Alexander Campbell on Trinity and Christology
Nancy Koester’s The History of Christianity in the United States (Fortress, 2007) is my current supplementary text in my undergraudate Stone-Campbell Movement course at Lipscomb University. I use it to provide the American context for Stone-Campbell history.
I was surprised to read this sentence in the book (p. 61): “[Alexander Campbell] also rejected the doctrine of Trinity because he did not find it in the Bible.” She would have been more accurate if she had written that he rejected the term “Trinity,” but Campbell did not reject the theological idea of the tri-unity of the Christian God.
For example, in a series entitled “Elementary Views,” Campbell summarizes what he thinks is the heart of the Christian faith (Millennial Harbinger [July 1854] 367):
One Jehovah in three personalities, and one Mediator in three offices constitute the true faith and the true religion of the Christian Church, or the Reign of Heaven. And these are the centres [sic] of the Jewish and Christian dispensations of the doctrine of human redemption, in its typical and anti-typical manifestations. This is·the Alpha and the Omega of the Bible. On this broad, and strong, and enduring basis, the new heavens and the new earth, and all their tenantry will rest forever.
Campbell’s Protestant “orthodoxy” on Trinity and Christology is also obvious in this selection from “Millennium” (MH [December 1856] 700-701):
Our creed as christians is drawn up by a council of thirteen apostles presided over by the Lord Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is in contrast with the Theocracy, properly set forth as the Christocracy. The central idea of the Jewish Religion is one Jehovah—absolute in all his perfections, self-existent, eternal and immutable—of whom are all things. The central idea of christianity is “one Lord Jesus the Christ; by and for whom are all things.” He is infinitely Divine and perfectly human, possessing all Divinity and all humanity in one personality. A perfect God man, “the only begotten of the father full of grace and Truth.” His sacrifice “expiated” and took out of God’s way and out man’s way “the sin of the world.” “By offering up of himself” on the cross on Mount Calvery [sic], “he made an end of all sin offerings,” introduced “an everlasting justification” or righteousness for fallen humanity; and “perfected forever all them that are sanctified through the faith” in his person, offices, and work.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God in another personality, equally Divine, and equally co-operant with the Father and the word incarnate, who illuminates, sanctifies, and perfects every sinner in whose heart he becomes the Holy Guest; sometimes improperly called, in our common vernacular, “Holy Ghost.”
It is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that any sinner, can be pardoned, justified, sanctified, and perfected in holiness and in happiness—for his blood alone can justify God in justifying any penitent, believing sinner.
In these views, the whole Revelation of God centres [sic]. Jesus the Christ being the centre of that circle, which is itself the centre of all the spiritual systems of the universe. His blood, alone, which is his human life, on the altar of Jehovah, becomes the justifying cause of the justifying grace vouchsafed to fallen man, through the gospel of the reign of heaven.
Alexander Campbell considered himself in the mainline of Protestant “Orthodoxy” on the traditional questions of Trinity and Christology. His problems with Protestantism were significant, but these were not among them except the use of scholastic and creedal terminology as tests of communion and modes of understanding.
March 18th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
JMH,
I appreciate your continued blogs on the S-C movement. Your research, and sharing it with all of us is educational and edifying.
Hesed,
Randall
March 18th, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Perhaps you should contact Nancy Koester about her mistake and point her to Campbell’s writing on this subject.
March 18th, 2013 at 2:29 pm
I suppose I should. 🙂
March 19th, 2013 at 5:19 am
“the Holy Guest” helps me see why he was as effective a communicator as he was…
March 19th, 2013 at 10:02 am
Stone on the other hand….
March 19th, 2013 at 10:33 am
Absolutely. Stone was certainly no Trinitarian in words or sentiment.
January 31st, 2015 at 9:53 am
Totally Agreed…thank you for sharing.
December 25th, 2024 at 6:32 pm
Even if he rejected the terminology, and having claimed to rejecting the creeds and speculation he believed divided Christians, I wonder how he could with certainty say Christ was fully God, fully man in one “personality” (perhaps avoiding using the word “person” here). How could he say the Holy Spirit is equally divine or equally co-operant with the Father and word Incarnate? It seems difficult to find greater definition on the Trinity and Christology without the early creeds, or only with the use of the New Testament. If the only “facts” regarding these matters are to be found in the New Testament, then how would he make these trinitarian and christological assertions? How would he avoid polytheism wihtout the use of these early councils? How could the universal church in those days assert any of these things without Greek philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle and the use of the word ousia? Did Campbell expect that he, unlike many in the church’s earliest days, could assert the truth of these dogmas without the councils (and the creeds)?
December 26th, 2024 at 8:53 am
Thanks for the perspective. I imagine Campbell would argue that his understanding–that lacks the fine distinctions of Nicean Trinitarianism–is present in Scripture and that whatever greater definition might arise in the course of history might be helpful but unnecessary to the unity of the faith. He thinks his view is grounded in Scripture without recourse to creeds and councils. He would reject, of course, the idea that Aristotle is necessary for a confession of the Triune God.
December 26th, 2024 at 4:33 pm
Thank you for your prompt reply. Considering that the early councils had to do some fine tuning due to disagreements concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, I do wonder at times if many Christian groups would be united today in their understanding of this dogma. For example, I recently heard a Baptist preacher define the Trinity as one substance, three persons, etc. I know very little, but from what I understand this understanding would not have been possible without the discussion of ousia and hypostasis, and other Greek terminology not explicit in the New Testament. In other words, I find it hard to believe that someone like Campbell could make his assertions on this topic without any preconceptions. From reading the preface to Christianity Restored, he would like to think that he and his colleagues read the scriptures without the theological baggage that preceded him and others in the movement. I enjoy this discussion, thank you