(Author: Bob Pratico; submitted originally on June 20, 2022 at Southern Seminary)

Introduction
The Swiss theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar warned in a penetrating analysis in 1982 that “Our situation today shows that beauty demands for itself at least as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness, and she will not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance.”1 From the perspective of a progressively tumultuous culture forty years later, he was indeed prophetic as beauty, truth and goodness are increasingly scarce commodities. The ancient philosophers viewed beauty, truth, and goodness as transcendentals meaning timeless, universal realities that exist beyond the space-time cosmos. Roman Catholic theologian John-Mark Miravalle affirms that “truth, goodness, and beauty get the most attention of any of the transcendentals and the most emphasis on their relationship.”2 Plato speaks of beauty and goodness as having a “most real and absolute existence.”3 In his Symposium, he characterizes beauty as “not relative or changing, but eternal and absolute; not bounded by this world, or in or out of this world, but an aspect of the divine.”4 But what exactly is beauty? Why does beauty exist? The importance and mystery surrounding beauty is highlighted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western philosophy, and is—with the nature of art—one of the two fundamental issues in the history of philosophical aesthetics. Beauty has traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth, and justice. It is a primary theme among ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and medieval philosophers, and was central to eighteenth and nineteenth-century thought.5

The enigma of beauty probably explains its minimal use in contemporary apologetic arguments. Hans Balthasar opines on the difficulty of theologizing on beauty, “Beauty is the last thing which the thinking intellect dares to approach, since only it dances as an uncontained splendor around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.”6 Philip Tallon points out that beauty “has rarely been the main theme of any major modern theologian’s or philosopher’s thought.”7 He encourages us to “scale the walls and at least briefly visit the gilded ghetto into which beauty and her daughters have been quarantined.”8 Also known as the Argument From Aesthetics, the Argument From Beauty is not part of the classical arguments per se although it is sometimes classified under the teleological argument. Evans and Manis write in Philosophy Of Religion that, “The person who finds the teleological argument convincing experiences nature as an orderly, purposeful reality where the good and beauty which are realized are no accident.”9 While not currently prevalent, the Argument From Beauty is a sleeping giant, that once awakened and properly unleashed, gleams powerful truth.

Douglas Groothuis (PhD and a BS from the University of Oregon, and an MA in philosophy from the University of Wisconsin–Madison) is a well-known, respected Christian philosopher and apologist at Denver Seminary and visiting instructor in apologetics for Westminster Theological Seminary. In 2022, he published the Second Edition of his massive Christian Apologetics adding a new chapter entitled “The Argument From Beauty”. That short chapter (eleven pages) serves as an good introduction to the Argument From Beauty. I shall argue from historical and contemporary views as well as theological analysis and exegesis of the Scripture that his method, while sound, serves only as an introduction and must be further developed as he asserts that (1) beauty is objective, (2) beauty is evidence of the existence of God, and (3) beauty is a gift from an omnibenevolent God. Opposing views will be presented and addressed, and concluding recommendations provided.

Beauty Is Objective
Is beauty subjective or objective? The answer to that question is regarded by some philosophers as the “single most-prosecuted disagreement in the literature”.10 The popular conception of course is that beauty is subjective “in the eye of the beholder.” However, philosopher Arlyn Culwick argued in 2019 that the ancient transcendentals are objectively real and not just mind-dependent.11

Groothuis points out that aesthetic nihilism is hardly conducive to human flourishing and is the inevitable result of prevailing views like “‘different strokes for different folks’ or ‘one man’s masterpiece is another man’s common place’ or ‘whatever floats your boat.’”12 He clarifies that aesthetic relativism (or nonrealism) is an absurdity because it renders all judgements of beauty ultimately meaningless.13 Groothuis presents some arguments for the objectivity of beauty. He uses the example of a room at the objective temperature of 71 degrees Farenheit where one person feels hot and another feels cold; that each person has a different reaction does not negate the fact the room has an objective temperature. He cites C.S. Lewis’ argument for objective value in The Abolition Of Man. His best argument is his reference to God as the “archetype of beauty”.14 For Groothuis, “the beauty we find is explained by God himself, the ultimate artist.”15 He remarks that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the divine Beholder: God.”16 However, while he quotes Jonathan Edwards (“God . . . is the foundation and fountain of all being and all beauty”17), Groothuis falls just short of the strongest possible argument for the objectivity of beauty by not explicitly grounding beauty in God as one of his specific attributes.

Scripture declares that beauty is an attribute of the Triune God, “One thing I have asked from the Lord, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the Lord” (Ps 27:4). As an attribute of God, beauty is objective. It is God himself who defines beauty and graciously endows humans with his own capacity to appreciate what is aesthetically pleasing. Tallon quotes Plantinga’s well-known “Mozart Argument” in support of the objectivity of beauty, “On the theistic view, God recognizes beauty; indeed, it is deeply involved in his very nature. To grasp the beauty of a Mozart’s D Minor piano concerto is to grasp something that is objectively there; it is to appreciate what is objectively worthy of appreciation.”18

While the Christian worldview understands beauty is objective because it is ultimately grounded in the Triune God, naturalism has no transcendent ground for beauty. Beauty therefore becomes not only necessarily subjective, but is ultimately a meaningless concept. How does one account for beauty that has no evolutionary benefit? Groothuis rightly observes, “But objective beauty, like objective morality, ill fits a naturalistic account of reality.”19 Similarly, beauty cannot be accounted for in a pantheistic worldview, “But for the pantheist, there is no Artist behind the art. The sign, thus, signifies nothing.”20 Tallon argues that subjectivist accounts of aesthetic judgment suffer from problems of coherence, “Subjectivists hold that aesthetic judgments do not refer to properties in the thing itself, but to internal states caused by experience of the thing.”21 Tallon goes on to quote Israeli philosopher Eddy Zemach (PhD from Yale) as affirming that “relativism in aesthetics is self-contradictory.”22 Zemach importantly concludes that the burden of proof is on those who deny the objectivity of beauty.23 Tallon also includes in his chapter a fascinating section entitled “Some Problems Of Beauty, Reconsidered As Strengths” wherein he argues that differences of opinion on beauty are actually supported and best understood within a Christian worldview.24 He notes, “Perception of truth and goodness is essential to sound aesthetic judgment.”25

But how then do we account for the differences of opinion if beauty is truly objective? Virtually all would agree that the rings of Saturn, a rainbow, a total solar eclipse, a delicate rose, the Himalayas, and a spectacular sunset are all objectively beautiful. But what about something like the Johnny Cash song “Folsom Prison Blues”? Some would proclaim it beautiful, others are ambivalent and still others are repulsed by it. How do we explain that? We must be careful to distinguish between personal preference and the objective value inherent in something. Think of a salad bar, where different preferences do not invalidate the objective nutritional value of each item on the bar. A very young child may think a cheap toy doll is more beautiful than a solid gold necklace, but that does not affect the objective inherent beauty of each item. Years later, as an adult, the same person will undoubtedly regard the necklace as more beautiful. Our taste for beauty changes as we mature and are exposed to various facets of God’s marvelously beautiful creation.

The answer to differences of opinion on beauty is the incredible diversity with which God gifts creation and his moral creatures. Evan Minton helps us here by emphasizing we need to distinguish between musical taste and objectively good music; i.e., we can recognize when music that we may not care for is poorly executed.26 Groothuis reminds us that “While it is real, beauty is not completely analyzable according to materialistic categories – that is in the language of natural science.”27 In other words, there is something other-worldly about beauty that defies logical deductive analysis.

Charles Hodge writes “If a man does not perceive the beauty of a work of art, or of a literary production, it is no solution of the fact to say that he has no inclination for such forms of beauty. Why is it that what is beautiful in itself, and in the judgement of competent judges, is without form or comeliness in his eyes?”28 He goes on to attribute the inability to appreciate beauty as a direct consequence of sin, which would explain many “differences of opinion” with respect to objective beauty. When Christ frees someone from their bondage to sin and they subsequently walk in the renewing and regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, there is a growing awareness of transcendent beauty. When my older sister was near death from terminal cancer in 2000, I remember taking her out on a lake in a boat. As we rowed around, she fixated on a duck swimming near us and suddenly exclaimed how incredibly beautiful it was. To me, it was just a duck; for her newly-redeemed eyes, it was majestic awe-inspiring beauty. The norm for a Christian is growing appreciation and awe for the beauty of creation. Our aesthetic discernment sharpens as we mature in Christ.

If beauty is objective, where do we draw the line on when beauty ceases to exist? That can be difficult to answer. When the Supreme Court wrestled with a 1964 obscenity case, Justice Potter Stewart could not define obscenity and instead offered this now-famous assessment, “I know it when I see it.” The same can be said of when beauty no longer exists. You and I may disagree on the beauty of a piece of music or art, but if I’m operating within a Christian worldview, there comes a point when I recognize that beauty no longer exists. The degree of beauty that something or someone exhibits is directly proportional to the degree they reflect the beauty of the Triune God. As creatures in space-time that are focused on the material aspect, we must also remember that God views beauty differently than us; there is often an immaterial aspect to beauty of which we may not be cognizant of (1 Pet 3:3-4; 2 Cor 4:16; Phil 4:8; 1 Sam 16:7; Ecc 3:11). It is important to recognize that because of common grace, even unbelievers are capable of great beauty. God can be glorified in anyone that he chooses. God is a God of peace and order (1 Cor 14:43) and disorder and violence are symptoms that beauty has been compromised.

Beauty Is Evidence Of The Existence Of God
In the second century, Aristides of Athens opened his apology with these words, “I, O King, by the grace of God came into this world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God.”29 Athanasius similarly comments that the beauty of creatures points to an infinitely greater beauty of their maker.30

Groothuis argues that beauty is unquestionably evidence for the existence of God. In its simplest form, his argument is “all that needs to be claimed for the argument for God from beauty is that beauty exists objectively, mind-independently, and cannot be reduced to physical properties.”31 He relates the experience of a Russian PhD student in the 1980s in the atheistic USSR who was so moved “with the beauty of some mathematical equations about the universe that he was moved from atheism to theism” and ultimately believed in the Triune God.32

Beauty in creation reflects the beautiful creator God. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology writes of “evidence of a beauty to which nothing but want of taste can render one insensible”, thereby classifying beauty as part of God’s universal general revelation which renders to all men knowledge of the existence of God.33 He goes on later to elaborate that “beauty is a revelation to our aesthetic intuitions; and ‘eternal verities,’ when intuitively perceived, are said to be revealed.”, making the point that beauty has the power to reveal eternal truth.34 Tallon commenting on Psalm 19:1 (The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims his handiwork) remarks, “It is a natural inference to move from the beautiful design of creation to the hand of a designer.”35 He goes on to quote Athenagoras and Basil the Great in support of his position. Richard Swinburne argues for the power of incorporating beauty into the teleological argument, “The strength of the argument from the universe and its spatial and temporal order to God is increased when we take into account the beauty of the universe.”36

Groothuis offers his own logical deductive argument for beauty.37 His argument from beauty to theism involves two steps. First, objective beauty exists in contrast to aesthetic relativism or nonrealism. Second, God is the best explanation for objective beauty.

1. Objective beauty is found in various forms in both creation and culture.
2. God (monotheism) explains the existence of beauty by viewing God as the ultimate Artist.
3. Therefore: the existence of God gives the best explanation of this beauty. We can then argue that the Christian concept of God adds the following:
4. Christian theism adds a dimension of beauty—principally through (a) its worldview and (b) the incarnation—not found in other forms of theism.
5. Therefore, Christian theism offers the best explanation of beauty.
   In contrast, Evan Minton offers a simpler, and I believe more effective, logical syllogism, mirroring the first steps of Groothuis:38
   1: If God does not exist, objective beauty and human perception of it would not exist.
   2: Objective beauty and human perception of it does exist.
   3: Therefore, God exists.

Minton adequately defends each of his premises and counters the objections that atheists have raised against his argument. He does a credible job of defending the premises in his argument and concludes, “the arguments here are merely that if you take God out of the picture, affirmation of objective beauty and perception of it become unintelligible.”39

In comparison, there is the incredibly concise inductive three-sentence argument (their other nineteen arguments occupy multiple pages each) of Kreeft and Tacelli in their “Argument from Aesthetic Experience” in Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God, “There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. You either see this one or you don’t.”40 Tallon however, criticizes this succint argument as leaving the reader with the assumption that “in the realm of the aesthetic, rational persuasion is well-nigh impossible.”41 Tallon then goes on to argue in a more in-depth manner than Groothuis that beauty is a deeply significant feature of created life and finds its deepest fulfillment and best explanation in the Triune God. He relates his personal observation in a number of debates that beauty troubles many atheists who seem willing to grant it “prima facie evidential power”. A potent example he provides is that of atheist Paul Draper who does indeed accept that beauty is evidence for God, but thinks that it is dwarfed by the evidential problem of evil.42 Tallon concludes, “the argument from beauty has a persistent persuasive power that remains when more traditional arguments for God’s existence falter in the mind.”43

Beauty Is A Gift From An Omnibenevolent God
Groothuis is clear that God gifted mankind with the ability to create beauty. Saying “humans are artists and artisans by design”, he focuses on the building of the OT tabernacle as an example, requiring all manner of skill.44 Calvin is explicit that the beauty displayed in the world is maintained by the Holy Spirit, affirming it as a divine gift.45 Anselm agrees writing that God “maintains his own condition in the universe, and the beauty of the universe itself.”46 Augustine wrote in The City Of God, “Beauty is indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked.”47 Charles Hodge writes that “Only creatures with an aesthetic nature can have the perception of beauty or deformity”, affirming that God gifted humans with the gift to discern beauty.48 John Frame writes “And of course, as with all other attributes, God’s beauty serves as a norm for ours”, confirming that the source of beauty is God himself which he graciously shares with us.49

Beauty is unquestionably a transcendental gift from a good God. There is a close correlation between beauty and goodness that the church fathers recognized. In Gen 1:31, God executes a declaration of “very good” on his beautiful creation. Thomas Aquinas equated beauty and goodness in his Summa Theologica writing, “Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally.”50 Calvin refers to the “beauty of goodness”.51 Anselm writes that “beauty is reckoned to be good.”52 The NT uses two basic Greek words for “good” – agathos and kalos. Both are often used synonymously and usually translated as “good” in English translations. However, Richards points out that “the aspect of beauty found in goodness and revealed in the Greek language is often lost in our English translations.”53

Created in the image of God, man is gifted with the ability to create great beauty whether it be in music, art, architecture or any other medium. Mirroring his Creator, there seems to be no end to the incredible variety of beauty that man is capable of – i.e., note the earlier reference by Groothuis to mathematical equations of such beauty that an atheist was led to believe. I am a collector of fine mechanical watches, as opposed to electronic watches which are cheaply and rapidly produced in mass quantity. These mechanical watches sometimes require more than a year just to produce the tiny parts that comprise it, and must then be hand-assembled by a single highly-skilled master watchmaker. One of my watches was 30 years in development before production even began. The intricate beauty of a mechanical watch mechanism is stunning. The time-keeping accuracy of a mechanical device that is engineered from tiny springs, gears, jewels, and wheels is astonishing. Two of my mechanical watches achieve an accuracy of +-3 seconds/month which is equivalent to someone manually pacing a mile and ending up within less than 2 inches of an actual mile. These instruments represent exceptional engineering beauty created by someone in the image of God, someone gifted with the ability to create great beauty.

Conclusions
Groothuis is to be commended for including in the second edition of his book an apologetic argument that is not widely prevalent today. His chapter serves as a good introduction; it will hopefully inspire apologists to dive deeper into the Argument From Beauty and incorporate it into their defense of the faith. However, while he comes close, he does not explicitly ground beauty as a transcendent attribute of God.

Beauty is an objective and indispensable part of general revelation. God gifted the appreciation of aesthetic values to humans; the enormous variety of “tastes” for beauty speaks to the incredible diversity God implanted in creation and his moral creatures. Sin however, can mar one’s awareness of and appreciation for beauty. In contrast, the redeemed in Christ experience a growing sense of awe and appreciation for the virtue of beauty.

The transcendental virtues of truth, goodness and beauty are grounded in the Triune God and interconnected. Groothuis does not develop the correlation between truth, goodness and beauty in his chapter. Truth is good and beautiful, goodness is beautiful and true, and beauty is true and good. Cornelius Van Til explicitly declares in The Defense Of The Faith, “The principles of truth, goodness, and beauty are to be thought of as identical with God’s being; they are the attributes of God.”54 Stephen Wellum similarly affirms, “”Christ as universal Logos is the source of truth, beauty and goodness.”55 Frame notes in a footnote to his Systematic Theology that “Thomas Aquinas equated Being and Truth, developing his equation between God and Being. For him, being, unity, truth, beauty, and goodness are all ultimately the same, both in God and in the creation. These are the ‘transcendental’ concepts that frequently enter his theology.”56 Scripture paints a close relationship between beauty, truth and goodness. Miravalle writes, “beauty is the same thing as goodness and that both are the same as truth.”57 He draws a distinction between the three as to which faculty is engaged, “When we engage reality through the clear abstract of the intellect, we talk about reality as true. When reality is the target of our will, we pursue it as a good. And when reality enthralls not only our minds and wills, but also our senses and feelings, we call it beautiful.”58 The church fathers recognized the connection between truth and beauty with Ambrose speaking of the “beauty of divine truth.”59
God is good (Ps 107:1), God is truth (John 14:6), and God is beautiful (Isa 28:5). All three of these transcendental virtues are grounded in the very nature of the Triune God. They are divine attributes of the eternal Triune God.

Finally, while I suspect the Argument From Beauty will be minimally useful in convincing unbelievers (although its impact on some atheists is noteworthy), I think it can be used to good effect to unmask their willful suppression of truth (Rom 1:18). Hans Balthasar warns, “We no longer dare to believe in beauty and we make of it a mere appearance in order the more easily to dispose of it.”60 Miravalle sounds a clarion call to action for us, “the pursuit and promotion of beauty is a crucial aspect of the Christian moral life.”61 May we heed him.

1 Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory Of The Lord, A Theological Aesthetics, Vol 1: Seeing The Form, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982), 180, Kindle
2 John-Mark L. Miravalle, Beauty, What It Is And Why It Matters, (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press), 2019, 32, Kindle
3 Plato, Phaedo, Ancient Greek Philosophers, (San Diego: Canterbury Classics), 2018, 311, Kindle
4 Plato, Symposium, Ancient Greek Philosophers, (San Diego: Canterbury Classics), 2018, 141, Kindle
5 Sartwell, Crispin, “Beauty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/beauty/
6 Balthasar, The Glory Of The Lord, 18, Kindle
7 Philip Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, The Plantinga Project, Jerry L. Walls & Trent Dougherty, ed, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2018, 321, Kindle
8 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 322, Kindle
9C. Stephen Evans & R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy Of Religion, Second Edition, Thinking About Faith, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic), 2009, 99, Kindle
10 Sartwell, https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=beauty
11 Arlyn Culwick, The Reality of the Transcendentals, 2019, 7, https://www.academia.edu/40308057/The_Reality_of_the_Transcendentals
12 Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, Second Edition, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic), 2022, 259, Kindle
13 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 259, Kindle
14 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 263-264, Kindle
15 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 265, Kindle
16 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 265, Kindle
17 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 256, Kindle
18 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 325, Kindle
19 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 264, Kindle
20 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 265, Kindle
21 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 328, Kindle
22 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 329, Kindle
23 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 329, Kindle
24 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 330-334, Kindle
25 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 333, Kindle
26 Evan Minton, The Beauty Argument For God’s Existence, 2020, https://cerebralfaith.net/the-beauty-argument-for-gods-existence/
27 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 264, Kindle
28 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Ravenio Books, 2014, 15171, Kindle
29 Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, translated from the Syriac version by D.M. Kay, B.Sc., B.D., http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html
30 Athanasius, Against The Heathen, The Complete Works of Saint Athanasius, (Toronto, Canada: Public Domain), 2016, 44, Kindle
31 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 264, Kindle
32 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 262-263, Kindle
33 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 882, Kindle
34 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2927, Kindle
35 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 323, Kindle
36 Richard Swinburne, The Existence Of God, Second Edition, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2004, 190
37 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 257, Kindle
38 Minton, The Beauty Argument For God’s Existence
39 Minton, The Beauty Argument For God’s Existence
40 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetic, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press), 1994, 914, Kindle
41 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 322, Kindle
42 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 322-323, Kindle
43 Tallon, Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments For God, 323, Kindle
44 Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 255, Kindle
45 John Calvin, The Institutes Of The Christian Religion, (London: Bonham Norton), 2010, 70, Kindle
46 Anselm, The Sacred Writings of Anselm, (Altenmunster, Germany: Jazzybee Verlag), 2012, 136, Kindle
47 Augustine, City Of God, Book 15, The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers, (Toronto, Canada: Public Domain), 2016, 3368, Kindle
48 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 13779, Kindle
49 John Frame, Systematic Theology, An Introduction To Christian Belief, (New Jersey: P&R Publishing Company), 2013, 253, Kindle
50 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, (Claremont, CA: Coyote Canyon Press), 2010, I. Q. 5, Art. 4, Reply Obj 1, Kindle
51 Calvin, The Institutes Of The Christian Religion, 30, Kindle
52 Anselm, The Sacred Writings of Anselm, 42, Kindle
53 Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary Of Bible Words, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), 1985, 109
54 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense Of The Faith, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co), 1955, 12
55 Stephen J. Wellum, God The Son Incarnate, The Doctrine Of Christ, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), 2016, 271, Kindle
56 Frame, Systematic Theology, 1150, Kindle
57 Miravalle, Beauty, What It Is And Why It Matters, 32, Kindle
58 Miravalle, Beauty, What It Is And Why It Matters, 33, Kindle
59 Ambrose, (Philip Schaff editor), On The Holy Spirit, The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers, (Toronto, Canada: Public Domain), 2016, 338, Kindle
60 Balthasar, The Glory Of The Lord, 180, Kindle
61 Miravalle, Beauty, What It Is And Why It Matters, 10, Kindle