[Who Do You Say I Am?  by Edward E. Stevens]

Some unitarians believe the following four passages are “ungetoverable” in their testimony against a Trinity, so it is essential that we deal with them. These passages are: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 1 Tim. 2:5. They claim these passages make too much of a distinction between the Father and the Son for the Three Persons to be considered One Divine Being. Let’s take a look at these passages. Most of the prooftexts unitarians present in their argumentation are very similar to these, so if these four can be answered the rest will fall into line with them.

Unitarians say there is too much of a distinction here between “the only true God” and Jesus Christ for us to believe that Jesus is God. But this text doesn’t mention that Jesus is the Son of God either. Are we to assume that Jesus is not the Son of God simply because this text doesn’t mention it? Of course not. This passage is not exhaustive in its presentation of who Jesus is and what His nature is. Such a distinction between the Father and the Son is nothing new. Trinitarians have been teaching a distinction between the Persons without a separateness of Being as long as Scripture has. There is no problem here at all. Jesus is the Son whom the Father sent. Unitarians use this passage to try to trick Trinitarians into affirming there is no distinction between the Persons (that there is a unity and equality of both Being and Person). It is a straw-man argument. There is a distinction between the Persons of the Godhead without a separateness of Being. Unitarians are just trying to force a bigger distinction here than the text makes. They are trying to make the text distinguish not only between Persons, but between Beings as well. At the very worst, this text is neutral as evidence for the Trinity, but it in no way denies the Deity of Christ. If anything it affirms His Deity by making Jesus as much a part of the knowledge of eternal life as God is. The conjunction “and” joins God and Jesus together as the Persons we must know in order to have eternal life. It doesn’t sound like it is optional to know Who Jesus is. Knowing Jesus is just as essential for eternal life as knowing the Father. That is a pretty tall claim for any created being. It puts Jesus on a par with the Father at least in terms of getting eternal life.

This text certainly can be twisted to suggest a bigger distinction between the Father and the Son than it really makes. And Trinitarians agree there is a distinction between Persons here in this text, but not between Beings. This is where the unitarians get hung up. They simply cannot conceive of God being able to bypass human limitations at this point. They conceive of God in human terms. They assume that since it is impossible for a human to be more than one person and still be only one being, that it is impossible for God also. They do not seem able to believe that God can manifest Himself in multiple ways and in multiple locations at the same time, yet still be only one being. That’s a pretty limited view of God, and is casting God in the image of man. God can be in more than one place and more than one form at the same time (that’s what omnipresence means). It is no contradiction of Biblical revelation to believe that God took human form and was still God at the same time. The idea of incarnation cannot be rejected on the basis of what is possible for God to do, because it is surely possible for God to appear in the flesh if He so chooses. The burden of proof rests on the unitarians to show that this text makes the deeper distinction between Beings. It’s like a house we define as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. There is only one of those houses possible. There are not two omnipotents. There are not two eternities. But more than one person can live in that one omnipotent house and share its power and privileges. So even though there may be a distinction in persons, there is no distinction in Being. There is only one Being we define as God. What we also need to keep in mind is that the word God is used in both a general sense (like the word “Divine”) and a specific sense (as in personal references to Yahweh the Father or Son as we have here in this text). This text simply mentions there is one God and then deals with two of the Persons that share that Divine Existence. And this is seen even more clearly when other passages which say we were created through the Father and that all things are for God, are compared with this text (Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; cf. Col. 1:16; Isa. 44:24). What is said of the Father here is said about the Son, and vice versa. Since this text doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit and all the other ways God has manifested and revealed Himself, we can not make too much of the distinction here. We could spend some time exploring the passages where Jesus is called “Lord” (Gr. kurios), which is a term used to refer to God both in the Septuagint and the NT. To confess Jesus as Lord meant more to the first century Christians than just a king or master. They understood that Jesus was the real Son (supernatural offspring through the virgin birth) of God and was therefore their Lord in the same sense as the Father. The Father is the King and the Son sits at His right hand. Because the Father King and the Son Prince both always live, the Prince Son will always be subordinate to the Father, but He reigns as King in all other respects just like His Father. He is Lord (King of the Universe) just like the Father. The Father and the Son always existed. I would like to know why the unitarians even bring this passage up in the first place. Is it because they are trying to suggest that Jesus was a lesser “god” like Arius and the Gnostics taught? This would mean there are more than one God. This is polytheism. Arius believed Jesus was another lesser god or demi-god. But within monotheism there are really only two kinds of beings possible (God and all other things that were created). Outside of monotheism, some have suggested that Jesus was another god lesser than Yahweh. But the OT revelation does not allow for any other such notions. So, either Jesus is the One & Only True God, or He is one of that God’s created beings. There is no other option within monotheism. To go outside monotheism is to leave the Biblical faith completely. This passage affirms a distinction between persons who share the One Divine Being who is our God and Lord. So, this text does not have anything to say against the Deity of Christ or the Trinity, but rather is in complete harmony with the Trinitarian faith.

We apply everything we said above about the other two passages here, and we will add to it a little more. The “living and true God” in this text is the Father, even though it doesn’t literally say that. But I’m sure unitarians would agree that the Father is being referred to as the “living and true God.” And Jesus is His Son. The text does say “His Son.” Now think about what it means to be “the only Son of God.” Think about the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary so that the “Holy Offspring” that was conceived in her is called “the Son of the Most High.” Who was this “Holy Offspring” and “Son of the Most High.” Was He really God’s direct Son, or was Jesus just a “son of God” in some other limited and indirect sense? Jesus was God’s actual Son. God is the Father King and Jesus is the Crown Prince who sits at His right hand and shares everything His Father has. He is the legitimate Prince to the King. He is the actual offspring Son of the Great King of the Universe. This does not rob the Father of His Glory at all, nor does it give Jesus something the Father King would be uncomfortable with His Prince Son having. And if Jesus is the real, actual offspring of God, then Jesus is really and actually God. The miraculous conception and virgin birth settles the issue of what “Son of God” means. So, this passage in 1 Thessalonians is not making any distinction between God and Non-God, but rather discussing what both the King Father and Prince Son (who are both “God” or Divine) are doing. It shows there is a distinction between Persons without a separateness of Being. This passage supports the Trinitarian position.

If we interpreted this passage in total isolation from other texts about Who Christ is, it would indeed be possible to come up with the idea that Jesus is not God. In fact, we would get the distinct impression from this passage that Jesus is nothing more than just a mere “man” whom God used as a mediator between Himself and other “men.” But, obviously we can’t take this text in isolation from all the other texts which talk about Jesus. And, I don’t believe unitarians would want to do that either. They believe Jesus is more than just a “man” also. So, the real question is, what does the phrase “Son of God” mean. This text doesn’t mention Jesus’ Sonship. So, it does not give us the full story about Jesus. I can agree with the limited picture it does paint about Jesus. He is a “man.” And He is the mediator between God and the rest of mankind. But He is more than just a mere man. And since this text is silent about the additional characteristics of Jesus’ nature, we have to go to other texts. This text does not restrict Jesus to just humanity. It doesn’t say that He cannot be more than just a man. It is merely dealing with just one aspect of His nature. He can be other things in addition to what this text says, and He is. There is nothing here that in any way denies Jesus His Deity. Unitarians believe Jesus is more than just a man also. But they will never discover that from this text. We simply have to look at all the passages on this subject and harmonize them. Unitarians try to use this to suggest that since Jesus is mediator between God and man, he can’t be God. Well, then he can’t be man either! But the text says he is a man. If he can be a man and still be a mediator between God and man, he can also be God and still be a mediator between God and man. God is omnipresent. He can be more than one place at a time. He can take multiple forms and appear in multiple places and perform multiple functions at the same time. God is not limited in any way. This text poses no problem for the Trinitarian.

When John 1:3 says “all things came into being” through Christ, does it mean “all things” or just “all other things?” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken the position for many years that Jesus just created “all OTHER things” besides himself. If Jesus is a created being it means the universe was created by a created being, we were saved by a created being, and we worship a created being. If that is the case, I would like to know just what we CAN give God credit for. We have given Jesus (supposedly a created being) worship for creating the universe and saving mankind, the two most important events of human history. What does God get credit for, just for creating Jesus and letting him take things from there? That sounds like a pretty detached and uninvolved God to me (i.e. deism). It sounds like He didn’t really love us as much as we thought. He loved us only enough to send a created (or “begotten”) being, but not enough to come Himself (like He did on all the other occasions when redemption was being revealed and developed). I’m sorry, but I just can’t buy the idea that God would allow any other being to do His work for Him. God by the very definition of His nature cannot allow a created being to create or save us. But, if Jesus is not God, we were created and saved by a creature. How could God give the glory for the two most important events of redemptive history to a created being?

Created (natural) things cannot create other things. Only a supernatural “uncreated” self-existent being (God by definition) can create anything. It takes all knowledge and all power to create, and only God has that. No finite limited non-God being has what it takes to create. Yet, scripture says Jesus created the universe and holds it together, so what does that make Him out to be? If He is not God, then He can only be called the agent of creation, but not the creator. But scripture is too clear about Christ being more than just the agent through whom God channeled His creative acts. Jesus is the creator Himself. He must be Divine (Deity/God) in a very real and direct sense.

Unitarians quite often challenge Trinitarians to produce either OT passages which predict that the Messiah would be God, or NT scriptures that refer to Jesus as being God. They say there are no such passages. I believe our readers can judge for themselves what the following passage refers to. I am presenting just two passages for illustration. But there are others throughout the OT which bear witness to the fact that the Coming One was to be Yahweh Himself, and not just a human savior. [boldfaced emphasis mine, ees]

And Yahweh of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, even the veil which is stretched over all nations. He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord Yahweh will wipe tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; for Yahweh has spoken. And it will be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is Yahweh for whom we have waited; let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation." (Isa. 25:6-9)

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity. (Mic. 5:2)

Both these texts are quoted and alluded to in the NT and applied to Jesus. There are some of the clearest messianic prophecies of all the OT prophets. Here are just a few of the verses in the NT which show how the NT deals with these prophecies and apply them to Christ and the Church:

In regard to Micah 5:2, see Matt. 2:6, where it claims the fulfillment of this passage in Christ’s birth at Bethlehem. The real point to be made here is that this One who would be born in Bethlehem to rule over Israel had a pre-existence in eternity. The only Being who existed in eternity is God. If Jesus existed in eternity, He must of necessity be God. And Micah gives us a big clue as to the incarnation. This One who pre-existed in eternity would have a fleshly existence and be born in Bethlehem as a descendant of David to rule Israel on David’s throne. This passage not only teaches the Deity of the Messiah, but predicts the basis upon which His humanity would be established. It teaches the incarnation of God. The Davidic Messiah did not just begin His existence at His conception in Mary’s womb, like the “Conception Christology” Unitarians would have us believe. John the Baptist probably had Micah 5:2 in mind when he said of Christ, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” (John 1:15)

In regard to the Isa. 25:6-9 and its prediction of Yahweh’s “banquet for all peoples,” look at all of Jesus’ parables about invitations to the marriage feast, and other teachings in the rest of the NT and especially the book of Revelation about Him being the one who would eat and drink with His people. In the OT Yahweh married Israel. In the NT Christ marries the Church. Yet the OT predicted that Yahweh would marry the Church in the Last Days. It would be adulterous in the least (if not downright blasphemous) for Christ to put Himself in Yahweh’s marriage bed with the Church. There is a big problem here which the Unitarians and Arians have no answer to. Come to the feast with Jesus. (cf. Mt. 8:11; Lk. 13:29; Lk. 22:30; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 12:37; 14:15; Rev. 19:9; 21:22-27; 22:2; 22:17) Look at the other language in this Isa. 25:6-9 passage. The covering and veil that was upon the nations (and even on the wicked among the Jews) has been lifted and removed in Christ. (see 2 Cor. 3:15; Eph. 4:18; etc.) Death was swallowed up by Christ. (see 1 Cor. 15:54) And Who is it that the NT constantly says has wiped our tears away and caused our joy to be made full? You guessed it – Jesus! Isaiah said Yahweh God Himself would come and save, and Revelation says God Himself will dwell among us and wipe our tears, and the One who actually did that was Jesus. (Rev. 7:17; 21:3,4; etc.) Jesus removed the reproach from His people by turning the persecution into victory for the Church. The Gates of Hades did not prevail. The Church has prevailed. He has turned our mourning into dancing. Jesus and the NT writers everywhere proclaim that in Christ we have the victory and that our reproach has been removed. (Mt. 5:11; Lk. 6:22; Rom. 15:3; 1 Pet. 4:14) And Who is it that has come and saved us? You guessed it again. Jesus! (Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Heb. 9:28; 10:13; Jude 1:21; Rom. 13:11; Mt. 1:21; 18:11; Lk. 2:30; 3:6; Jn. 3:17; Acts 4:12; 13:47; 28:28) Isaiah says that the one who would do all those things “in that day” would be Yahweh, the God for whom they had waited. If God was going to do all this in the same way and the same form He had done things before, why would Isaiah even need to say that this is Yahweh doing it? They would already know it was Him and recognize Him by the same form. The way Isaiah says this presupposes a difference in the way Yahweh will manifest Himself “in that day.” And Isaiah says the one who does it is Yahweh. No mention is made of doing it indirectly “through” some other being.

Notice what Yahweh says He would do in the Messianic era when He would come and reveal Himself to them. In that day He would say, “Here I AM.” (Isa. 52:6) And, "Behold this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is Yahweh for whom we have waited." (Isa. 25:6-9) If Jesus is not that "God for whom we have waited," then where is He? Has He come yet? What does Jesus’ name “Immanuel” (God is with us) really mean? Perhaps the Jews are right in rejecting Jesus if He is not that "God for whom they have waited." The point of all this is to show that Isaiah predicted that the One who would save us would be Yahweh Himself. Notice how explicit Isaiah is, “Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is Yahweh for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.” Isaiah says the coming Savior would be “our God” and “Yahweh.” There are all kinds of ways to mitigate this passage, and the Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults have done a good job at that, but the fact still remains that Isaiah said the One who would save us is Yahweh God Himself. This is definitely a passage that calls Jesus God and Yahweh.

Who is our “Teacher?” In Isa. 30:18-21 it is Yahweh, but in the NT it is Jesus! (Mt. 23:8; Jn. 3:2; 13:13,14) And Who is “The Way” that we should walk in? (Isa. 30:21; John 14:6 Acts 9:2) Isa. 40:9-11 says those who preach the gospel will proclaim, “Here is your God!" Behold, the Lord Yahweh will come with might.” Who is our shepherd? Isaiah says it is Yahweh (Isa. 40:9-11), but the NT applies it to Jesus over and over again. (Matt. 2:6; 25:32; 26:31; John 10:11,14; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17) Yahweh repeatedly states that in the Messianic Day He would reveal Himself to them and confirm that it was He Himself who was saving them. He would say to them, “I, Yahweh, am the first, and with the last. I am He.” (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) Yahweh tells the Jews that they are His witnesses and that they will know, believe and understand in the Messianic Day that, “I AM HE. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and there is no savior besides Me. ...Even from eternity I AM HE...” (Isa. 43:10-13) He is the same one who was with them in the very beginning, and is the same one who would be with them at their endtime (Ex. 32:34; Deut. 31:29; Deut. 32). Jesus claimed to be that very One! (cf. Rev. 1:17) Those words of Isaiah are extremely exclusive. They don’t really leave a lot of room for doubt as to Who Jesus is. Jesus claimed the Jews were His witnesses, and that they must know, believe and understand Who He was. Jesus repeatedly announced to them, “I AM HE.” Yahweh says there were no other gods formed before or after Him and that He is the ONLY God and the ONLY Savior. Yahweh is basically saying, “I AM it, there is no other, I AM the only one.” (Isa. 43:1-13) And Jesus makes the same claims about Himself in the NT (cf. Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:70; John 8:18,24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5,6,8). Yahweh is the “First and Last” (Isa. 44:6) and Jesus is also (Rev. 1:17; 2:8).

In the context leading up to the famous Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah (Isa. 53), Yahweh says, “Therefore My people shall know My name; therefore in that day I am the one who is speaking, ‘Here I am.’ How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, your God reigns! ... For Yahweh has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. Yahweh has bared His holy arm in the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.” (Isa. 52:5-10) Who is it in the NT that says, “Here I Am?” (Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:70; John 8:18,24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-8) Who reigns? Who has comforted, redeemed and saved His people? Jesus is the One! The Bible doesn’t give that kind of glory to the Father alone. But Yahweh does not give that kind of honor to anyone else but Himself (Isa. 42:8). Yet the NT gives that glory to Jesus. There is an obvious implication here. Jesus is Yahweh our Savior, since that is what his very name (Jesus) means.

And it is no coincidence that Isaiah 60:15–61:1 is quoted and alluded to in the NT many times, most notably in the book of Revelation. Jesus quotes parts of it and says He is the fulfillment of it. (Lk. 4:16-21) But Rev. 21:22–22:5 is the NT passage which clearly shows that Jesus is the fulfillment. Isaiah says, “But you will have Yahweh for an everlasting light, and your God for your glory. Your sun will set no more, neither will your moon wane; for you will have Yahweh for an everlasting light.” Revelation (21:23) says, “And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” By comparing the two passages it becomes clear that the book of Revelation puts Jesus in the very spot occupied by Yahweh in Isaiah’s prophecy. This is making Jesus out to be God. To an OT Jew this would be utter blasphemy unless Jesus really is Yahweh.

And we could do the same thing with countless other Messianic passages in not only Isaiah but in the whole OT. What is significant about these passages is that all of them are quoted or alluded to in the NT and applied to Jesus and the Church. The Heb. word for Yahweh in these OT passages is translated Lord (Gr. Kurios) in the NT quotes of it. When the NT quotes OT passages which use Yahweh in them and applies them to Jesus, it uses this Greek word (kurios “Lord”). I have substituted Yahweh in all places where it is used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah so that we can easily see who the NT writers are referring to when they apply these texts to Jesus.

Invariably in my studies with Jehovah’s Witnesses and other unitarians they ask me for a passage where Jesus ever clearly makes the claim that He is Deity, or where Biblical writers ever expressly state that Jesus is God. They don’t believe there are any such passages. Let’s take a look at a few.

When Jesus claimed that He was in fact “one” with the Father (Jn. 10:30-33), “the Jews took up stones again to stone Him” because they believed Jesus was making a claim to Deity: “because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” After clarifying that He was claiming to be “the Son of God” (but nevertheless still Divine), Jesus went on to say that He was doing all these works “that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” John then says that the Jews were therefore “seeking again to seize Him.” (John 10:38, 39) This shows that Jesus’ response to them was not a denial of His Deity at all, but rather an explanation of HOW he was Deity: “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” So Jesus doesn’t attempt to clear up their continued misunderstanding. He departed with them still thinking He was making a claim to Deity, and they attempted “again to seize Him.” Either Jesus did a lousy job of explaining His position (impossible for the Master Teacher), He deliberately chose to mislead them (also unthinkable), or He was Who they understood Him to be claiming to be (God).

Unitarians ask why don’t the NT writers make much of the fact that Jesus is God? Why are they so cautious and obscure about it? When one considers what they say about Jesus being the Son of God, one can readily see that they were not cautious and obscure about it at all. There are 43 verses in the NT which refer to Jesus as the “Son of God,” and several more which call Him “the Son,” “My Son,” etc.. Get your computer concordance to look them up and study them. If you don’t have access to that, write me and ask for the list and I will be happy to print them out for you. These verses contain some of the most powerful testimony to the Deity of Christ there is. When the NT writers referred to Jesus as the Son of God they were affirming His Deity. So there is not a scarcity of passages at all, but a glut of them. True Trinitarians do not wince or apologize at all when the NT refers to Jesus as the Son of God. That is our turf in the debate. It is one of the clearest and most direct evidences for the Deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible. We simply need to ask, “Who is Jesus’ real Father, and what does that imply about His Son’s real nature?” Here are a few more passages about the Deity of Christ to consider:

• John 1:1-18 The “Logos” and “Word became flesh” passage.

• John 20:28 (where Thomas says, “My Lord and My God.”).

• Eph. and Col. – the fullness of Deity in bodily form

• Titus 2:11-14 –

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and Godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14)

• Heb. 1:8 ”Thy throne, Oh God“

• 2 Pet. 1:1 – “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

• 1 John 5:20 – “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (cf. 1 Jn. 5:11f and Jn. 17:3)

• Rev. 1:17; 2:8 – compared with Isa. 41:4; 44:6, etc. – “the first and the last”

In regard to God saving us through Christ, I believe Jesus is God and that God saved us directly in Christ, not indirectly through another being. No created being CAN save us. The OT (Isa. 43:11; Hos. 13:4) says God is THE ONLY Savior, and the NT (Acts 4:12) says Christ is THE ONLY Savior. There are not TWO Saviors. If Jesus is not God, we have two different beings claiming to be the ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR.

Holy Spirit Is Definitely God

No Jew could ever believe the Holy Spirit (the Ruach Ha-Kodesh) whose presence (the Shekinah) indwelt the Holy of Holies was a mere “impersonal force” of some kind. He was the very manifestation of Yahweh’s presence (the Great “I Am”) in the temple. But a denial of the Tri-Unity of God puts one squarely in the position of not only denying the Deity of Christ, but the Deity of the Holy Spirit as well. It is interesting that Matthew 28:19 links all Three together under a singular “name,” and so does 2 Cor. 13:14. Such would be totally unacceptable to a person deeply acquainted with the OT revelation unless the three are One in sharing all the Divine Attributes. Certainly a Jew familiar with the OT scriptures would have believed that the Father and the Holy Spirit were both direct references to Yahweh. Why would Christ be mixed in with such a company if He were not God in some very real and direct sense? It would be blasphemy if Jesus is not God, simply because it contextually associates Jesus with the Father and the Holy Spirit in a way that implies equality with them. The Trinity is taught in Scripture. It wasn’t invented in a vacuum. There is Biblical substance to it, as we have seen in this study.

Barton Stone and The Deity of Christ

Some unitarians claim Barton W. Stone (a leader of the Restoration Movement, out of which came the Churches of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ) denied the Trinity. Scott Sutterfield, who has carefully studied the memoirs of Restoration pioneers, has provided me with this documentation. It is true that Barton Stone had trouble with the Trinitarian formulas contained in the Westminster Confession, especially its statements about Christ being “eternally begotten.” And in some of his correspondence with various individuals in his younger days he made statements which could be taken as a denial of the Deity of Christ and a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. But, after much more study and near the end of his life Stone made the following statements, quoted in the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (page 516 footnote) with his signature at the bottom (affirming it was a true representation of his beliefs). Let the reader judge for himself what Stone actually believed after he had taken time to study it more carefully: [boldface mine, ees]

B. W. Stone, now near the close of his life, having been informed by A. Kendrick that Mr. Rice had publicly charged him with being a “Unitarian who made the Saviour a mere man – a created being,” and who “openly denied the divinity of Christ,” answered Mr. Kendrick as follows in reference to the matter: “Now I reply for the last time (so I now think) that at no time in my long life did I ever believe these doctrines; I never taught them either publicly or privately, from the pulpit or the press. ... It is well known to all that know me that I differed from the Presbyterians on the speculations in their Confession of Faith on the Trinity when I was a Presbyterian. Yet was I unanimously ordained by the Presbytery and held in communion by them. I was never charged with these things until I withdrew from them.”

After recapitulating briefly his belief in the distinction between the Father and the Son in the words in which the Scripture reveals it, he goes on as follows: “Just before he ascended, the Son prayed to the Father to glorify him with himself with the glory he had with him before the world was. This with many other texts proves that the Son, or Logos, existed in glory with the Father before the world was – before all created things in the universe; without him was not one thing made that is made. This glorious being is the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, and therefore divine: The children of men are human, because begotten and born of human parents; so is the Son of God divine, because begotten of the divine Father. ... I believe the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life. I believe that all power and authority in heaven and earth are given unto him, and that he is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God by him; that in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; that it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell – the fullness of the Godhead, the fullness of the Spirit, the fullness of grace and salvation. When we see him we see the Father – his image, his character, his glory and perfection. Let me lose life before I would detract from my Lord one ray of his glory. To him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb be everlasting praise! Amen!” [signed] B. W. Stone

on to Conclusion . . .