, through time and space. The Incarnation is
the locus of the new covenant with man.15 When Jesus became a baby, he surrendered his
autonomy and freedom by allowing a human being to care for him. Before he was a human, he
as God was invulnerable. But if invulnerability is not able to be penetrated by the constraints of
human existence, then Jesus would not be the High Priest who intercedes on behalf of his people.
Far from infinite and boundless, invulnerability cannot encompass all goodness because it lacks
the fragility of human goodness.16 While her choice of words may not appropriately relate that
God was perfectly good before the Incarnation, it seems that Gandolfo is advocating that the
Incarnation is the natural expression of a fully good God, who is not absent from the perils of his
creation but rather fully present with the experience of creation. The Incarnation was a necessary
component for God to be known as Savior. The Incarnation implies that God-self would become
subject to change, and even pain. As Millard Erickson states, The Triune God knew that the
Second Person would come to earth and be subject to numerous evils.17

15

Gandolfo, A Truly Human Incarnation, 385.

16

Ibid, 388.

17

Millard J Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2013), 401.
8

THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE SON

Scripture testifies that when Jesus Christ was on earth, he came not to do his own will,
but that of the Father. Does this mean that the Son of God never had his own will? Does this
mean that in the economy of the God-head, the Son waits for the Father to operate, and then
responds as a passive entity? Wayne Grudem states that God the Father planned
redemption...while the Son obeyed the Father and accomplished redemption for us.18 This view
seems to distract from the internal council of the God-head, as if one person of the Trinity can
command something which the others didnt conceive. In order for one to understand properly
what the Incarnation revealed, it will be necessary to examine the status of the Son within the
economy of the Trinity.
CHRIST BELOW
The gradationist views advocates that within the persons of the Trinity there is an
intrinsic authority structure. This approach is basically taken from the relationship of a Father
and Son on earth, that a Son does not have equal authority with his Father. Grudem details the
nature of this by saying, The Father directs and has authority over the Son, and the Son obeys
and is responsive to the directions of the Father.19 The logic is that if the Son was subordinate
to the will of the Father while here on earth, then the Son must always be subordinate to the
Father. Gradationists will argue from Hebrews 13:8 that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and
today and forever. (NIV) Grudem says that if the Son could also have equal authority as the
Father, then there would be no ontological difference between the persons of the Trinity. There

18

Wayne A Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994)249.
19

Ibid.
9

essence would be the same. This leads him to believe that If the Father also submitted to the
authority of the Son, it would destroy the Trinity because there would be no Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, but only Person A, Person A, and Person A.20 Millard Erickson responds to this
theory by saying The Father and Son must be understood as possessing equal authority, if they
are to be considered fully divine.21 If what Grudem says is true, then the Son does not have the
same capability as the Father, and he is not the same essence as the Father. Gradationism
presents a God who is in control (the Father) and a God who is not in control (the Son). These
are not equal beings; they are not equal Gods. But not only is the obedience of the Son to the
will of the Father proof for the gradationist view, but Bruce Ware suggests that scripture also
testifies to an inherent authority structure within the Trinity. Ware considers that the repeated use
of the name Father for the first person of the Trinity is definite evidence of an authority structure
inherent within the Trinity. 22 However, the series of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not always
listed the same way in scripture.
Those who are opposed to the gradationist view, called equivalentists, find other places in
scripture which show that subordination to the Father was a temporary position which the Son
assumed during his divine mission as Messiah. Gilbert Bilezikian points to verses such as
Hebrews 5:8 to demonstrate that subordination to the Father was a new condition which the Son
entered into: Even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he
suffered. (NLT). Bilezekian concludes The fact that he learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8)
indicates that it was something new in his experience as Son. Obedience was not a mark of his

20

Ibid, 433.

21

Millard Erickson, Whos Tampering with the Trinity, loc 52.

22

Ibid, loc 334.

10

eternal relation to the Father.23 Philippians 2:6 and 7 also demonstrates that subordination was a
role that the Son entered into upon his earthly ministry, rather than being an essence of his
eternal nature. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to
be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a
servant, being made in human likeness. (NIV) A few things are important to note here. First, if
he was not equal to the authority of the Father, then he would not have to consider equality. It
was because he was equal in authority and essence that he submitted himself. Second, it says
that he made himself nothing. It does not say that the Father made him nothing, but that Jesus
himself made himself nothing. He humbled himself by taking the nature of a servant. If his
nature had always included subordination to the Father, then this would not be a new role that he
would assume in the Incarnation. But the scripture makes clear that this was a new form that he
took - someone who voluntarily entered under the will of the Father. Bilezekian continues,
[The Incarnation] was a voluntary act. He was not forced to become a servant; he chose to do
so. It was not because he was number two in the Trinity and his boss told him to do so or he
would be demoted.24 Paul K. Jewett concludes that the servant role of Christ was not an eternal
essence of the Son, but rather an assumed role: The subordination of the Son to the Father is not
an ontological subordination in the eternal Godhead, but a voluntary act of self-humiliation on
the part of the son in the economy of redemption. As God, the Son is equal with his Father,
though as Messiah he has assumed a servant role and become subordinate to his Father.25 So if
the Incarnation does not reveal a subordinate Son, what does it reveal?
Gilbert Bilezekian, "Hermeneutical Bugee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 65.
23

24

Ibid, 59.

25

Paul K Jewett, Man As Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 105.
11

ETERNALLY BELOVED
Gradationists would believe that the role of the Son in the redemptive work of Messiah
was simply the ontological follow through of an authority structure which has always existed.
They would use this to justify the authority structure of a husband and wife, whereas they would
say that a wife is lesser than the husband; as in she is not equal in authority of the husband.
Bilezekian responds that It is much more appropriate, and theologically accurate, to speak of
Christs self-humiliation rather than his subordination. No one subordinated him, and he was
originally subordinated to no one.26 Bilezekian believes that Philippians 2:7 also shows that
there was no eternal authority structure within the Trinity: The form of a servant was something
new for him. Being in the form of a servant was not at eternal condition. He took it up. He
became obedient unto death. Prior to the Incarnation there had been no need for him to be
obedient since he was equal with God.27
If subordination was not the motivation of the Incarnation, then what was? John 17:24
sheds light on Jesus motivation, Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I
am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation
of the world. (NIV) Millard, Bilezekian, and Jewett have already demonstrated that the Son is
fully equal in power, authority, and essence with the Father. Therefore, the Son then, is not
someone who is under the eternal authority of the Father, but rather the Son is the being who is
under the eternal love of the Father. From this it can be derived that the willing subjection of the
Son happened not because of an authority structure inherent within the Trinity, but because of the
love which has been lavished upon the Son for eternity. The love of the Father was the
26

Bilezekian, Hermeneutical Bungee Jumping, 59.

27

Ibid, 60.
12

motivation for the obedience of the Son in Hebrews 12:2 Because of the joy awaiting him, he
endured the cross, disregarding its shame. (NLT) The person of Jesus reveals that the love of
the Father compels obedience, willing submission, and responsive love. The Incarnation reveals
a love so powerful from the Father that Jesus joyfully entered the depths of humanity all the way
to the point of obedience on the Cross. Within the economy of the Trinity, the currency is not
authority but rather love. God the Father is the one who has eternally given the love, and God
the Son is the one who has eternally been known as the beloved. Even though Jesus as the
Incarnate Son subjected himself to the will of the Father, this does not exclude his ability to have
authority. Indeed he says in Matthew 28:18 - All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me. (NIV) The temporary subordination of the Son had no ability to eliminate his
equal position with the Father that he had known forever.
CONCLUSION
The mystery of the Incarnation is not only that God has the ability of entering human
flesh, but that God became susceptible to mutability; meaning that he entered a new form
materially as a baby and a new form existentially as a servant. This new form united God into
creation and creation into God, so that mortal souls could be engrafted into the Son who has been
loved by the Father since all eternity. John Clark pronounces that In Christ, God gives us a
share in the very life and love that the Son and the Father have always known.28
The gradationists have tried to use the subordination of the Son to prove or justify the
subordination of a wife to a husband. But submission is not a quality, or an essence, as Grudem
would believe. Biblical submission of one to another is because humans are equal beings, and

28

John C. Clark and Marcus P. Johnson, The Incarnation of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015)58.
13

we are called to submit as witnesses for Christ. The Son is fully equal with the Father. He has
all authority, just as the Father. But it was his choice to submit because he has been so loved by
the Father. For all of eternity, the Father has lavished his love upon the Son, and the Son has
been the recipient of that love. It is because of the love that has been lavished upon him that he
joyfully submits. In the same way, a wife submits not because she is of lower function, but
because she is the recipient of love from the husband. The Incarnation reveals that obedience is
not an essence but a choice. Obedience is the result of being the beloved of the Father. The Son
chooses to submit to the will of the Father. In the divine economy, it is not subordination that is
an essential quality of the Son, but rather willing submission. If subordination is a necessary
component of the Son, the he has no other choice than to follow the Fathers will. But because
God the Son is an ontologically free being, like the Father, the redemption was accomplished in
that the Son chooses to submit to the authority of the Father. This revelation is the locus of
eternal life. It is the realization that the Son is so loved by the Father, the joyful work of the
Cross was to engraft humanity into that knowledge by redeeming humanity from the curse of sin,
and liberating believers into the Spirit of your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba,
Father. (Romans 8:15, NIV) Donald Fairbairn summarizes the revelation of the Incarnation:
Jesus is not saying eternal life is something that he will give us. He is not saying that because
of what he has done, or what he will do or we will do that we get x, y, or z while living forever in
heaven. Eternal life is knowing Christ and his Father, God. At the heart of the central idea of
Christianity lies the reality that Christians will know the Father and the Son.29 The Incarnation
was God coming into creation so that creation could come into the joyful love of God.

29

Ibid, 58.
14

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bilezekian, Gilbert. "Hermeneutical Bugee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead." Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 55-67.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Edited by Eberhard Bethge. Translated by Neville H. Smith. New
York: Macmillan, 1955.
Clark, John C., and Marcus P. Johnson. The Incarnation of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book
House, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2013.
Erickson, Millard J. Who's Tampering with the Trinity?: An Assessment of the Subordination
Debate. Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2009. Kindle.
Farmer, Craig S., ed. Reformation Commentary on Scripture: John 1-12. Downers Grove: IVP
Academic, 2014.
Gandolfo, E. O. "A Truly Human Incarnation: Recovering a Place for Nativity in Contemporary
Christology." Theology Today 70, no. 4 (2014): 382-393. doi:
10.1177/0040573613506734.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Jewett, Paul King. Man As Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a
Theological Point of View. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Kreitzer, Beth, ed. Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Luke. Downers Grove: IVP
Academic, 2015.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought, Rev. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Pearse, Roger. "Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa Claus Punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea? at
Roger Pearse." Roger Pearse. Last modified February 28, 2015. http://www.rogerpearse.com/weblog/2015/02/28/did-st-nicholas-of-myra-santa-claus-punch-arius-at-thecouncil-of-nicaea/comment-page-1/.
Tenney, Merrill C., and J. D. Douglas, eds. New International Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1987.
15