The Theology of Barton W. Stone, Part 1

Before Thomas Campbell left the Presbyterians and before Alexander Campbell arrived in America, Barton Stone had separated from the Presbyterians and was one member of the cohort who founded, and quickly dissolved, the Springfield Presbytery. Stone was the leader of one of what have been called the “streams of the Restoration Movement.” 

Stone was a controversial figure within the streams of the Restoration Movement. One item of controversy connected with Stone was the happenings at the famous Cane Ridge revival. A point of contention here was the nature of those striking “religious exercises.” Based on the long-term good effect Stone saw in these (at least most of them by his accounting), he concluded they were the work of God. In his words: 

“After attending to many such cases, my conviction was complete that it was good work — the work of God; nor has my mind wavered on that subject.” i 

This conclusion was disputed by many. Even John Rogers, who edited and finished Stone’s biography, devotes a whole section to refuting the idea that these exercises were from God! (Rogers’ points, in the view of this writer, are well-taken.) 

However, the matter of the religious exercises was not the only point of contention connected to Stone. One fact that is sometimes noted in works on the history of the Restoration Movement is the difficulty Barton Stone had with orthodox theology at several points. Not only did he dispute orthodoxy at times, but he also took issue with the views of other leaders such as Alexander Campbell and Thomas Campbell. In these same works on Restoration History, there are often found conflicting or vague statements as to just how to identify some of Stone’s theological positions. In these same histories, the authors also often offer ideas on how and why Stone came to these views. 

All this has prompted the beginning of a short series on Barton Stone’s theological deviations, as we might call them. We will look at his views in some detail, drawing upon his own words. We will also try to identify them accurately in terms of historical theology. He was accused of holding all sorts of theologically deviant positions, some of which he did not hold, but that does not mean he did not hold some views that are difficult or even impossible to justify in Scripture. Along the way, we will attempt to offer some suggestions as to why Stone came to these views. 

Stone himself clearly lays out the problem areas in the first volume of his Christian Messenger. He speaks of a “mania for uniformity of doctrines” that prevailed in many circles which sought to exclude believers from fellowship even on “points of minor importance.”1 Some of these minor points, Stone says, have been banished from the churches, but some remained: 

“These may be reduced to three, which are the orthodox notions of Trinity - the Son of God - and atonement. These are now generally called the fundamentals of religion - the doctrines which distinguish Christianity from infidelity.” ii. 

It is interesting to see Stone apparently calling these matters of minor importance. However, what he seems to have considered minor is not these three areas, but the “orthodox” distinctions made in these areas. Some of these distinctions must have appeared to Stone as opinions that divided the Christian world he was trying so desperately to unite. For a long time, he vigorously challenged those who made what he considered unwarranted distinctions. As West says of Stone: 

“Though his own doctrinal beliefs lay somewhere between Unitarianism and orthodox popular Calvinism, he came to believe that wide latitude must be permitted the Christian believer to lay the basis for Christian unity.” iii. 

However, it is immediately apparent from reading Stone’s Christian Messenger and other of his works that Stone himself did not back away from these questions at all. They are prominent in the Messenger and in his Address. Why was Stone so concerned with these three items that he claimed to consider “minor matters”? In defending Stone’s actions here, John Rogers says: 

“True, he never made his speculations a test of Christian fellowship; he merely presented them, in self-defense, to show that he did not deserve to be classed among damnable heretics — Deists and Atheists — that he did not deny that dear Lord and Savior who bought him with his own precious blood, and in whose cross only he trusted for salvation.” iv 

For one who considered these things minor points and opinions, Stone had some strong views of his own. There is a tendency to attribute Stone’s conclusions in these areas to “frontier theology” or a lack of education on Stone’s part. For example, Murch concludes: 

“His positions were often fuzzy and characteristic of a man who has not made up his mind. Stone had an untrained frontier mind when it came to subtle theological distinctions. Unlike Alexander Campbell, he lacked the background of a university education and also the logical mental equipment to deal with premises, equations, implications, and conclusions”v 

However, this assessment does not seem to represent the picture presented in Stone’s actual writings. He was not entirely uneducated. In fact, his knowledge of some areas is considerable. 

A very different perspective on Stone’s view of all this is that: 

“He examines all the ‘trinitarian texts,’ cites the original Greek and Hebrew and the corresponding lexicons and grammars, and quotes copiously from the writings of the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers. He writes as one who is, to state it mildly, at least moderately familiar with the literature of the Trinitarian controversy, and as one capable of grappling boldly and intelligently with its issues.” vi 

Stone certainly shows familiarity with the issues here, but, as we will see, he also sometimes displays logical weaknesses in the statement of his positions. When we look at what Stone says about these issues, it will become clear that Murch highly overstates his case about Stone. He certainly was not uninformed on the points at issue and their background, contrary to Murch’s claim. Stone does give definite and fairly constant (after a point) views on the Trinity, the Person of Christ, and the work of Christ. What were these views? 

It is probably understating the matter to say that these seem to be important doctrines of the Christian faith. In Stone’s time, doctrine was much more important than it is today, when theology seems almost pointless to many people. This means that, in his time and place, these were not minor matters. What did Stone think about these things? How did he come to his conclusions? Why did those “orthodox distinctions” concern him so much? It is an interesting story. It is a story that we will explore in this series, along with some related matters.