A Problem of Suffering

Automne, France (trekearth)

June 30, 2012

A homecare worker arrives at this condo this morning and my Mom answers the door downstairs. I often do this for her as my Mom is disabled and deaf, even though I live upstairs, but I slept in this morning. I hear the worker state paraphrased, 'Are you alone today, is your grandson not here'?

At a restaurant a few years ago a waitress asked if I was taking grandma out.

June 27, 2012

Introduction

Listening to philosopher Gary Habermas online from time to time on his website, one of the interesting things he states and I am paraphrasing is that theistic disbelief and objections, and therefore it can be deduced, disbelief in and objections to Christianity are often primarily from negative emotional reactions to suffering, life and to concepts of God.

Gary Habermas

Granted there are philosophers and like that do have philosophical differences with theism and Christianity and I have read several of them, especially in United Kingdom theses work. I do fully admit that some skeptical and atheistic authors do make some reasonable and good critiques within the theodicy and problem of evil debate. They are often cited on this blog.

Critics

I was reading an academic advice column connected to one of professional associations I am connected to and some persons that studied to a PhD level with evangelical training were now pondering on skepticism and atheism as more likely worldview options than Christianity. Having studied Reformed Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, and atheism in the context of theodicy and problem of evil from 1998 to 2010 I can somewhat understand someone arriving at those types of conclusions having read authors with similar views, but intellectually with my research the more I studied the more I became convinced a Reformed sovereignty theodicy and defence was the most reasonable explanation for the problem of evil, superior to the free will views and soul-making theory.

Besides not having the best explanations within the theodicy and problem of evil discussion I also thought that philosophically, skepticism, agnosticism and atheism failed to adequately deal with the issues of first cause and the problem of origins that would be larger than the problem of evil as they have to do with the basics of existence.

If somehow the Biblical record could be proven false, as in all of the prophets, apostles and scribes could be shown not be of supernatural origin, which I see no good evidence for, deism in my view would still be a more likely philosophical alternative than skepticism, agnosticism or atheism as at least the problems of first cause and origins would be reasonably dealt with.

First Cause

Deism

I have discussed deism previously on this blog and I will present again with edits:

My brief and former academic advisor David. A. Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that for deism God is present in his creation by his power and not in his being and nature. He has endowed creation with certain invariable laws that he oversees in general terms. Theissen (1956: 74). God has created creatures and left them under invariable laws to their own destiny. Thiessen (1956: 74). For Thiessen, the Christian world-view rejects deism because it accepts that God has revealed himself in creation through divine revelation, has providential control and does at times use miracles within his creation. Thiessen (1956: 75). For Thiessen, a deistic God is not much better than no God at all for humanity. Thiessen (1956: 75).

Thiessen has an reasonable point, if deistic approaches reject a God who intervenes within his creation, then it allows, practically speaking, for human beings to expect to have the same end in life as if there is no God. Wainwright deduces that God has ordained human happiness to all universally, but ultimately how happy can human existence be when physical death is the end result for every person? The meaning of life, human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated. People lose their consciousness and life accomplishments without everlasting life, and therefore life loses ultimate meaning and happiness does not result. The deist can speculate that God can and perhaps shall provide everlasting life and ultimate continual meaning for life, but this is merely speculation devoid of any historically grounded revelation from God.

Accepting that human nature is corrupt as described in Romans 1-3, it is very unlikely that the problem of evil would ever be solved but rather merely treated by humanity if deism is true (even if Romans was not considered divinely inspired the concept could still be correct). There would at no time be any solution for sin, death, and the problem of evil, since the infinite, omnipotent God would not interfere with his creation and regenerate and change individuals in order to eventually establish a Kingdom of God where the problem of evil does not exist. With a deistic universe seemingly sin, death, and the problem of evil continue to exist as long as humanity does. Deism seemingly does not offer any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.

There would be meaning to creation, but essentially only the creator would take lasting meaning from it.

God Wills and is Aware

In the Biblical book of Job, God as the first cause willingly allows evil for good purposes and with perfectly good motives it can be reasoned. Satanic beings and human beings will evil as secondary causes with wrong motives.

The same could be said of the historical crucifixion story of Christ. God wills the evil event with the perfectly good motives of atonement, resurrection and restoration for his people while satanic beings and persons that kill Christ have sinful motives.

It would seem that Biblically despite the very great suffering persons can suffer, God is aware of it and in fact in an ultimate cause but with good motives. Of course this is not to deny that human sinfulness can play a significant part in suffering as persons can cause suffering upon self and others. This often takes place, obviously.

A Christian theology therefore needs to understand reasonably well that God does participate in personal suffering, even though it does hurt extremely much at times.

Christians are to pray, fellowship, study and act for the good within the context of suffering and the problem of evil.

I conclude that a worldview, including religious, should primarily be determined by philosophical and theological evidences (Scripture being key) within reason, as opposed to being primarily determined from personal events and experiences.

Further:

This seems straightforward but in actuality is probably often quite difficult for many to accomplish. Grace through faith is required which leads to good works. (Ephesians 2). Another aspect of the problem of evil is problems related to suffering.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Cha Grande, Brazil (trekearth)

June 29, 2012

I just saw this story on the news. Stupid move by the coach...



June 29, 2012

Martial Arts 'foolery'












Photos by Saint Chucky Cheese I
Editing by Dr. RNM

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Monmouthshire, Hay on Wye, Wales (trekearth)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy

Theodicy, as an aspect of theology can as well be underdeveloped.[1] For this reason, within the Christian Church, I will review and explain free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy. The free will and sovereignty perspectives exist within a moderate conservative tradition, and soul-making within a progressive liberal one.[2] Within my survey propositions Christians from various theological perspectives will be provided concepts from three general perspectives and four authors[3] to promote better understanding of the problem of evil. This should assist questionnaire respondents to better explain their Christian faith and philosophy with those outside of the Christian Church.[4] I hope that my work can also provide some peace of mind to those suffering in this world of many evils. There is intellectual evidence that the Christian Church can still provide reasonable answers, and that intellectual progress has been made.[5]

Theodicy is a definite theological problem for Christianity and theism,[6] but Christians can be confident that it can be intellectually, adequately dealt with, in particular in my view, with an emphasis on the sovereignty of God.[7] I do not hold to free will theodicy, but reason that it presents a logical and reasonable case,[8] and that soul-making theodicy has some elements of truth within it.[9] As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God[10] is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation.[11] In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines[12] which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil,[13] and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation.[14] Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world,[15] I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring. Is this a weakness particular for theism? I reason not, in that atheists and critics such as Ferraiolo[16] will also not be able to fully explain evil and suffering in many cases, and therefore cannot conclusively intellectually deny that the infinite, omnipotent God can use occurrences of evil in creation for his good purposes.[17] Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case.[18] Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible[19] to work out theories concerning the problem of evil.

---

[1] Therefore, this type of project can still be valuable academically.

[2] This conservative/liberal distinction is not always clear-cut, as some concepts do overlap, and this shall be observed through the reviews.

[3] Augustine and Plantinga both write from a free will perspective.

[4] 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defence to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student are wise to have some knowledge concerning theodicy.

[5] Swinburne (1998: 13-20).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 375).

[7] Erlandson (1991: 1). Although objections to this idea are duly noted throughout this thesis.

[8] Peterson (1982: 204).

[9] This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

[10] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[11] Lindsley (2003: 3).

[12] Winquest (1987: 1).

[13] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[14] I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility.

[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Phillips (2005: 265).

[16] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

[17] The idea of God using evil for the greater good, without being evil in nature himself is central to sovereignty theodicy. This will be discussed in the context of gratuitous evil in Chapter Four.

[18] Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

[19] Thiessen from examining Scripture reasons that the evil acts of creatures are under the control of God. Thiessen (1956: 183). Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.Church of Orange County.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

Nicene Creed Second Lecture Notes & Dawkins/Dawson Posts

Castanar, de ibor, Spain (trekearth)

1. 1000+ pageview day satire and theology

My satire and theology blog has according to StatCounter and SiteMeter 1, 000+ pageviews today (June 3, 2012) because of many hits on the following two posts. Blogger has over 2800 pageviews listed as the amount.

Monday, May 19, 2008 Richard Dawkins versus Richard Dawson, sort of 

Monday, August 16, 2010 Richard Dawkins versus Richard Dawson, sort of (reprise)

I woke up this Sunday morning and was getting ready for church and checked my blogs as usual. I noticed many more than usual visitors on the satire blog via the Revolver Maps application. I then started examining some of the ISP addresses via StatCounter and SiteMeter and a few from a couple of locations came across as rather familiar. Perhaps a person or persons has been forwarding these posts on my behalf.

Chucky has noted in comments that Mr. Dawson has died. This is sad to read. Looking through my pageviews I think there has been a combination of searches and perhaps forwarding of my posts.


Campo, Spain (trekearth)

2. Nicene Creed Second Lecture Notes

The preparation for this lecture was only a week to as opposed to 1.5 months from God the Son section (previous post), and therefore this section will be far more simplified.

I gave this lecture more than once during the week.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets; and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;and we look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Breakdown of this section of the Creed with emphasis on God the Holy Spirit.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];

This section of the Creed proclaims the Holy Spirit as God, God the Holy Spirit here is stated as Lord. I noted in my God the Son lecture, Lord often being a replacement term for ‘God (YHWH)’ in both Testaments.

In traditional and ancient Western Theology, Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions the Holy Spirit is understood as proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

Proceeding from:

FILIOQUE-Pronounced FILLY O QUE or QAY (LATIN)

G.W. Bromiley states that the term ‘and from the Son' was not in the original 325 Nicene Creed or 381 Constantinople Creeds and was likely added to the Third Council of Toledo of 589. It was officially endorsed in 1017. Bromiley (1996: 415).

It did, in the minds of some historical commentators, in part, lead to a split between the Western and Eastern Churches with the Eastern Churches rejecting it. Split in 1054.

Both God the Father and God the Son sent the Holy Spirit in John 15: 26.

Bromiley further mentions that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ (Son in Galatians) in Romans 8: 9 and Galatians 4: 6 which both support the same idea.

From ‘New Advent and The Catholic Encylopedia’ online edited by Kevin Knight, they call it double procession from the Father whereas typically Eastern/Orthodox churches will hold to views that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. They express the view that this was as well confirmed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. Knight (2012).

Council of Toledo 589

Spain

Councils started at 400

At 589 the King and council supported the Filioque clause. 

Personally, I hold to the Protestant position, not primarily because I am Reformed but because of the Biblical text. I do not think this places Orthodox Eastern Christians in the category of cultic (outside of the faith) on this point.

But I do I think it is error.

Something to ponder on as in the ‘why I am Protestant category.’

who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all worshipped and glorified. Matt joked previously that some within the Church mistakenly call the Holy Spirit ‘It’, but this is very true.

Boice explains that the Spirit is a person because He has knowledge, feelings and will and this is what is stated of God the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Boice (1981: 376).

Boice further explains that the definition of the Holy Spirit as Counselor (Helper ESV) in John 14 from Christ is certainly that of one person describing another. Boice (1981: 376).

Following are some key examples where God the Holy Spirit is demonstrated as being fully God in glory as are the Father and Son.

We have noted that Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and Son is John 15.

The Holy Spirit as God is of course equally part of the Baptism formula at the ending of Matthew (28: 19).

Acts 2 and Pentecost we see the Holy Spirit is given to the Church along with manifestations in many Biblical cases.

The arrival of the Counselor as God the Son promised.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20: 22 post resurrection.

Acts 5 lying to the Holy Spirit equals lying to God. Ananias and Sapphira.

who spoke by the prophets; and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church;

Not the Roman Catholic Church in context which evolved in time, but the universal Church of the triune God in Christ that has been delivered through the Apostles of Christ such as Peter, John, James and Paul.

The Holy Spirit of course spoke through the Prophets, Apostles and Scribes in the development of the Old and New Testaments.

2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God.

we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

In regard to Baptism for the remission of sin, that is a complex issue that is sideline us and I am not going to go into detail on that this afternoon theologically. But, as far the Creed is concerned as can be seen from the Baptismal formula of Matthew 28, God the Holy Spirit is a divine partner in Biblical Baptism. That is the point for today in a discussion of the Holy Spirit.

In regard to the resurrection of the dead, that is of course another complex theological topic and resurrection is essential to orthodox, Biblical Christian faith. Christ’s resurrection is noted in the Gospels and the resurrection of those in Christ in the future (1 Corinthians 15) is Biblical.

Romans 8:11 states that the Spirit raised Christ from the dead and will also raise believers in the future.

Importantly this is a divine Holy Spirit.

Therefore in the world to come the Holy Spirit as fully God would fully play as part the Spirit of God appears in a creation context in Genesis 1. A simple deduction that this same type of work would take place in a future restoration/New Earth/New Heaven/New Universe.

What the Arians believed in brief.

These are related to modern views of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) and other groups less famous that are also Arian inspired.

As was discussed in the God the Son section the Arians reasoned that only God the Father could have the divine essence of God, that being infinite and eternal. So therefore not only would Jesus Christ be a created secondary ‘god’ within this false theology, but the Holy Spirit would become less than Almighty God.

The Spirit had to be created by this view.

Simply not as much is written historically about God the Holy Spirit from the Arian perspective as the focus of the debate was the deity of God the Son.

But Roman Catholic scholar:

Rev. Dr. B.B.M.J. Mackenzie-Hanson that according to the Arian heresy…

‘Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are not part of the same triune but are separate entities.’

Apologist Matt Slick presents the opinion that

‘Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.’

Further explanation on understanding the Holy Spirit.

As noted the Holy Spirit is creator. Noted in Genesis 1: 2.

The Holy Spirit gives prophecy and also inspires Scripture.

Reformed Theologian Erickson notes that the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament produced moral and spiritual qualities associated with holiness and goodness. Erickson (1994: 869-883).

Some Old Testament cases may have permanent but many others simply had the Holy Spirit for a designated time in order to fulfill the purposes of God. Erickson (1994: 869-883).

It is therefore should not be a theological surprise to see the Holy Spirit of God take a more complete ministry in the lives of those in the Christian Church in the New Testament era.

The Holy Spirit as we hear at Christmas time was central in the incarnation of Christ. Biblically this is seen in the Gospel’s incarnation renderings of Matthew and Luke.

The Holy Spirit is portrayed as being with Christ at his Baptism (descending dove) and Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1).

The ministry of Christ was conducted through the power of the Holy Spirit, including the miraculous.

Theologian Boice explains that an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit is to actually glorify God the Son. Boice (1981: 380-381).

The Spirit will guide believers in the truth and help them to be Christ-like. Boice (1981: 380-381).

So in a sense to glorify Christ.

In the believer, each is to be indwelled with the Holy Spirit and this would include spiritual illumination.

Being filled by the Holy Spirit is in my mind when God has more spiritual influence over a believer that is already indwelled.

Now the Holy Spirit is involved in the choosing of persons in election (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8) and certainly when one is born again as in John 3 the Holy Spirit of God is what makes a person ‘born again’.

Boice mentions that a Christ-like character is to be developed through the Holy Spirit. Boice (1981: 384).

The Holy Spirit is also an intercessor in prayers from believers to the triune God. Romans 8: 26-27.

There are gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Romans 12-Functions within the Church.

1 Corinthians 12-Spiritual abilities of persons via the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 4-Offices of Church

1 Peter 4-Functions within the Church.

No one person would have every spiritual gift or office, including the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians. The body of Christ is inter-dependent on many persons within.

Conclusion

I can fully agree with Erickson that based on Biblical evidence and theological reasoning God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, is an appropriate avenue by which to direct prayer as He is fully God. Erickson reasons this is just as valid as praying to the Father and the Son. Erickson (1994: 869-883).

One of my Theology professors at Trinity Western at the Seminary stated that although he was fully Trinitarian the Holy Spirit was not meant to be addressed primarily in prayer contrary to what Erickson just suggested.

Instead the prayer needed to take place through the Holy Spirit to God the Son as he is the mediator between God and humanity as Hebrews mentions.

Because God is of one substance and nature and therefore Christ was and is the fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2: 9), if one is a Trinitarian Christian and addresses a prayer to the Holy Spirit it will be understood by God the Father and God the Son as well. The prayer will be in Christ.

Bibliography (Week 5)

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Filioque’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HANSON, Rev./Dr. B.B.M.J. Mackenzie-Hanson (2005-2006), Arian/Arianism
http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/arianism.html
 
KNIGHT, KEVIN (2012) Filioque, New York, New Advent.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2012) Arianism, Nampa, Indiana, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

Bibliography (Week 3)

AQUINAS, SAINT THOMAS (1225-1274) Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, Html-formated Joseph Kenny, Dominican House.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Constantinople (381)’ Council of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BUCHSEL, HERMANN, MARTIN FRIEDRICH (1967) ‘BUCHSEL on μονογενης’ reproduced from Volume 4. of Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmands.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (1992) Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1549) ‘Hebrews’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 44, Translated by John King (1847-1850), Santa Cruz, Sacred texts.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HARRISON, E.F. (1996) ‘Only-Begotten’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2009) First Council of Constantinople, New York, New Advent.

MARLOWE, MICHAEL (2006) The Only Begotten Son, New Philadelphia, Ohio, Bible Researcher Website.

MCCOMISKEY, T. E. (1996) ‘God, Names of’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, JAMES (1915) ‘Only-Begotten’, General Editor, Grand Rapids, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

PACKER, J.I. (1993) ‘Incarnation God Sent His Son, To Save Us’ from Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs, New York, Tyndale House Publishers Inc.

STEIN, R.H. (1996) ‘Jesus Christ’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WALTER, V.L. WALTER (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.