The Anti-Trinitarianism of the Stone-Campbell Movement

The Stone-Campbell movement, also known as the Churches of Christ, was founded by Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell with the aim to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. This restorationist movement was one of many in nineteenth century America that claimed to have rediscovered the doctrines and practices of first century Christianity. While the modern Churches of Christ profess the doctrine of the Trinity, not many people know that its original founders did not. Those in the Church of Christ who are aware of this fact do not speak about it often for fear that people might consider their movement a non-Christian cult. I wonder how many people would leave the Church of Christ if they knew that their founders promoted a kind of Arianism that denies the eternal existence of the Son of God?

Barton W. Stone was more explicit in his denial of the doctrine of the Trinity than Alexander Campbell. He writes in An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee & Ohio on Several Important Doctrines of Religion concerning trinitarianism:

“Their conclusions respecting him are not to be received as true, because they were blind and knew him not. This of his making himself equal with God was undoubtedly wrong; for Jesus labors in the following verses to convince them of it, ‘Then answered Jesus and said, verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do,’ etc. Surely if Jesus had been equal to the Father, he would not have used such language as this, directly calculated to mislead the people.”

In the same document, he denies that the Son of God has existed from eternity:

“My own views of the Son of God, are, that he did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor did he exist from eternity; but was the first begotten of the Father before time or creation began. . . . He is not equal in essence, being or eternity; else he could never be subject to the Father – and such an equality would destroy the unity of God. . . . For our authority, we have already produced the scriptures. Let our brethren prove that the Son was eternal and independent; then we will acknowledge that he was eternally divine.”

His statement that, “He is not equal in essence, being or eternity” is Arianism even though Stone refuses to use that label for himself. He writes to Alexander Campbell in the The Millennial Harbinger:

“Myself and thousands of others have been called Unitarians by our enemies, though I ever denied the name. How cordially did I agree with you in the Apostles’ Creed. Were I to adopt any other besides the Bible, it would certainly be this ex-animo. Have you altered your views? Do inform me.”

Campbell responds to Stone’s letter in the same volume:

“You have long disavowed Unitarianism, and I have also disavowed Trinitarianism and every other sectarianism in the land.”

If you are looking for evidence that Alexander Campbell denied the Trinity, it doesn’t get any more definitive than that. He continues in his response to Stone:

“Many persons have been called Unitarians, and some have so called themselves, who believe in the death of Christ as a sin-offering, who reject Trinitarianism because of its unscriptural, unintelligible, and barbarous phraseology; regarding it as a system of polytheism; who, nevertheless, know not what to say or think of the pre-existent or ante-human state of the author of Christianity; some repudiating the phrases ‘eternal son,’ ‘second person,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘co-equal,’ ‘very God of very God,’ ‘Supreme Deity,’ &c. &c. They reject these terms because to them they seem barbarous and incomprehensible; but have no distinct idea or name for the antecedent state, relation, or character of Him that was made flesh. These differ, in my judgment, very materially from the Unitarian, who has no other use for Jesus than as a prophet, a king, or a martyr; therefore virtually rejecting every thing that concerns his high priesthood. . . . I have long taught that the Trinitarian, Arian, and Sabellian theories are wholly a corrupt speech – irrational and unscriptural speculations . . . I have sometimes seen a sense imposed upon them wholly modern, and which would ultimate in a doctrine as certainly unapostolic as either Arianism or Trinitarianism.”

He also writes in The Christian Baptist:

“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.”

Campbell was attempting to create a new understanding of God that was different from trinitarianism, modalism, and Arianism. Some have suspected that Campbell’s view of God was binitarian in nature, but binitarianism actually requires that a person believe that the Son eternally existed as God which Campbell appears to deny. My guess is that Campbell held to a form of Logos Christology that views the Son as not eternally existent with the Father as a distinct person from him.

In light of these facts, why would any Christian want to be part of the Restoration Movement? Why would you associate yourself with an organization that has its origins in denying who Jesus is? Remember the words of 1 John 2:23: “No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” 2 John 1:9 is even more relevant to this question: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” Since Stone and Campbell confessed a different Jesus from the one depicted in the New Testament, their writings demonstrate that they do not have God and are false teachers. By elevating Alexander Campbell to the position of restorer of primitive Christianity, you demonstrate that you do not really believe the phrase “No Creed but the Bible,” but “the Bible as interpreted through the teachings of Alexander Campbell.” And why on earth would any trinitarian believe that God chose to use anti-trinitarians to restore his church?

Edit – Many of the hymnals in the Churches of Christ change the lyrics of “Holy, Holy, Holy” from “God in three persons, blessed Trinity” to “God over all and blessed eternally” demonstrating that Campbell’s aversion to the Trinity is alive and well today in the Church of Christ.

I am aware that Campbell in many places referred to the Logos as divine. This is because he drew a strict distinction between the Logos which is eternal from the Son who is not eternal. This is a version of incarnational sonship that denies being trinitarian. I believe his view of God became more unbiblical over time as he distanced himself from the trinitarianism of his upbringing.


13 thoughts on “The Anti-Trinitarianism of the Stone-Campbell Movement

  1. I shud think that participation in the Church of Christ movement does not depend on what the instigators of the movement believed, but what they NOW believe. I reject the movement as generally people playing church, not born again, who claim “no creed but Christ.” Yet they insist on water baptism as essential to salvation, which is salvation by works. But the Bible over & over requires only faith/belief/trusting in the Lord Jesus for salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved” (Acts 16).


    1. Not only is their view of baptismal regeneration wrong (based upon poor hermeneutics) it is a creed, in fact, the term “no creed but Christ” is in fact, a creed!


    2. There is heresy in every church. There are several churches who believe water baptism is necessary for salvation. Right or wrong, a persons salvation does not rely on it.


  2. I grew up in a church of Christ (with music) and we believed in the Trinity. Campbell did not like to use the term Trinity, but he never denied the Deity of Christ. I think his “disavowal” of trinitarianism is rooted in the “idolization” of trinitarianism – much like the “KJV only” crowd have idolized their belief in the KJV. Stone, however clearly denied the Trinity. Nevertheless, you should not condemn a group today because of the “sins” of its “founders”, you should rejoice that they now embrace the Trinity! In fact, Campbell and Stone repeatedly claimed that they were not “founders”of a church, saying that the church existed since the first century. I did eventually leave the C of C due to their view of baptismal regeneration. Still, it is my understanding that Lutheranism, high Anglicans, Roman Catholics and even some Methodist groups teach baptismal regeneration…and collectively they are a much larger group than Campbellism. They need evangelized as well.


      1. I’ve watched some videos on youtube by James White and I understand the trinity quite well. Enough to where I would challenge James White OR you to a debate. Trinitarians are the ones who don’t understand what they believe in. The trinity teaches that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If that’s the case, then that makes the cross to no effect for we know God cannot be tempted and God cannot sin. Because of that truth, that in effect makes Jesus a fraud and the cross a hoax.

        Jesus said “The Father is Greater.” Jesus also said the he doesn’t know the day or hour of his return. I believe him. That alone debunks the trinity doctrine. The truth is there are over a dozen places where Jesus shows his subordination to God the Father. And it has nothing to do with him “being in the flesh.”

        Isn’t it ironic. Trinitarians will tell you that the trinity cannot be fully explained or understood. Yet, they condemn people who reject it.

        The Trinity certainly has pagan roots. There was no Trinity until the Catholic’s devised it in the 3rd-4th century under the Roman Emperor Constantine and two of the Church councils. And then they murdered people for not believing it as did Calvin. It took the Catholic’s about 100 years to come up with it and even today, Trinitarians can’t agree on several issues in the doctrine.

        Question??? Why is the holy spirit NOT found in or around the throne of God? God and Jesus are there but where is this third nameless person? Why doesn’t the holy spirit have a name? Why does Luke 1:35 call the holy spirit “the power of the highest?”
        Here is your holy spirit…

        And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God,
        …there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
        …having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.


      2. Hi James,

        Your last post is filled with inaccurate statements which shows me you have not really studied the issue in detail. To point out just one of your errors, you said, “The Trinity certainly has pagan roots. There was no Trinity until the Catholic’s devised it in the 3rd-4th century under the Roman Emperor Constantine and two of the Church councils.” This is a grossly inaccurate statement which demonstrates to me that you are just repeating anti-trinitarian literature from the Watchtower Organization and others without reading the primary source material for yourself.

        Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD in his work “To Autolycus” used the term “Trinity” in Greek to describe God and Tertullian spoke of God as a “Trinity” in Latin and as “tres personae, una substantia” or “three persons, one substance.” The writings of the Apostolic Church Fathers are filled with references to their belief in the deity of Christ.

        Please see the following links:

        The deity of Christ in the early church before Nicaea:

        The deity of the Holy Spirit:

        Explaining the Trinity:

        Please read the book “The Trinity: Evidence and Issues” by Robert Morey if you are really serious about understanding the Trinity.


      3. The Trinity doctrine developed from a power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. The argument was between Arius who was non-trinitarian, and Athanasius who developed Trinitarianism. It became more of a political argument than a theological or biblical one. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political. Arius and Athanasius had significant followings and they both wanted power and the two groups fought savage battles with each other and were rioting against each other over it. Athanasius was more brutal, more powerful, and more emotional about his beliefs and literally destroyed his opponent Arius and his followers, so Constantine sided with him.

        The state religion of Rome was in trouble and Constantine realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion. The issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a political dispute, not a religious one. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that.

        “There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around.” (See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.)

        The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces.” (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.)

        “Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3). At the Council of Nicea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around the face.”(Mentioned in Rubenstein, ibid p. 77)


  3. There are answers to all of the questions you ask if you would take the time to look them up. You asked, “How can they be equal when Jesus doesn’t know when he would return.” That is because Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man at the same time as Colossians 2:9 says: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” As God he is omniscient (John 16:30) and as a man he grew in knowledge as we do (Luke 2:52). With respect to his divine nature he knows all things and with respect to his human nature he does not know all things. Both of these things are true at the same time with respect to his distinct natures. Jesus can say that the Father is greater than him in John 14:28 because he is fully human as we are and deity is greater than humanity. With respect to his divine nature, he is equal with God (Heb 1:2-3) and with respect to his human nature he is less than the Father. That is the meaning of Philippians 2:6-7 which describes Jesus as the one who is in the form of God who took upon himself human form in addition to his form or nature of God (John 1:1-3, 14).

    Paul applies the divine name YHWH from Joel 2:32 to Jesus in Romans 10:13:

    “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. . . . For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'”

    You need to repent and turn in faith to the true Jesus who is God over all (John 8:58; Rom 9:5; 1 John 5:20).


    1. “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. . . . For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

      I believe that with all my heart so just what is it I need to repent of? I just don’t believe in the man made doctrine of Trinity. Maybe it’s YOU who needs to repent?


      1. To confess Jesus Christ as Lord in Romans 10:9 means to confess him as God. If you do not believe that Jesus is Yahweh, you do not believe that he is Lord since Paul’s use of “Lord” is an allusion back to Joel 2:32 where “Lord” is the translation of the Hebrew name Yahweh which Paul cites in Romans 10:13 in applying it to Jesus. See the work of David Capes for a more detailed examination of how Paul applies Yahweh to Jesus:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s