02.08. Controversy and Creedalism

Controversy and Creedalism

There were times when he was forced into controversy, but he seems never to have lost his good and persuasive spirit, nor to have swerved from his line or argument for the name Christian, nor his insistence that the Book was an all-sufficient guide. No doubt at times he was carried too far by the heat of argument, but he was always true to his high moral and intellectual standards, and was instrumental in bringing many out of the ranks of human traditions, and putting into their hands the Book of Books; and had he done no more, his contribution to the kingdom of God would have been a worthy one. The testimony of the centuries is that Christians will not unite on a man-made creed, and as all Christians desire the unity of the church, we are forced to conclude that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only platform upon which all may stand. The first Christians used no written creed. The earliest pastors of the church drew their conclusions from the Scripture itself, and they were contented to express their belief in the language of that Scripture, which they believed to be spoken of God. They were not curious to know that which was not clearly revealed; but they adhered faithfully to that which they knew to be true, and their variations were without schism and their differences without acrimony. But such was not true when Stone and his associates departed from the doctrines and forms of their churches.

It is difficult for us, in this day of modified creedal life, either to understand or appreciate the tenacity with which each denomination at that time enforced its doctrine, and insisted upon its creed as the only biblically correct one of them all. With strong vehemence they declared each other’s creed to be wrong, and stood ready to prove it by the Scripture, and did prove it to their own satisfaction. Persistently each of them proved themselves to be right and all others wrong. Each denomination moved together as a flock of sheep moves through a valley, drinking the same water, nipping the same grass, and finding them to their taste. And, as is always the case, the constant discussion of some dogma, and the disproof of some dogma, inevitably begets in certain order of mind the temper to discuss and distrust all dogmas, and it may be that this had something to do with Stone’s decision to leave the church of his youth. He suddenly found his old religious peace greatly disturbed; he was thrust into the thick of the wars of dogmatic theology, which were impassioned and rancorous to a degree beyond our ability to comprehend. Theology was not only rending the churches, but personal opinion was rending theology. We can little understand Stone’s feelings when he found himself brought from the peaceful fields of pastoral service into the wrangling, sarcastic, envious creeds of that day, and especially so when his own honest opinions would either be dispensed with vitriolic criticism, or dismissed with a blast of scorn which would strike his face like a hot wind. Stone lived at a time when religious intolerance prevailed, when sect warred against sect, when the greatest preacher was he who had slain the most opponents, when it was the glory of one church to prove all others wrong. Soon after Stone’s withdrawal from the church in which he had spent his life, up to that time, a law of the Synod, or Presbytery, forbade their people to associate with him and his party under pain of censure or exclusion from their communion. Aggressive hostilities against Stone and his co-laborers were declared from every pulpit of the churches that had lost members by his movement, and the thunders of their denunciations and wrath were ceaseless and bitter. There was at that time a sort of blind devotion to denominations which led men to say: "My church, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my church," or "Other churches may be right, but we know that ours cannot be wrong." Amid all his bitter experiences, the unjust criticism, the warring of sects, and the loss of those who had gone out with him, he remained true to his faith and conviction of duty, and gave to the Christian world a declaration in which all man-made creeds are set aside, and the Bible given its rightful place--"A basis of Christian Union upon the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice for the people of God." And be it said to the honor of the people who wear the name Christian, that never yet has any man who bore the "image and superscription" of the Lord Jesus Christ been denied fellowship among them. Today, as in the days of the illustrious Stone, they put the Bible, without note, comment, or interpretation, into the hands of those who would join them, and thus seat around one communion table John Wesley, Roger Williams and William Penn, and their fellowship for the one is the same as their fellowship for the others. And why should it not be so? Who are we that we should reject "one of these little ones" for whom Christ died?

Barton Warren Stone lived his life, he did his work, he fought his fight, and he won his crown, and though dead, he yet speaketh. Men die, MAN lives. The individual passes away by development or death, but there is a sort of groundline that runs through all human history, and Stone was such a groundline, and he moves among the churches today as a living personality, and his influence is as enduring as time.

¹ NOTE:--Quite a full description of this meeting may be found beginning on page 29, "Origin and Principles of the Christians."

² Note:--See Origin and Principles of the Christians, pages 19 to 28.