Barton W. Stone

[Bocephus]

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?

[blituri]

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).

[Johnb]

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]

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.

[Johnb]

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?

[s1n4m1n]

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:

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.

[Johnb]

Thanks I should have thought of that one.

[s1n4m1n]

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]

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 believe 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

[Johnb]

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.

[Lee Freeman]

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.

[Lee Freeman]

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.

[Lee Freeman]

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.

[Lee Freeman]

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.

[blituri]

"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.