Author Topic: Barton W. Stone  (Read 13805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Barton W. Stone
« on: Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 13:20:49 »
Did he not have an unorthodox view of the Trinity, or believe against the doctrine of the Trinity?  Was there other early RM folks who found this to be a grave disagreement?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Barton W. Stone
« on: Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 13:20:49 »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #1 on: Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 14:03:54 »
I think Stone held the almost 100% orthodox view of the "trinity." No one before the Lipscomb crew oozed out tritheism or polytheism did anyone one in history try to separate the internal nature of God into three persons in the modern meaninging of PEOPLE.

Reading the John discources of Jesus should never leave any doubt.  Stone may have had some differences in the meaning of SON but not the trinity. I have not read this for a spell but I see it as in agreement with all of the Restorationists I have read. Alexander had some bitter words for Calvin who used the word PERSON.  However, this may have been one of the rare cases where anyone made Calvin back down: he then used the "three aspects" of the One God.

http://www.piney.com/TrinityBStone.html

John Mark Hicks attributes the rise of a NEO-TRINITY to Lucado and Shelly. However, the best I can determined is a lelcture at FHU by H.Leo Boles in 1938.  He was urged to write a book and being in control of LU and the Gospel Advocate wrote his book in 1942. There, he sees God as three "people" ranked in order of authority able to stand face to face, hold conferences and decide WHICH is more suited to their respective DISPENSATIONS.

That has led to the radical dismissal of the Epistles and all but SEVEN FACTS about Jesus Christ. They call this the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit and HE spoeaks to them beyond the sacred pages. If it SEEMS that they are lying about the Old Testament and New Testament it is because THEY have banded together to "work out their own salvation" which is interpreted to mean WORK OUT a NEW SET OF SCRIPTURES to fit our evolved eyes and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (because they fly at the speed of light).




Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #2 on: Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 18:08:02 »
The orthodox view in Stone's day was 3 persons in one Godhead; same mind spirit purpose etc.  Stone  after study choice a view that said there is one God who has revealed Himself in 3 differnt ways.  He admitted that it was not possible for humans to fully understand this.  He took the later view because of the many verses that say the Lord thy God is one.  I think he was correct that we can not fully understand the concept.  I see problems with both views.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #3 on: Sun Nov 02, 2008 - 19:40:54 »
Alexander Campbell's view of the trinity was about the same as Stones: it is true that Campbell objects to anyone who attempts to make a "physical" Idol of the Godhead.

It also seems to be that Calvin pretty much refused to address the issue until he was forced to express himself.  Calvin, like Campbell, spends lots of words whch makes a clear understanding unclear. But, he begins with a clear understanding which John Mark Hicks notes was the Restoration view until Lucado--Shelly and their Incarnational doctrine which, he notes, seems to deny that Christ came fully in Jesus Christ as Flesh.  Here is some A.C.Campbell:

http://www.piney.com/AC.Letter.Grew.Trinity.html

"My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature.

That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;"

    I say I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation,

    but because of the metaphysical technicalities,
    the unintelligible jargon,
    the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject,
    and the interminable war of words without ideas
    to which the word Trinity has given birth.

    For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, or even being, in one God? I would say,
        Reason informs me not,
        and revelation does not assert it.

But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
I reply, Both reason and revelation say No.

But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense."


And not even the inventors of the concept fo TRIAS ever thought of God as separated into three persons (as in people): they used the expression PERSONAE and Calvin used three ASPECTS.

I have noted that the neo-trinitarian view probably existed early in the 20th century but was spoken in 1938 and printed in 1942 and became the fodder for the Church of Christ-South East Wing sermons and the published Bible School material. One of my firsts shocks upon returing to my present part of Tennesse c. 1992 was to have to do substitute teaching from the Boles material. I was assured that if I didn't believe that there were three PEOPLE in the Godhead there was no hope for me. Next, came an episode where they were singing and "worshiping the NAME of Father, the NAME of Jesus and the NAME of the Holy Spirit."

I think that Jesus defines pretty clearly that as SON He has no words of His own: the Father "within" gave him the Words.  And as the Spirit of Christ, our Comforter does not even "think" new words, but speaks what the Physical Jesus Christ spoke and revealed.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #4 on: Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 17:36:18 »
One of the Catholics on the board may be able to help me here.  Haven't the RC taught the trinity 3 persons in a Godhead for several centuries?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #4 on: Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 17:36:18 »



Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #5 on: Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 09:46:33 »
You've got the Athansasian Creed which is one of the three symbols of faith, the other two being the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed:

Quote
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.

Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity,

Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated and the Holy Ghost uncreated

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.

As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord,

So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another;

But the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.

He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world;

Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting,

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood;

Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ:

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead;

He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give an account of their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.



Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #6 on: Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 09:49:12 »
Thanks I should have thought of that one.

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #7 on: Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 09:53:21 »
BTW, this just isn't something that Catholics taught for "several centuries" (not sure how to take your meaning). This is the nature of God revealed to man through Jesus Christ: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God forever and ever.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #8 on: Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 11:26:35 »
If you are a glutton for punishment: The Nicean Creed written ONLY to refute those who denied that the Son or Word of God exist from all eternity.

    "We beleive in
    one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:-and in.
    one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father,
       that is of the substance of the Father;
    God of God and Light of light;
    true God of true God;

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens and will come again to judge the living and the dead.


        [We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit.

This statement was an afterthought and not included as part of the internal nature of God.

     But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say

     "There was a time when he was not," and
    "He was not before he was begotten" and
    "He was made from that which did not exist,"
     and those who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the Father,
       or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.' 62


Socrates Scholasticus defines the conflict which denied that God was not the Father of the Word of God from all eternity.

http://www.piney.com/DocNicea.html

Those who originated the concept of "trias" never saw God as "persons" in the PEOPLE sense but as personae: the nature of God being complex but all INTERNAL to himself. In the same sense, the Bible speaks of Father, Son and Spirit none of which name a BEING because Jesus said that the "father" was IN him (son) and He (son) was IN the father: when the apostles saw Jesus as the "body prepared for me" meaning Christ they saw the Spirit which taught them.

The Originators of the word "trias"

Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus - Trinity: God, His Word and His Wisdom
       http://www.piney.com/HsTheopTrinity.html

Tertullian - The Trinity of God, His Wisdom and His Word
       http://www.piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html







Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #9 on: Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 13:23:42 »
BTW, this just isn't something that Catholics taught for "several centuries" (not sure how to take your meaning). This is the nature of God revealed to man through Jesus Christ: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God forever and ever.


I see problems with both views.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #10 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 09:36:41 »
Here's a couple paragraphs from the late Dr. Newell Williams' biography of Barton Stone concerning Stone's Christology. Williams was probably the foremost authority on Stone and his theological views living. According to Williams, Stone wasn't a classical Trinitarian but he wasn't an Arian, either.

Williams says:

Barton Stone's spirituality sprang from the New Light Presbyterian community at Caldwell's Academy, which he joined in January, 1790 . . .

From both [James] McGready and Caldwell, Stone learned the New Light Presbyterian view that God deals with rational creatures through rational means. The saving sight, according to McGready, was not seen by the eye of the body or by one's imagination, but was beheld by the understanding. . . .

Stone's theological development was rooted in conflicts between his New Light Presbyterian spirituality and his Enlightenment-influenced view of doctrines and propositions that he found "contrary" to reason. For example, prayer and meditation were critical to his New Light Presbyterian enjoyment of God; hence, doctrine that interfered with prayer could not be accepted. With the doctrine of the Trinity, his efforts to understand propositions that appeared contrary to reason left him so confused that he did not know how to pray. This doctrine also threatened to take away the very subject of his meditation: the excellence of God in sending the Son to die for sinners. Given Stone's understanding of propositions that were contrary to reason, he could not believe that three persons in one God could be real, distinct persons, as that would contradict the teaching that there is but one God. If the Son was not a distinct person who had actually suffered and died, Stone could not see God's moral excellence in his suffering and death for sinners. Neither could Stone believe, given the classical theism of the Westminster Confession that he accepted, that the one true and living God could suffer and die, since it would contradict the teaching that God is "immutable" and without "passions." Hence, Stone adopted Isaac Watts's view that the Son was the soul of Christ, formed before the creation of the world and united to the one God, who in the fullness of time was united with a human body and did suffer and die for sinners. Stone did not require that others adopt his particular "opinions" of the Son of God. Rather, as he stated after the union of Christians and Reformers, he viewed as Christians all who affirmed that 'the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world; that the Son of God lived, died and rose again for our justification and salvation; and that the Holy Spirit is given to them that obey him. . . .

In the 1841-1842 volume of the Messenger, which he commenced following his stroke, he included a series on Christology. . . . From his survey of scriptural texts he concluded, "In Jesus we see the perfections of God, not only of power, but of wisdom, love, mercy, truth, faithfulness, all the fullness of Godhead-the very image of God." -

Pax.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #11 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 09:37:14 »
Now here's an old post by Stone-Campbell scholar Bobby Valentine:


Greetings to all from Milwaukee, WI.  It is my prayer that this note finds you in the most blessed state of peace the gracious Lord can bestow.   What follows is a very brief summary of the Christology of Barton W. Stone.  I will deal with Alexander Campbell in a seperate post.  Christology concerns the NATURE of the person of Jesus Christ.   I was earlier accused of doing revisionist history by one who has many gifts but has not learned to be humble or teachable.  "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up" the apostle once said.   I have long been a student of Barton Stone and I admire him a great deal.  He had a most Christlike disposition that I seek to emulate in my own life.  In 1994 my wife suprised me with a birthday present: a complete set of the Christian Messenger which was edited by Barton Stone.  I have read every line of all fourteen volumes and then reread some more.  There are many, many who know Stone much better than I -- I am simply a novice in this field.  Yet through my own study, academic preperation by sitting at the feet of the best restoration scholars in the world (Earl West, Donald Kinder, Doug Foster, John Mark Hicks, Richard Hughes, Tom Olbricht Carisse Berryhill among others) I do know something -- no matter how small that something may be.  With that said I will present a brief overview of Stone's Christology and how it evolved. 

The Years 1803 to the Early 1820s

During these years Stone was violently attacked by Calvinistic Presbyterians as being a heretic.  His principle opponents were Thomas Cleland and John Poage Campbell.  Cleland believed that Stone's teaching lead down the road to deism and thought he held Arian and Socinian views. 

Stone engaged in mortal combat with these men and it would haunt him for the rest of his life.   When the Union was approaching between the Christians and the Reformers the Baptists warned Alexander Campbell not to have anything to do with the "Arians of the West\" (Stone's Christians).  In fact the Union with Stone was one of the death nails to reunion efforts with the Baptists (these reunion efforts took place throughout the 1830s and early 1840s).  Stone protested that he had "again and again proved that we are neither Socinians or Arians.  We have often shown that we do not deny the divinity of Christ nor the atonement."

Stone most substantive explanation of his views -- at this stage -- is found in his Address to the Christian Churches of 1821 (which can be found at www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bstone/ADDR-2ND.HTM#Sec1 ) I will be refering to the pagination of the printed edition.  In this publication Stone rejects the terms "eternal Son" and "eternally begotten" as applied to the Son because he could not find the them in the Bible.  Thus he felt they were "human inventions" and subject to critical investigation.  Stone particularly found distasteful the Westminster Confession of Faith's statement that the Father and Son are of "one eternal substance."  He argued that the voice of reason asserts that "the same individual substance cannot beget itself, nor be begotten by itself.  Therefore he declared the substance of the Son was "never begotten nor born."  He says:

"If the Son be very and eternal God, and as there is but one only true God; then it will follow that the Son begat himself and was his own Father! -- that he was active in begeting [sic] and passive in being begotten.  I would humbly ask the advocates for generation, did the Son of God exist before he was begotten? If he did, he never was begotten at all -- if he did not, he was begotten from eternity; therefore, not the very and eternal God." (Address, p. 14).

Thus Stone rejects the orthodox christological formula because -- for him -- it used nonbiblical language and was self-contradictory.    Stone could not believe that there were two eternal Gods nor that the same God could at the same instant be active in sending and be passive in being sent.  Thus -- at this stage of the ball game -- Stone seems to side with Arian Christology.  He believed the Son did have a "beginning."  The Father alone was Eternal God. The Son was the Father's own special creation -- or "begotten" -- but prior to the beginning of time. 

Stone was indepted [sic] to Isaac Watts for the "solution" that he believed he had found to the Christological dilemma (yes this is the same Watts that wrote "When I Survey the Wonderous Cross" and many other worthy hymns).  I do not have the time to go further into this stage of Stone's thinking. 

During the Christian Messenger Years

We just concluded that Stone's views LOOKED like Arian views.  In fact he was accused of such by Cleland and J.P. Campbell among others.  But Stone flately rejected the charge throughout his ministry.  He in fact claims to be on the side of the Fathers!!  For example in 1829 (eight years after the Address) we read the following from his pen:

"If we are Arians, so were the Fathers of the first three centuries.  This we have proved in our letters to Doctor Blythe; and if further proof be necessary we are prepared to give it.  We can prove, if proof be required, that Arius and his followers apostasized from the apostolic faith, as believed and taught by the most influential Fathers of the first centuries. The Fathers believed that the Son of God, or Logos, derived his being immediately from the Father, and is therefore of the same specific divine nature.  Arius believed that the Son was created out of nothing, and therefore, is not the only begotten Son of God."  (Christian Messenger 3 [1829], p. 275).

Responding to his perennial antagonists -- the Presbyterians [, Stone] shares the following:

"The doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, and not the living God himself -- that he existed as a distinct intelligent being from the Father in heaven before creation, and by whom God created all things -- that this being was sent into the world by the Father, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him -- that he was made flesh and dwelt among us, -- that he suffered, died and ascended up where he was before -- This doctrine we cannot but believe." (Christian Messenger 2 [1828], p. 247).

Stone clearly denies holding any view that Arius does.  Again in 1835 Stone wrote:

"Arius asserted that Jesus Christ was a created intelligence of the highest order, and Athanasius contended he was begotten, not made . . . to this I have subscribed long ago, as most probable. . . I acknowledge that much speculation has been used on both sides of the long vexatious question.  I, like many others, have indulged in it; but . . . have several years back relinquished these speculations, and have confined myself to the language of Scripture in my public teaching." (Christian Messenger 9 [1835], p. 163).

It was largely through the influence of Alexander Campbell that Stone felt compelled to leave his opinions about the nature of Christ alone and simply use the language of Scripture as noted in the above quote.  He makes this even more explicit in 1833 responding to a question from a reader about the deity of Christ.  He writes that he now feels:

"Disposed to use scriptural terms, when speaking on this subject, and therefore call Jesus the Son of God, the only begotten, &c.  I can see nothing in scripture [sic] to justify the idea of the Son of God being created, the idea appears too low."  (Christian Messenger 7 [1833], p. 139).

What Stone has done is simply use biblical language that describes who Jesus is without reflecting theologically on their ontology.  And the doctrine of the Trinity is a compilation of THEOLOGY -- not the express words of Scripture.  Stone confessed the words of scripture and that was what was demanded.  He believed the Bible. 

As will be seen in my post on Campbell, he was willing to fellowship Stone precisely because a THEORY of what the words ultimately mean was not the basis of fellowship but the fact that Stone did indeed confess that Jesus was the Son of God.  He was not Arian -- we are to believe him (and I see no reason to doubt him).   He was not orthodox in the historic sense either but theories and opinions were not the basis of Christianity to the Reformers. 

Stone wrestled with this issue for years and I do not think he was ever satisfied with any position.  But he did believe! He did live that faith.  He did preach that Jesus and his love.  He was willing to make non [sic] of his beliefs on this subject a matter of faith -- they were his understandings of Scripture.  Campbell was more than free to disagree as was anyone else.  Freedom of thought was  a cherished doctrine in those days -- it is rather lightly entertained today. 

Final words:  Stone's Christology evolved and he can come off sounding "orthodox."  I have no problem with any of the quotes above from the Christian Messenger.  It is not accurate to call him a "pentecostal" or "Arian."  He was not a traditional Trinitarian either -- he wanted to simply follow the Bible. 

For those so disposed to further investigation I recommend D. Newell Williams recent work, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Biography (Chalice Press, 2001).  Williams is THE greatest scholar on Stone either past or present.  His Ph.D. is on Stone and he has been writing on him for over 30 years.  This is also the best book ever written on Stone -- heavily documented -- here is a man who has lived and breathed Barton Stone for a long time. 

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI


Pax.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 09:45:05 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #12 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 09:57:11 »
Now here's Campbell on the Trinity. When Bro. Ken says that Campbell's view of the Trinity "was about the same as Stone's," he is mistaken. In fact, Campbell took Stone to task for his unorthodox, speculative views, with the result that Stone's views became increasingly more like Campbell's.

In October 1827 Campbell replied to an earlier letter Stone had written to him in the CB:

BROTHER STONE,--I WILL call you brother because you once told me that you could conscientiously and devoutly pray to the Lord Jesus Christ as though there was no other God in the universe than he. I then asked you of what import and consequence was all the long controversy you had waged with the Calvinists on the trinitarian questions. They did practically no more than pray to Jesus; and you could consistently and conscientiously do no less. Theoretically you differed, but practically you agreed. I think you told me that you were forced into this controversy, and that you regretted it. Some weak heads amongst my Baptist brethren have been scandalized at me because I called you brother Stone.


In April of 1833 Campbell answered a series of questions relative to his Christological views put to him by Baptist Bro. Henry Grew. Grew wanted Campbell to expound further on this paragraph from Campbell's editorial "Mr. Broaddus," an editorial responding to Baptist Andrew Broaddus' recent remarks on the Dover Decree:

     For my part, I regard no man as a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, who denies that he is a divine person, the only begotten of God; or who refuses to worship and adore him with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. I fellowship no man nor people under the heavens, and I am sure none in the heavens, who are unwilling to admit that our Redeemer is Emanuel, God with us--God manifest in the flesh. [See an essay in the Christian Baptist, vol. 4, p. 230, on THE WORD that was in the beginning with God, and that was God.] As far as my acquaintance with all the brethren extends, North, South, East, or West, (whatever may have been their former opinions I know not,) they all accord in rendering the, same honor in thought, word, and deed to the Son, as they do to the Father who sent him. They are opposed, indeed, to both Trinitarian, Arian, and Unitarian speculations on the divine essence; but all harmonize in regarding Jesus in all the high character which Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles give him in the full import and meaning of their words.

Below is a portion of Campbell's response:


My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature. That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" I say, I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth. For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

      Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, even beings, in one God? I would say, Reason informs me not, and revelation does not assert it. But if asked, Can three be one, and one three in the same sense? I reply, Both reason and revelation say No. But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.

      Language fails and thought cannot reach the relation in which the Father and the Son have existed, now exist, and shall forever exist. But that there is, and was, and evermore will be, society in God himself, a plurality as well as unity in the Divine nature, are inferences which do obtrude themselves on my mind in reflecting upon the divine communications to our race. I will add, that common sense, reason, an revelation, give one and the same testimony, in my ear, upon this subject.

      If you ask me how this can be, I will ask you, How can there be one self existent, independent, unoriginated, eternal God? You will say, I believe, but cannot comprehend. So say I. But while our faith has in its first effort to encounter a truth so incomprehensible and to receive it; a truth so mysterious, supernatural, unsearchable transcendent; a truth which, in its stupendous dimensions, encompasses infinite space, an eternity past--the universe, natural, intellectual, moral; a truth which leaves out no existence, past, present, or future; which overwhelms every intellect, and sets at defiance the combined efforts of all created intelligence:--I repeat it, since this must be the Alpha of our faith, where shall we place our Omega, or the mode of the Divine existence? He that comes to God, must first believe THAT HE IS.

      I repeat it, I am not more bewildered than delighted, in the idea of the incomprehensibility of the same JEHOVAH. And while this name is before us, let me ask the wavering to reflect, how man could be created social, and in the image of God; man, having in his nature plurality, incomplete in one person; for man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in nature or religion. I ask, How could man be created in the image of God, incomplete in one person, social, and necessarily plural; and that God, in whose image and likeness he was created, could be a solitary eternal unit, without society and plurality in himself! This I can not comprehend, when I believe that God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him have dominion;" and, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

      While, then, I do most cordially repudiate the whole scholastic phraseology of the Trinitarian, Arian, and Socinian speculations, I do not, with some Trinitarians, regard my Lord Messiah as having always been an eternal Son; nor can I, with the Arian, view him as some super-angelic creature, filling an immense chasm between Jehovah and the supernal hosts; and still less can I degrade him, with the Socinian, to the rank of a mere man, the son of Joseph. Common sense, reason, and revelation, put their veto on such hypotheses. No; my Lord and Saviour is no creature, nor the son of a creature. In the beginning he was THE WORD OF GOD, is now the Son of God, and will, when government is no longer necessary, be again recognized as the Word of God, "a name which no man knows, but he himself."

     I must be born again, and be endowed with other reasoning powers and have another revelation, before I can become an Arian. . . .

 
Pax.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 10:06:36 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #13 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 10:04:47 »
Now here's Bro. Valentine on Campbell's Trinitarian theology:

Greetings to all cyberspace.  Having briefly dealt with Barton Stone's views on Christology I turn now to Alexander Campbell.  It was suggested by one lister that Campbell's views were non-Trinitarian and somehow unorthodox.  We will briefly examine that idea for it is not an accurate representation of Campbell at all.  I do not have the time to make this into a lengthy post so I will be brief:
 
The Christian Baptist Years
 
The year of 1827 saw a discussion between Alexander Cambpell and Barton Stone on Christology that grew out of an article written by Campbell called "To Timothy" (Christian Baptist 4 [May 7, 1827], p. 208).  In this article Campbell gives an exposition of John 1.1 at the request of "Timothy."  While dmurring against speculating about so lofty a subject he consented to present his own views so long as they were not carried any further.  He states the [sic] rejects the Calvinist docrtine of the Trinity as well as Arian and SOcinian [sic] views.  He declined to use the phrase "Eternal Son."  For Campbell the "relation" of Son did not start until the Christian era -- prior to the Incarnation of this person [he] was called simply the Word.  But bear in mind this person is one and the same -- it is only the phrase that Campbell said did not mean anything prior to the incarnation. 
 
Stone responded to this article by saying to Campbell, whether you call him Word or eternal Son of God, 'you believe the Word of God, and the Son of God to be the one self-existant and eternal God himself."  Stone pointed to Campbell that this is in fact the Calvinism he said he denied ("To the Christian Baptist," Christian Messenger 1 [July 1827], p. 205).  Stone is correct.  Campbell's response to Stone was that we simply need to use biblical language and refrain from going beyond the biblical statements for the sake of unity.  But it is clear that Campbell's leanings are classical and Calvinist.
 
The MH and Christian System Days
 
Alexander Campbell develops his Christology in the Christian System (1835, second edition 1839) in which he argues that the Word is co-eternal with the Father.  His discussion clearly reflects Nicea and Chalcedon.  He writes:
 
"Hence we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit equally divine, though personally distinct from each other.  We have, in fact, but one God, one Lord, one Holy Spirit, yet these are equally possessed of one and the same divine nature." (p. 8).
 
Now that is classic Trinitarianism.  The Father, Son and Spirit are "equal" and "eternal" and of the same "divine nature!"  How any could call that anything but Trinitarianism is beyond me.
 
His discussion of the Son of God on pages 9-11 confirms this.  He reserves the terminology of "Son of God" for the incarnate Word not the preexistant Word -- but the Word was "eternal" (p. 10).  This is not a departure from orthodoxy nor claiming there was a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist.
 
In 1835 in an article called simply "The Crises" Campbell lectures his co-horts over their groundless zeal against trinitarianism (among other things).  He explicitly claims that he is a "Calvinist" on the person and work of Jesus.  Campbell was far more Calvinist than his descendents as his discussion of Sin in the Christian System clearly shows.  But Cambpell was right on this subject as well. 
 
Campbell did not wish to make these theologies tests of fellowship.  So long as one would bow to Christ and obey his commandments and use the biblical language to describe him -- that was sufficient. 
 
We can learn a thing or two from Campbell's ability to allow freedom of thought and the strength of character to respect another point of view.
 
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

Pax.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 10:11:53 by Lee Freeman »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #14 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 11:02:40 »
"Hence we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit equally divine, though personally distinct from each other.  We have, in fact, but one God, one Lord, one Holy Spirit, yet these are equally possessed of one and the same divine nature." (p. 8).
 
Now that is classic Trinitarianism.  The Father, Son and Spirit are "equal" and "eternal" and of the same "divine nature!"  How any could call that anything but Trinitarianism is beyond me.


Yes, I know, but no one in history taught the trinity of DIVINE BEINGS prior to H. Leo Boles in 1938 and published in 1942 and which FED most churches in the deep South.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Co.3:17

My THOUGHT is distinct from my BREATH which is the invisible carrier of my THOUGHTS.  My breath when ARTICULATED by my "double edged sword" becomes vastly DIFFERENT as WORD.  This is the ONE ME having three or more PERSONAE which was never called PERSON as the latter day slants missed as foundation upon which to read other'e theology. THAT is how the "users" of TRIAS clearly explain.

The classic trinity is that of "father, son and holy spirit." True: But, false that trinity is ever God, Jesus of Nazareth, and a Spirit "being."

Mt 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth
. [There is nothing left over for a "father" and "spirit" sitting on a chair somewhere]

Power: G1849 exousia ex-oo-see'-ah From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach [Disciple] all nations,

    baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commandMt 28:20 ed you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


The NAME of Father, Son and Spirit is vested in Jesus as the Christ of God. 

Father, Son and Spirit are NEVER names of 'persons.' Thusly, I find Bobby's valentine shot through with many arrows of OPINES and heaping up of different statements made at different times. From history we know that the opines have a context which the scholars cherry pick.  John Mark Hicks would group Bobby with Lucado and Shelly claimed as the inventors of a NEO-TRINITY which he says correctly comes close to denying that FULL DEITY dwell in or with the man JESUS OF NAZARETH.

Peter was not so Bible deprived that he did not know that the NAME (singular) and therefore AUTHORITY (singular) was Jesus as the Christ of God who began life as "a body prepared for me" names Jesus of Nazareth.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Onoma (g3686) on'-om-ah; from a presumed der. of the base of 1097 (comp. 3685); a "name" (lit. or fig.) [authority, character]: - called, (/ sur-) name (-d).

The Greek ONOMA or name stands "for all that a name implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence... of everything that the name covers" (Vine, Name, p. 782)

BECAUSE, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9" it is anti-Christian to fabricate a God head of three PEOPLE about our size and a bit smarter.  John said that the NAME (singular) of the Holy Spirit was "Jesus Christ the Righteous."

The word PERSON according to Thomas Campbell: "is not manifestly applied in the Holy Scriptures to any of the Sacred Three: nor indeed can be so applied in strict propriety, according to its literal and obvious acceptation;

"for when applied to God,
       instead of meaning a distinct intelligent being coexisting with others in the same common nature,
      we must mean by it, if we think and speak correctly, one and the self-same individual being so existing

      as to constitute in and to itself so many distinct or different, real and relative characters,
      or subsistences,

        each of which is but another name for the self-same individual essence or being considered
        as existing in the specified relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


"The nearest approach to a formal announcement of the doctrine of the Trinity which is recorded from Our Lord's lips, or, perhaps we may say, which is to be found in the whole compass of the NT, has been preserved for us, not by John, but by one of the synoptists. It too, however, is only incidentally introduced, and has for its main object something very different from formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is embodied in the great commission which the resurrected Lord gave His disciples to be their 'marching orders even unto the end of the world.' (Int Std Bible Ency., p. 3017)

"It does not say, 'In the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; nor yet 'In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost,'

            as if we had to deal with three separate Beings. (Int Std Bible Ency., p. 3017)


Neither Stone nor Campbell believed in the TRINITY of three persons: the discussion was of the nature of the SON.  In all of the "triad" documents you will never find a God consisting of THREE PEOPLE able as a LU professor taught able to stand side by side as do PEOPLE. 

It is ANTI-Christian to say that The CHRIST OF GOD as all that we will ever know as a singular human "Came NOT fully in the flesh."  Jesus as SON said that the FATHER was WITHIN HIM: if you read the John literature which Jesus dubbed as PROVERBS in John 16 to hide the truth from the theologians of the day, you will see him CLEARLY deny three PERSONS.  We are a trias all internal to our ONE self: if you remove the Spirit OF Christ from Christ then you blaspheme.

Paul and all of the Bible and early history baptized in the NAME of Jesus of Christ just as Peter who heard and preached. LOGICALLY when they began to baptize in the nameS of Father, Son and Spirit they baptized THREE TIMES.



Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #15 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 11:41:47 »
Lee
Thanks.  I was wondering when you would come in on this one since history of the RM is one of your passions.  Like Stone I struggle with this one but like Campbell as long as one sees Christ as the Son of God and our savior it realy does not matter.  Later my brother.  Johnb

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #16 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 12:10:52 »
I don't intend to plough through all of Bobby's proof-texts out of context because he used the typical theological patternism of lifting what he wants by scanning.

Now that is classic Trinitarianism.  The Father, Son and Spirit are "equal" and "eternal" and of the same "divine nature!"  How any could call that anything but Trinitarianism is beyond me.
 
His discussion of the Son of God on pages 9-11 confirms this.  He reserves the terminology of "Son of God" for the incarnate Word not the preexistant Word -- but the Word was "eternal" (p. 10).  This is not a departure from orthodoxy nor claiming there was a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist.


http://www.piney.com/AcCsSonofGodIV.html

Beginning with Page 9 of my copy of The Christian System and warning that, like Calvin, what people write must be understood within the CAUSE which prompted the writing. Calvin is one to his friends and says something different when refuting his enemies.

II. So speak the Divine oracles of the supreme Deity and excellency of the author and perfecter of the Christian system. "By him and for him" all things were created and made; and "he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col 1:16,17)

But "he became flesh." Who?

He that existed before the universe, whose mysterious, sublime, and glorious designation was the WORD of God.

Before the Christian system, before the relation of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" began to be, his rank in the divine nature was that of the WORD OF GOD.

Wonderful name! Intimate and dear relation!
     The relation [10] between a word and the idea which it represents
     is the nearest of all relations in the universe:
     for the idea is in the word--and the word is in the idea.

    The idea is invisible, inaudible, unintelligible, but in and by the word.

An idea cannot be without an image or a word to represent it--
      and therefore God was never without his word,
      nor was his word without him.

"The word was with God, and the Word was God"--for (Joh 1:1)
     a word is the idea expressed--and thus "the word that was made flesh," (Joh 1:14)
     became "the brightness of his glory" and "the express image of his person," (Heb 1:3)
     insomuch that "he who has seen the Son has seen the Father also."(Joh 14:9)

III. While, then,
     the phrase "Son of God" denotes a temporal relation,
     the phrase "the word of God" denotes an eternal, unoriginated relation.

    There was a word of God from eternity,
    but the Son of God began to be in the days of Augustus Caesar.

    "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Ps 2:7 Ac 13:33 Heb 1:5)

He was by his resurrection from the dead declared to be the Son of God with a power and evidence extraordinary and divine. The WORD incarnate or dwelling in human flesh, is the person called our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ--and while, in the system of grace,

        the Father is the one God, in all the supremacy of his glory--

        Jesus is the one Lord in all the divine fulness of sovereign, supreme,
             and universal authority.


God speaks of deity, real or pagan.  LORD or RULER is the ONE GOD manifesting HIMself as the Rock, Pillar, Manna and the DABAR or WORD in Hebrew.  The SON in the trinity documents is defined as the WORD meaning WORDS of God when the ONE God speaks. So agrees Campbell and everyone in literate history.

However, I repeat Campbell, but the Son of God began to be in the days of Augustus Caesar.
   
The Lord of Shem, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the God and the Lord of Christians: for "the child" that has been born to us--and "the son" that has been given,

     according to another prophet, came from eternity.
     "His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." [Mic 5:2] Such is the evangelical history of the author of the Christian system as to his antecedent nature and relation in the Deity or Godhead.


        But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Micah 5:2

        Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. Micah 5 5:3

        And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. Micah 5 5:4


IV. He became a true and proper SON OF MAN." "A body hast thou prepared me." (Heb 10:5) But the "me" was before "the body."

It dwelt forever "in the bosom of the Father." (Joh 1:18) "I came forth from God," (Joh 16:28) said "the Incarnate Word."


Christ who was and is god LAID ASIDE those garments of majesty and glory and TOOK ON the disguise of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Rev. 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant,
        and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God:
        for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse;
        and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True,
        and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

As John Mark Hicks notes of the neo-trinitarianism of Lucado, Shelly and their circle is INCARNATIONAL THEOLOGY which includes Harold Hazelip TENDS to deny that Christ came FULLY in the flesh.


Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #17 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 15:18:21 »
Ken, are you sure you understand Incarnational Theology? Incarnational Theology upholds Christ's humanity. Hicks doesn't actually say what you think he says. Here's what Hicks actually says:

An emergent Trinitarianism is evident among us, not only among Churches of Christ, but also in other branches of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Even though our biblical scholars are somewhat hesitant, this shift comes from several quarters. First, the previous generation’s defense of the deity of Christ forced some reflection along this line. Second, the renewal of Trinitarianism in this century (beginning with Karl Barth) has filtered down to our educators and trained ministers. Third, the stress on incarnational theology (particularly within missiology and ethics) has reaffirmed that God was really among us as Immanuel. Fourth, postmodern audiences yearn to hear about community, empathy and relationality which incarnational emphases address.

Trinitarianism is present in many quarters of contemporary Churches of Christ. It is regularly discussed at lectureships and conferences, and is given a place in contemporary theological works.

Ethical reflection has risen to the top of our Christological interests. This is probably due to the recent shift from the epistles to the gospels in our preaching and teaching. Olbricht’s 1979 theology of Mark, The Power to Be, is a good example. In 1987 Shelly followed with his Surely This Man Was the Son of God. That same year Hazelip and Durham published Jesus: Our Mentor and Our Model in the same vein. Harding University’s 1988 lectureship on the Gospel of Mark was entitled The Lifestyle of Jesus.

Max Lucado, however, has been the most influential of all. His Christology is pervasive in our pulpits, our pews and throughout evangelical culture. His recent Just Like Jesus represents his ethical reflection, but his God Came Near, one of his first books, reveals his Christological presuppositions. While, as Doug reminds us, Lucado brilliantly brings Jesus to life for us and reminds us of his humanity, I fear that his incarnational theology undermines the very thing he wants to press--Christ’s empathetic humanity. His theology seems to lack any significant kenosis. Instead, Mary “knows she is holding God.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:10:00 by Lee Freeman »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #18 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:02:47 »
As for Campbell, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove above. Bobby is correct in his statement that Campbell affirmed the preexistence of the Word, but not the Son-the Word "became" the Son via the incarnation

I think this is a "bulk reading" problem.  Campbell AND ALL HISTORY denies that the word was a PEOPLE form the beginning:

The relation [10] between a word and the idea which it represents is the nearest of all relations in the universe: for the idea is in the word--and the word is in the idea.

    The idea is invisible, inaudible, unintelligible, but in and by the word.

An idea cannot be without an image or a word to represent it--

    and therefore God was never without his word, nor was his word without him.


If God was not eternally THREE PERSONS which is what the neo-scholars clearly teach FROM ETERNITY then there was never a time when the ONE GOD became a trinity of persons.

Campbell agrees with the fist users of TRIAS which cam much too late to have envisioned a literal three people Godlead.

God was ONE and for our feeble thinking did not have a WORD or a SON.  When the father "began" to THINK then His DAUGHTER was Sophia or Wisdom: the daughter comes first says Proverbs.  When God "breathed out" this was His SPIRIT.  When the THOUGHT became BREATH and then WORDS the audible WORDS of the ONE God did not add up to TWO God people.  This is purely a way to explain what Jesus through John made absolutely certain.

The THOUGHT of the one God becomes the FATHER for literalists.  The "father" does not speak of another PEOPLE.  When the ONE GOD breathed that was His Spirit for humanoid thinkers. The actual THOUGHT propelled by BREATH which exercised an IMPACT or WORD.

There is never a jot or tittle in historic Scholars or Stone or Campbell to make these PERSONAE or MASKS of the ONE GOD of the shema into THREE DEVINE BEINGS.

The COMMUNITY CHURCH is Shelly lifted to be based on the false teaching that GOD IS A COMMUNITY OF THREE PERSONS.  If WE do not let God have PEOPLE then WE deprive God of COMMUNITY. The COMMUNE concept of God then lets unlawful people a HORSE or WIDOW to ride following the exhaustion of the INCARNATIONAL scam and the NEW STYLE WORSHIP scam.

A LU professor said that WE need a trinity because ALL PAGANS had a trinity. That trinity defined by Boles, Lanier and now adopted by a few people who have shed the Bible in their postmodern leap is made into a literal IMAGE of God as the tritheists make a VERBAL image or idol out of God.

When Israel rose up to engage in the musical idolatry of the Egyptian trinity THIS is the picture being proposed which is usually the Catholic version of father, mother and son which MUST be true if the spirit is LITERAL as a MOTHER OF THE GODS.


THIS IS WHAT THE "EXCERPTERS" HAVE DREDGED UP BUT IT HAS BEEN "CAUGHT" FROM A CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH CATHOLICS.  THIS IS VALENTINE'S PICTURE I SUSPECT.

Here is Janus as the model for the Catholic--"Community" group.


Lee should say that he agrees with the UNIVERSAL PAGAN images of the Catholic trinity.

If not, then he can agree with ALL historic views who saw the triad nature (which is bigger than three) as THOUGHT, BREATH AND WORD where Word does not identify a PERSON but an ASPECT or that which strikes the eardrums.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #19 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:15:02 »
Ken, Campbell was a classical Calvinistic Trinitarian even though he quibbled with some of the techincal jargon.

Here it is again:

Alexander Campbell develops his Christology in the Christian System (1835, second edition 1839) in which he argues that the Word is co-eternal with the Father.  His discussion clearly reflects Nicea and Chalcedon.  He writes:
 
"Hence we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit equally divine, though personally distinct from each other.  We have, in fact, but one God, one Lord, one Holy Spirit, yet these are equally possessed of one and the same divine nature." (p. 8).
 
Now that is classic Trinitarianism.  The Father, Son and Spirit are "equal" and "eternal" and of the same "divine nature!"  How any could call that anything but Trinitarianism is beyond me. [Emphasis added]

But here's part of his reply to Henry Grew, again:

My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature. That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" I say, I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth. For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

      Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, even beings, in one God? I would say, Reason informs me not, and revelation does not assert it. But if asked, Can three be one, and one three in the same sense? I reply, Both reason and revelation say No. But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.

      Language fails and thought cannot reach the relation in which the Father and the Son have existed, now exist, and shall forever exist. But that there is, and was, and evermore will be, society in God himself, a plurality as well as unity in the Divine nature, are inferences which do obtrude themselves on my mind in reflecting upon the divine communications to our race. I will add, that common sense, reason, an revelation, give one and the same testimony, in my ear, upon this subject.


Its beyond me, too, how you can twist Campbell's words and try to make him deny something he very clearly affirmed. Campbell says he doesn't object to the inferences drawn by those who teach the popular, classical, doctrine of ther Trinity because they're unscriptural or irrational, but because they are of necessity human reasonings upon subjects God has not chosen to elaborate upon more fully. Campbell, as more of a classical Calvinist than many people are comfortable admitting, has basically no problem affirming the Nicene Creed, save a quibble over some terminology; his problem comes in making such a creed, based as it is, upon human inferences-even though he thinks they're the corrrect inferences-into a test of fellowship.

Pax.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:23:08 by Lee Freeman »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #20 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:40:21 »
In connecting Shelly and Hazelip to Hicks who says:

Hicks: Fourth, we have shifted from an emphasis rooted on a common factual confession that Jesus is the Christ to a Trinitarian emphasis on his deity. Trinitarianism has been (re)born among us.

Reborn means that the Restoration Leaders DID NOT agree with the trinity of three beings.

Shifted FROM Jesus is the CHRIST TO trinity makes people ANTI-Christs:

1John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
      even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth
      that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist,
      that denieth the Father and the Son.


HICKS: An incarnational theology, represented by Max Lucado in particular, dominates the current climate in our churches. Interestingly, this renewal has primarily developed along ethical and devotional/spiritual lines

I can get you some of that FREE next time the neighbor's herd visits.

   1. Hicks says that they have shifted FROM confessing that JESUS IS THE CHRIST.
   2. Shelly in implicated because he ditto heads Lucado and probably came BEFORE Lucado with the Second Incarnation from Harris also who seems to have SHIFTED to something that sounds witchery.
   3. Shelly teaches the neo-trinity well enough to tell the joke about how Father god and Spirit God aced little dumb Son god out and being young and eager tricked him into volunteering to come and die.
   4. The TRINITY radically denies that JESUS is the CHRIST and came in the FLESH.
   5. I say that probabably ALL of the original diverters subscribe to the ANTI-Christ view in order to remain in the inner circle.

1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit OF God:
       Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
       and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come;
       and even now already is it in the world.
2John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world,
       who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
      This is a deceiver and an antichrist.


The reason they mock the universally defended CENI beginning in the Bible and deny CHRIST and see visions and hear audible voices and have the spirit tell them to lie is that if they CONFESS that Jesus paid it all then TO THEM WE DO NOT OWN.  And there goes the entire fabricated field of theology or "doctors of the Law" as Jesus fired them.

Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore
     received Christ Jesus the Lord,
     so walk ye in him:


God is INVISIBLE and inaudible but when Jesus received the SPIRIT without measure (METER literally) He SPOKE the very words of God: the Son grasps none of the THOUGHT function.

The LORD or visible ruler is Jesus Christ THE LORD.  Therefore, "HEAR YE HIM."

Col. 2:7 Rooted and built up IN him,
     and stablished in THE FAITH,
     as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you
     through philosophy and vain deceit,
     after the tradition of men, after the
    rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


Sophos
A. skilled in any handicraft or art, clever, mantis, mostly of poets and musicians, Pi.O.1.9, P.1.42, 3.113; en kitharai  Mantikê ,Mania [mainomai] ) madness, sphodra hêdonê katechousa 

 
Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col. 2:10 And ye are complete in him,
    which is the head of all principality and power:



 

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #21 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 16:50:02 »
Father, Son and Spirit are all INTERNAL aspects of the ONE Divine Being. Your pseudo scholars deny that.

When I say CLASSICAL TRINITY i mean what ALL writers meant: there is juse ONE DIVINE BEING who INTERNAL to himself is like His creatures which are complex beings with body, soul and spirit having different functions but WE are not Latter Day false teachers TRIPLETS.

Your friends defend a PAGAN view of the FAMILY OF GODS and it is from pagan superstitions that they get Father, Mother and infant son.

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT SEE THE TRINITY AS I HAVE PRESENTED PICTURES OF THE UNIVERSAL PAGAN TRINITY?  IS THAT YOUR VISION OF WHAT THE TRINITY MEANS.  YOU NEED TO DEFINE YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING CAMPBELL.

IF YOU REJECT THAT MODEL OR IDOL THEN THERE IS NO CONFUSION AS THERE NEVER WAS PRIOR TO THE FALSE TEACHERS WHO CAME OUT OF ONCE-CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND TAINTED BY BRAZILIAN SPIRITISM.


blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #22 on: Thu Nov 06, 2008 - 17:37:57 »
Its beyond me, too, how you can twist Campbell's words and try to make him deny something he very clearly affirmed. Campbell says he doesn't object to the inferences drawn by those who teach the popular, classical, doctrine of ther Trinity because they're unscriptural or irrational, but because they are of necessity human reasonings upon subjects God has not chosen to elaborate upon more fully. Campbell, as more of a classical Calvinist than many people are comfortable admitting, has basically no problem affirming the Nicene Creed, save a quibble over some terminology; his problem comes in making such a creed, based as it is, upon human inferences-even though he thinks they're the corrrect inferences-into a test of fellowship.

Lee, I have noted that you seem to have a reading problem and seem to get OUT of Restoration writings exactly the OPPOSITE of what they put INTO their text.  When you quote long quotes to prove your point I seen to get exactly the opposite view.  That is why God demanded that no person knows God and therefore He came in the flesh to PROVIDE use with HIS Word. That word is NOT presented as scholarly fodder but to MARK those who do not teach that text: that which one does in an ekklesia, synagogue or school of the Bible and THAT WHICH IS NEVER tolerated in a "worship center."

The modus of the Divine existence, as well as the modus of the Divine operations in creation, providence, and redemption, is, to our finite minds, the creatures of yesterday, wholly inscrutable and incomprehensible.

God knew that and INSISTED that if we adopt the c400 concept of singing that "we sing that which is written."  The ELDERS as the authorized pastor-teachers are commanded to "teach that which has been taught." That is the universally recognized historic CENI for what we DO in the "school of the Bible."

On both, the Bible is silent. Becomes it us, then, to be dogmatical on such a theme, or to stretch our inquiries beyond the terra firma of revelation?

My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons IN ONE Divine nature.


Campbell does NOT say that he DOES NOT OBJECT to the trinity of THREE: HE says that it is IRRATIONAL and UNSCRIPTURAL to infer a three-Being trinity.  He has just said ON THAT THE BIBLE IS SILENT. Therefore, you have twisted Campbell to make him teach error just so people can FEED off working people.

Your false teachers say that they have THREE THOUGHTS and even APTITUDES so that we have the Father dispensation, the Son dispensation but NOW we live in the SPIRIT dispenstation and THEREFORE we reject the CENI or any ANCIENT authority.

That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons [personae], of one substance, power, and eternity;"

    I say I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation,

    But, he DENIES that it it taught in Scripture. If he didn't have other reasons he WOULD object to it because it is contrary to revelation in the THREE BEING sense. BUT, he says, no Calvinist or trinitarian EVER taught such a thing.

    but because of the metaphysical technicalities,
    the unintelligible jargon,
    the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject,
    and the interminable war of words without ideas
    to which the word Trinity has given birth.

For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."


Now, you and your scholars never read the whole thought pattern.  Campbell continues to the SAME Grew:

Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, or even being, in one God? I would say,
        Reason informs me not,
        and revelation does not assert it.


But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
I reply, Both reason and revelation say No.

But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.


But your mentors DO SO CLAIM and therefore Calvin agrees that no Trinitarian or Calvinists would agrele with the modern NEO-trinitarians (so says Hicks) which is TRITHEISM or POLYTHEISM.

Language fails and thought can not reach the relation in which the Father and Son have existed, now exist, and shall forever exist.

This is Father and Son: not God and Jesus!  The writers on the subject and the John material by Jesus DOES SO define it as the same as a PERSON who Thinks, Breaths and sends forth Words.
 
When there is NO ONE to swear by then God swears by Himself: God is not a humanoid and hath not flesh and blood and bones and you CANNOT create Him in one's own image. Paul does make the relationship:

The Holy Spirit
    Is to God
What our spirit
    is to us.

To US says Paul. "we have the MIND of Christ" and the MIND of Christ IS the Spirit of God.

Hicks says that these people decided to change FROM confessing that Jesus is the Christ.
TO a trinitarian confession.

BUT, the NOT trinitarian baptismal confession had literate Peter confessing JESUS IS THE CHRIST and no one Biblically made a TRINITARIAN confession.
 

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #23 on: Fri Nov 07, 2008 - 09:48:31 »
Ken, Campbell was a classical, Calvinist, Trinitarian. He argues that his

principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature.

Campbell says that it is not irrational or unscriptural to infer three persons in one Divine nature.

That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" I say, I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth.

That these three equally have one, thought, purpose, will and operation, and so one God, he doesn't argue with, and readily assents that the Westminster Confession is correct in saying that "in the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity." He doesn't object to this statement because he thinks its a fallacious or incorrect statement. He objects to it because of the "metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds. . . and the war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth." In other words, Campbell privately agrees with the inferences of the Westminster Confession regarding the Trinity but will not himself publically state the concepts using that language because it is of necesity based solely on inference, and being inferential, not everyone infers the same truths from it, hence it has caused dissension throughout history.Campbell aims to stick to the exact words of scripture when publically teaching on the Trinity. He will not use the Apostles', Nicene or Westminster Creeds, even though privately agreeing with them, but will confine himself strictly to scripture.

At number 5. of Chapter III, "God," of The Christian System, Campbell writes:

V. Some conceive of God as mathematical unit; and as a thing cannot be both mathematically singular and plural, one and three, at the same time and in the same sense, they deny the true and proper divinity of the Son of God and of the Spirit of God. But it would seem to us, that they reason not in harmony with the sacred style of inspiration. But why should we imagine that there cannot be a plurality of personal manifestations in the divine nature any more than in the angelic or human, especially as man was created in the image of God?

In VI he says:

Now as man was made in the image of God, we must conceive of him as having plurality, relation, and society in himself--though far be it from us to suppose that the divine nature either is, or can be fairly or fully exhibited by any resemblance or illustration drawn from angel or from man, or from any created thing. Still, there is a resemblance between God and the sun that shines upon us--between God and an angel--between God and man; and even in the mode of his existence, and in the varieties of relation and personal manifestation, there is so much resemblance as to peremptorily forbid all dogmatism as to what is, or is not, compatible with the unity, spirituality, and immutability of God. But of this more fully and intelligibly when we shall have examined the record concerning the WORD and the SPIRIT of God.

Robert Richardson, Campbell's personal physician, friend, biographer, assistiant ed. of the MH, and a professsor at his school, explained the Disciples' position on the Trinity in his essay "A History of the Disciple of Christ," in the compilation History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States:

With regard to the Divine Being, and the manifestations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by which he is revealed, the Disciples hold no sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves 'evangelical.'"

With regard to the Trinity, the Disciples "hold no sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves "evangelical." In other words, the Disciples are classical Trinitarians just like everybody else.


It is true, that their peculiar position has subjected them to much misrepresentation upon this subject, as well as upon others. For, because they felt it their duty to confine themselves to the very language of scripture, in relation to every subject of which it treats, they have been unwilling to use those scholastic terms and phrases, which the wisdom of men has substituted in its room; and this, not only on account of the principle involved, but from a fear of introducing, along with unscriptural expressions, unscriptural ideas. Nevertheless, although they use not the words "Trinity," "Triune," &c., they receive every thing which the scripture affirms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giving to every expression its full and obvious meaning. They hold that the Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, and by whom all things were made, became flesh and dwelt among men, manifesting his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; and that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. And with respect to the Holy Spirit, they believe that he is the "Spirit of God;" the " Comforter," the "Spirit of Christ," who spoke by prophets and apostles, filling them with divine wisdom and power; and that he is "the gift of God," "to those who ask him," who are made "the habitation of God through the Spirit," by whose presence they are rendered "temples of the living God," and "sanctified," "renewed," and "saved."

Richardson affirms that though the Disciples don't use the standard Trinitarian language, nevertheless their views on the Trinity are basically the same as the other evangelical churches. Richardson would've indicated had Campbell's position been significantly different from everyone else's.

As for baptismal formulas, in Matthew 28:19 didn't Jesus command his disciples:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . "

That looks like a Trinitarian confesion to me.

Pax.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #24 on: Fri Nov 07, 2008 - 16:17:07 »
Campbell says that it is not irrational or unscriptural to infer three persons in one Divine nature.

I don't think so:

I say I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation,
but because of the metaphysical technicalities,
the unintelligible jargon
,

It is clear that people began after Constantine to THINK that the bible taught a TRIAD of "manifestations in the One Being."  They certainly could REASON themselves into any belief and there is not statement that says THOU SHALT NOT BE A TRINITARIAN.  However, there were ample reasons DOWN THE SCALE of speaking where the Bible speaks.

He clarified this by saying:

I have long taught that the Trinitarian, Arian, and Sabellian theories are wholly a corrupt speech--irrational and unscriptural speculations.

Campbell continues to make CERTAIN that no one interprets that statement the way you understand it:

Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, or even being, in one God? I would say,
        Reason informs me not,
        and revelation does not assert it.

But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
I reply, Both reason and revelation say No.


However, he did not even have to go to the Bible to DISPROVE the form now taught by false teachers.

OF THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA?

Christian System Chapter 23, p. 54: I. God alone is self-existent and eternal. Before earth and time were born
        he operated by his WORD and his SPIRIT.


He says, in the same way that His creatures operate.

Prop X How comes it to pass, that though once and only once, it is commanded that the nations who believe
     should be immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;
     and though we read of no person being immersed into this name in this way;

I say, how comes it to pass, that all SECTS use these words without a scruple, and baptize or sprinkle in this name


Campbell knew that NAME was SINGULAR and because NO ONE in the Bible or early church history USED this as a FORMULA.  And because all of the SECTS use that as a magical formula.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
     in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
     and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

The Jews: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to) the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 Discussion of Eis,... Part Two,... Doctor Jack Lewis on Eis or For.

The Samaritans: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Acts 8:16

The Gentiles: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 10:48 (not lords)

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5

Why would Paul and pre-apostate scholars say the same thing:

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9

If you deny that, says John, that makes you an anti-Christ.

I have about finished John Mark Hicls views of Campbell's Trinity: he has reading problems also.  I have had to track down most of the "quotes" he makes out of context and I will LINK and spin off a note to Johnny pretty soon--which he will ignore but others will read.

Johnny was part of an universalists band who gathered at failing Rochester now under Rubel Shelly temporarily.

HERE IS HOW THE MAJORITY OF THE CHURCH SEES THESE PEOPLE.

"Jingling, banging, and rattling accompanied heathen cults, and the frenzying shawms of a dozen ecstatic cries intoxicated the masses. Amid this euphoric farewell feast of a dying civilization, the voices of nonconformists were emerging from places of Jewish and early Christian worship ..." (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. "Music")

"Based on the concept of an organic pattern in the life course of civilization, a morphology of history: the idea that every culture has its period of youth, its period of culmination, its years then of beginning to totter with age and of striving to hold itself together by means of rational planning, projects, and organization, only finally to terminate in decrepitude, petrification... and no more life.

Moreover, in this view of Spengler's, we were at present on the point of passing from what he called the period of Culture to Civilization, which is to say, from our periods of youthful, spontaneous, and wonderful creativity to those of

        uncertainty and anxiety,
        contrived programs, and the beginning of the end."


        (Campbell, Joseph, Myths to Live By, p. 84)

Sorry, but your hitching posts are CLEARLY in the dying agony of people eating themselves to death.  They do NOT impress any Bible student any more than a Sunday outing to Bedlam to visit Napoleon.





blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #25 on: Fri Nov 07, 2008 - 17:35:18 »
Richardson:
With regard to the Divine Being, and the manifestations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by which he is revealed, the Disciples hold no sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves 'evangelical.'"

Freeman:
With regard to the Trinity, the Disciples "hold no sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves "evangelical." In other words, the Disciples are classical Trinitarians just like everybody else.

Can't you really see the difference? I truly wonder what your motive for twisting could be? Being is SINGULAR.  Father, Son and Spirit are not BEINGS which would have Richardson read Divine BeingS. Can't you see the difference. Richardson says that Father, Son and Spirit are MANIFESTATIONS of the ONE Divine Being.   

Richardsons true HistoryWith regard to the Divine Being,
     and the manifestations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
          by which he is revealed,

the Disciples hold no sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves "evangelical."


There is no recorded history by any of those groups who saw trinity as outside of the ONE God: The Word of God in the beginning is explained as His wordS which He spoke by his breath or spirit and MANIFESTED him and performed work.  Of the Disciples:

It is true, that their peculiar position has subjected them to much misrepresentation upon this subject, as well as upon others. For, because they felt it their duty to confine themselves to the very language of scripture, in relation to every subject of which it treats,

they have been unwilling to use those scholastic terms and phrases, which the wisdom of men has substituted in its room;

and this, not only on account of the principle involved,
        but from a fear of introducing, along with unscriptural expressions, unscriptural ideas.

Nevertheless, although they use not the words "Trinity," "Triune," &c.,
       they receive every thing which the scripture affirms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
       giving to every expression its full and obvious meaning.


       As the way the ONE GOD is REVEALED or made manifest in the ONE person Jesus Christ.

They hold that the Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, and by whom all things were made, became flesh and dwelt among men, manifesting his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; and that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.

The Word WAS God: God is singular. God's WORD(s) were with Him because His Words WERE Him along with His "breath."  This is to refute the Shelly use of HERMES as the Logos he claims John had in mind: Hermes or Mercury was the messengers of God Apollo and the "conductor of defunct spirits." Wouldn't it be a laugh if HERMENEUTICS is a MARK of people collecting and conducting DEFUNCT spirits to hell.

And with respect to the Holy Spirit, they believe that he is the "Spirit OF God;" the " Comforter," the "Spirit of Christ," who spoke by prophets and apostles, filling them with divine wisdom and power; and that he is "the gift of God," "to those who ask him," who are made "the habitation of God through the Spirit," by whose presence they are rendered "temples of the living God," and "sanctified," "renewed," and "saved."

THE PROMISE OF A COMFORTER

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John 14:16

In verse 18 Jesus said I will come to you.

What is the NAME of this "fuller" Comforter?

1Jn.2:1 MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [comforter] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Richardson's History Continued: the "Spirit of Christ," who spoke by prophets and apostles, filling them with divine wisdom and power; and that he is "the gift of God," "to those who ask him," who are made "the habitation of God through the Spirit," by whose presence they are rendered "temples of the living God," and "sanctified," "renewed," and "saved."

WHO spoke by the prophets?


1Pet. 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

2Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Jesus Christ as Spirit spoke to the Apostles

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee

Godhead does not mean Trinity or it would read GodheadS. Here is the Catholic trinity and the DEFUNCT spirits in the Church of Christ get their false teaching from the ECUMENICAL leanings which translates: "I have no standards to uphold.


Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

If you say that God as Lord or Christ DID NOT come FULLY in Jesus Christ then you deny the foundation of Christianity and cannot be called Christians.

These false teachers manifest the SURE MARKS of Antichrist.  I see this attempt to paint Godly men with an ungodly and ANTI-Christian theology diminishing Jesus Christ as a way to seduce those in the Church of Christ.  Getting a VISION to take CHRIST off the public confessional is another MARK of false and terminally silly theologians.

The sure way to ATTEMPT to destroy Jesus (whose words have been SUPERCEDED) is to make Him just one of the FAMILY OF GODS.  They have a history of trying to INFILTRATE and DIVERT churches of Christ and "postmodernism" gives them permission to lie.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #26 on: Sun Nov 09, 2008 - 16:17:44 »
John Mark Hicks gathers with an ecumenical group at Rochester University under the present oversight of Rubel Shelly.  Having come close to failure by not attracting faithful students, this effort seems to have spread into the "broader evangelical" world to find students.  To that end, John Mark Hicks repeats his raw assertions about Alexander Campbell's Christian System and other Restoration documents. One supposes that if a few Churches of Christ can fall into the trap of a FAMILY OF GODS none of whom has full Deity, that too will help.  We will quote a Mormon blog to say that the WWCOG has dropped their opposition to trinitarianism in order to be accepted by the Evangelical movement. 

I have done a quick review and where Hicks makes raw assertions I have tracked down most of his quotes. It is very clear that while Alexander Campbell and all of His religious heritage rejected the Catholic Trinity, Hicks excerpts "scholarly" to make Campbell a TRUE TRINITARIAN. 

Our task will be to quote TRUE HISTORY and prove that the postmodern view among the scholars gives itself the LIBERTY to take the old fragments of Scripture and History and REWRITE it into an emerging dogma.

Trinity as “Necessary
« Last Edit: Sun Nov 09, 2008 - 16:27:17 by blituri »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #27 on: Tue Nov 11, 2008 - 11:42:02 »
Some early Disciples sprung out of Anglicanism may have taught a form of the trinity but I have found no one among "christians" who taught the LU brand of Boles and reactived by all of those involved in trying to become "ecumenical" with the Evangelical community.

A newer form giving birth to A Family of god or Community Churches is confessed to being a product of theology which confesses to a shotgun marriage between Absolute Jewish Monotheism and the pagan trinities. The reasoning is that that unclear Pagans TRUMPS the clear Monotheism of both Jews and Christians (not wanting to be called anti-Christian).

A Mormon blog gives credit to John Mark Hicks:

(B) Towards a Uniform Definition
John Hicks describes the revival of social trinitarianism as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary theology.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #28 on: Wed Nov 12, 2008 - 10:09:40 »
Ken, I have quoted Campbell and Richardson, as well as Campbell scholars, to prove that Campbell was an orthodox Trinitarian. He simply rejected some of the terminology as speculative and not found in the Bible, and argued that the Word rather than the Son was eternal, but otherwise for all practical purposes accepted the standard Trinitarian formulation. Richardson says as plainly as possible that with regard to the Trinity, the Disciples hold no sentiments that are at odds with any other Evangelical groups. He doesn't specifically use the word "Trinity" but that's what he means. Because if the Disciples didn't believe in the classical view of the Trinity, then they would have held "sentiments incongruous with those of the parties who call themselves 'evangelical.'" But Richardson very plainly says they didn't hold any views at odds with anyone else.

Richardson writes that in 1817/1818 T. Campbell presented a paper to the Baptist Association on the Trinity:

It appears, further, that Thomas Campbell presented, on this occasion, the circular letter which he had been appointed to prepare at the meeting the year before. The subject given to him was the "TRINITY," upon which the Baptist preachers were very anxious to elicit the views entertained by the reformers. This circular letter, it seems, was so entirely satisfactory that even the keen vision of the most orthodox enemies in the Association could find no ground of objection, and it was accordingly accepted, we are told, "without amendment," and printed at the close of the minutes as the letter of the Association.

But here's Campbell getting specific as to how and why he differs with the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity, from his response to "Timothy" of the CB, May, 1827:

1. In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity for the same reasons they object to the Arians and Socinians. They object to these, because their views derogate in their judgment from the eternal glory of the Founder of the christian religion. They will not allow the Saviour to have been a creature, however exalted, because they conceive this character is unbecoming him, and contrary to the scriptural statements concerning him. They wish to give him more glory than they think the Arians are willing to do. Now I object to their making him and calling him an "Eternal Son" because I think that if he were only the Son of God from all eternity, he is entitled to very little, if any more glory, than what the Arians give him. I wish to give him more glory than the Calvinists give him. They are as far below his real glory, in my judgment, as the Arians are in their judgment.

      2. But in the second place, I have an insuperable objection to the Arian and Calvinistic phraseology--On the doctrine of the first relation existing between the Father and the Saviour of Men, because it confounds things human and divine, and gives new ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers. The names Jesus, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else. They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time. To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on  either of these theories. There was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar. The relation that was before the christian era, was not that of a son and a father, terms which always imply disparity; but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration. The relation was that of God, and the "word of God." This phraseology unfolds a relation quite different from that of a father and a son--a relation perfectly intimate, equal, and glorious. This naturally leads me to the first sentence of John. And here I must state a few postulata.

The only real difference between Campbell and his Calvinistic brethren is that he objects to their use of "Eternal Son"  when describing the relationship between the first and second members of the Godhead, preferring instead "the Word" which John uses in John 1:1. Other than this, and his aim not to use non-biblical language and terms, Campbell was an orthodox Trinitarian. Exactly as Richardson affirmed.



Pax.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #29 on: Fri Nov 14, 2008 - 11:37:39 »
The only True Elohim is Jehovah Who is our Lord God:

BLESS the Lord, O my soul. O Lord (Jehovah) my God (Elohim),
        thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Ps 104:1

Who layeth the beams of HIS chambers in the waters:
        who maketh the clouds HIS chariot:
        who walketh upon the wings (flutters) of the wind (SPIRIT) : Ps 104:3

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment:
        who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Ps 104:2
Who maketh HIS angels spirits (wind);
        HIS ministers a flaming fire: Ps.104:4
Who laid the foundations of the earth,
        that it should not be removed for ever. Ps 104:5
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:
        the waters stood above the mountains. Ps 104:6
At thy rebuke they fled;
        at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. Ps 104:7

Jehovah is the true and living Elohim:  GOD and LORD are not TWO PEOPLE.

But
        the Lord (Jehovah) is
        the true God (Elohim), HE is
        the living God, and an everlasting king:
        at HIS wrath the earth shall tremble,
        and the nations shall not be able to abide HIS indignation. Je 10:10

Thus shall ye say unto them,
        The gods (several or elohim) that have not made the heavens and the earth,
        even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Je 10:11

HE hath made the earth
        by HIS power,
HE hath established the world
        by HIS and
hath stretched out the heavens
        by HIS Je 10:12

When HE thunders, the waters in the heavens roar;
         HE makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth.
         HE sends lightning with the rain
         and brings out the wind [SPIRIT] from HIS storehouses. Je.10:13

Isaiah said the the Lord and God is Lord God: Thomas identified Jesus as my Lord and my God

For thus
        saith the Lord that created the heavens;
        God himself
            that formed the earth and made it;
            HE hath established it,
            HE created it not in vain,
            HE formed it to be inhabited:
                  I am THE Lord; and there is none else. Is.45:18

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

That is because the WORD was the WORDS which the one Lord-God "spoke" out of HIS own Mind or Spirit.

The SON reveals THE FATHER to the SEEKERS (vocational) and if you do NOT grasp that there is one God who is the one LORD then it is clear that you are a seeker.  Campbell defined the Baptists understanding clearly but he DID NOT preach the three, separated beings as a FAMILY OF GODS.  The orthodox trias says exactly what these passages say:

God thought
God breathed
God Articulated

The Hicks "family of gods" is the rankest of heresy but it is consistent H.Leo Boles and the LU position.  Hicks etal admit that they are defending a newly EMERGED theology of God which DEMANDS a community of gods. The motivation is to justify church as a COMMUNITY (commune) to replace the old "modern' and Biblical church as A SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE -- ONLY.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #30 on: Fri Nov 14, 2008 - 13:47:59 »
Hicks doesn't argue for a "family of gods" that I'm aware of, nor is anyone else here, less still was Campbell. What we're arguing is one God, who exists as a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each of the same homoousios, or substance. Campbell calls them "a plurality of personal manifestations." He also says "Now as man was made in the image of God, we must conceive of him as having plurality, relation, and society in himself--though far be it from us to suppose that the divine nature either is, or can be fairly or fully exhibited by any resemblance or illustration drawn from angel or from man, or from any created thing."

How much of John Mark Hicks have you actually read? I'm not talking about skimming his on-line articles, looking for proof-texts to use against him. How much of his work have you actually carefully, critically, thoughtfully, read?

Pax.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #31 on: Fri Nov 14, 2008 - 20:36:24 »
Campbell and most argue that the Father, Son and Spirit did not exist in eternity. God was ALONE and OPERATED BY (Campbell) throught His WORD and His SPIRIT or breath: that is the classical trinity. There was no SON before the time of Mary. And Jesus was conceived by the SPIRIT: doeth that maketh the Spirit person the Father of the Son person?

Hicks transcribes that to say God existed as the Word and the Spirit which he defines as "persons" since there is a difference between MY thought and MY spirit and MY words: but WE are not triplets in the Church of Christ--East Wing.

John Mark Hicks: The “Father, Son and Spirit

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #32 on: Sun Nov 16, 2008 - 20:55:10 »
Hey Lee
I discovered that Alexander Campbell has a 91 year old grand son that attends a DOC in SE Missouri.  I was going to take a trip and meet him but he is in bad health now. 

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #33 on: Wed Nov 19, 2008 - 09:41:17 »
God, then, is the eternal ontological ground of unity-in-diversity--
       “there is, and was, and evermore will be, society in God himself,
       a plurality as well as unity in the Divine nature.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: Barton W. Stone
« Reply #34 on: Wed Nov 19, 2008 - 09:45:35 »
Hey Lee
I discovered that Alexander Campbell has a 91 year old grand son that attends a DOC in SE Missouri.  I was going to take a trip and meet him but he is in bad health now. 

That's interesting. From what I understand, most of Campbell's descendents are members of the DoC as opposed to the CoC. That doesn't really surprise me, though. Had he lived through the split, though decrying it and doing everything in his power to prevent it, had it still occurred, I think Campbell himself in general would've sided with the DoC, though not agreeing with every doctrinal stand they took.

Pax.