Jehovah's Witnesses are a breakaway

by HowTheBibleWasCreated 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  vienne

  By the time Russell met him, Barbour had left Adventism for Mark Allen's Church of the Blessed Hope, an Age to Come body. Barbour says his Church of the Strangers was affiliated with Allen's Church. Russell says as much too without naming Allen's movement. Russell wrote:

  The Answer ... explained how Mr. Barbour and Mr. J. H. Paton, of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been [Italics are mine.] regular Second Adventists ... and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumbfounded. They had examined the time-prophecies that had seemingly passed unfulfilled, and had been unable to find any flaw, and had begun to wonder whether the time was right and their expectations wrong, – whether the views of restitution and blessing to the world, which others were teaching, might not be the things to look for.

  Notice that they HAD BEEN Adventists. They were such no longer when Russell met them, but had shifted to the teachings of "others." Restitution doctrine is Age to Come doctrine.

  George Storrs left the Millerite movement [Adventism] in 1844 among much controversy and recrimination. When Russell met him (1874) he was teaching, not Adventist world burning, but Restitution doctrine. He wrote in Bible Examiner that he did not and had not for some time read any Adventist publication. He did, however, write for Age to Come journals including the Restitution. Adventists sniped at him, defamed him, and printed lies. He addressed this in issues of Bible Examiner.

  B. W. Schulz, a Fellow of a scholarly group focused on Witnesses, that includes the most prominent writers of today, and my mother, Rachael de Vienne, are, I would say "the most senior" writers on Witness history. Their work is cited by the most recent authors. These include George Chryssides in Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change and Zoe Knox Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World. Penton's third edition also cites their work and calls them "first rate historians." Mom and Dr. Schulz's books are narrative changing, and their conclusions are backed up with citations and quotations from original sources. Bruce contributed fact checking and editorial comments to Chryssides forth-coming book, due out in September, and he is acknowledged in the preface.

  That someone who wrote some years past does not include current research proves nothing but that he was unaware of developing research. That you can't find references to Age to Come only means you looked in the wrong places. Start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22age+to+come%22&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVx9KmrNPvAhXbLc0KHVRXCtkQpwUIJQ&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1

  The Age to come movement, sometimes called Literalist, was diverse with many sub doctrines that conflicted with others within their movement. Russell was most influenced by those associated with The Restitution. By the time Russell met him, Stetson was teaching age to come and had been since 1865. He says so in a Restitution article. While some of his former Adventist associates still admired him, Stetson was dropped from the Advent Christian speakers list because of his change in doctrine. His articles were no longer accepted. And he was writing for The Restitution and for the British journal The Rainbow.
• 

  Rocketman123

  In review of all these men and their professing theology/preaching going back to William Miller in the mid 1800's up to today's JWS, they are and were false prophet apostates who didn't faithfully respect or adhere to Jesus's own stated proclamation and admonishment that of no one knows of the time.

  Nevertheless power and money was connected to preaching these false doctrines to the public, in spite of these endeavors as being recognized and acknowledged sin through accurate and honest reading of the scriptures. .
  
• 

  vienne

  I'd prefer to think of them as men of faith, though misguided. But certainly some were devious, lying bastards. Change that 'some' to many.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Thanks for taking the time to reply vienne. You mention Knox and Chryssides. Their positions on the Adventist roots of Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite clear.

  Zoe Knox writes (in Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Secular World):

  Unlike most of the groups that emerged from the broad umbrella of the Adventist movement, the Bible Students not only survived into the twentieth century but flourished. (Page 29)

  Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses emanated from different strands of Adventism (Seventh-day and Second, respectively). (Page 29)

  [Russell] wandered into a service by Jonas Wendell, a Second Adventist preacher, quite by accident. Russell wrote that Wendell’s sermon ‘sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before’. (Page 30)

  In common with other groups in the Adventist tradition, the Bible Students linked the marking of the Memorial with the date of the Jewish Passover. (Page 34)

  The position of Jehovah’s Witnesses on medical treatment differs markedly from other religious groups, even those that emerged from the Adventist traditions. (Page 150)

  Few of Russell’s insights were entirely new, despite claims to the contrary by both his admirers and his critics, but instead drew on currents in contemporary Adventism, departing from it in significant ways but remaining firmly within the broader Protestant tradition. (Page 206)

  Russell collaborated with some thinkers well known in Adventist circles, among them George Storrs, George Stetson, and Nelson H. Barbour. Russell acknowledged his debt to Storrs and Stetson in the development of his theology (as he put it, ‘in unlearning many long-cherished errors’) as well as to Barbour. The influence of Storrs, a pioneer in the Adventist movement, was indeed seminal. (Page 206)

  As Russell’s theology developed, his interpretations departed more and more from those of his former associates until his views stood firmly apart from the Adventist tradition. The Bible Students thereby gained a distinct and unique identity. (Page 235)

  Chryssides writes (in Jehovah’s Wintesses: Continuity and Change):

  It is from the Second Adventist tradition, in all its three strands, that Charles Taze and his early Bible Students emerged. The Watchtower organisation identifies a number of Adventist leaders whom it continues to regard highly, believing that they were steering the Christian faith in the right direction, although not offering complete truth. These figures include Henry Grew, George Storrs, George Stetson and Jonas Wendell. (Page 41)

  In conclusion, Russell did not develop his ideas in isolation, but worked within a network of Adventists who believed in Christ’s imminent return and he had to engage with the problem of the failed expectations of Miller and others. If one thinks his end-time dates are arbitrary, as Martin suggests, they are no more or less arbitrary than any of the Adventist leaders of his time. (Page 48)

  Deeply influenced by Adventism, Russell concurred with its revised teaching that the Greek word parousia should be translated as ‘presence’ rather than ‘coming’ and that the expected event was Christ’s ‘Second Presence’, a spiritual occurrence in which Christ would begin his rule in heaven and gather his faithful ones to be with him in heaven. (Page 229)

  Russell even regards Adventism as part of the divine providence of the dawning Messianic Age: although William Miller may have erred in some of his dates, Russell believed he began the important task of understanding Daniel’s prophecy. (Page 233)

  It continues to base its beliefs in biblical inerrancy and, in common with its Adventist parentage members firmly believe that humankind is living in the last days, anticipating Armageddon, which will see the final defeat of Satan, who currently rules the world, and with whose standards we must show no compromise. (Page 271)

  These quotes are only a selection of many explaining the Adventist roots of JWs.

  I have not come across the term “Age to Come movement” in encyclopaedias or textbooks. Is it used in modern scholarship outside of “A Separate Identity”?
• 

  Rocketman123

  Much of these men's endeavors were derived from a personal drive of creating public notoriety of self importance and stature as being god's selectively chosen one(s) or channel to all mankind.

  The Faithful and Obedient slave/servant as it were, a higher stature of righteousness than other practicing Christians as they proclaimed.
  

  For example Russell was called by his followers the Laodicean Messenger .

  Today's GB men of the JWS claim they are the FDSL or modren day disciples as described in the bible but in reality they are modren day false prophet apostates enacted through their own commercialized charlatanism.
  
• 

  truth_b_known

  Being raised as a Witness going back to the 1970s and leaving around 2010 I was taught that Pastor Russell was the originator. I believe in recent years the Watchtower publishes that Rutherford started the religion. I have recently accepted the latter as being the origin.

  That is what is interesting - the Watchtower is plainly stating that from the death of the original apostles in the late first century to 1931 A.D., approximately 1800 years, there was no true religion. Further, true and acceptable religion has only been back in action for 90 years.
• 

  vienne

  I am aware of what Zoe wrote. It's incorrect. It defines Adventism as any belief in the near return of Christ. This ignores the three strands of Millennialism. Zoe supports the claim of Russellite Adventism with a citation from Rogerson. Rogerson did not support his claim with a reference to an original source.

  Most "modern" scholarship would tend to use Millennialist, Literalist or age to come in lower case. There is a brief bibliography in Separate Identity vol 2. An example is Julia Neuffer in her The Gathering of Israel: A Historical Study of Early Writings. Writing about Storrs abandoning Adventism, she wrote:

  By October, 1844, wrote L.[ewis] C. Gunn of Philadelphia, some in one congregation there had adopted a similar view, and Charles Fitch was at the same time (not long before his death) teaching probation for the heathen after the Advent. Others, added Gunn, like himself believed that at or just before the Advent “many of the Jews will be miraculously converted, and hail His appearing with the exclamation, ‘blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’” All these, he said, “had changed from their former belief, and differed entirely from Mr. Miller, and the great body of advent believers in this country – but agreeing with the Literalists.”

  Literalism is Age to Come belief.

  You may be looking in the wrong era. Literalism/Age to Come belief is an extension of colonial era in American and the 16th Century belief in England. The Literalist/Age to Come system was controversial in that era, but pervasive.

  Mom wrote in her introductory essay:

  Literalists and Adventists had significantly differing hermeneutical approaches. Literalists followed a grammatical-historical or literal hermeneutic. Millerite Adventists and its descendent religions follow an allegorical-typological hermeneutic. William Bridge (c. 1600 –1670), a Separatist [sometimes called Independent] clergyman espoused Biblical Literalism, and in doing so tells us that it went under several names in Martin Luther’s day. Among these were “Vocabulists, Literalists, Grammatists, and Creaturists.” These titles, not all of which were meant to be complimentary, referred to the belief that the Bible said what it meant to say. Its vocabulary and its grammar was meant literally and framed so human creation could understand its plain words. Bridge suggested that in his day some were following the path of the wildly speculative theologies of the Reformation era and just as liable then as in the past to “be drawn into Popery.” C. F. Sweet quoted Martin Luther, J. A. Ernesti, Vertringa, and Jeremy Taylor noting that they all followed a literalist path.

  Literalist/Age to Come/Restitution believers represent a broad spectrum of belief, but the principal unifying factor is belief that the Bible is not allegorical unless it plainly states something is an allegory. American scholars tend to focus on Colonial Era expositors when they consider Millenarian belief. Most American writers on prophetic subjects in the period up to 1850 were Literalists [Same animal as Age to Come]. In her opening essay [vol 2] mom briefly traces some of the pre-Russell Literalists. You may also want to read Jan Stilson: An Overview of the Leadership and Development of the Age to Come in the United States: 1832-1871, Journal from the Radical Reformation, Fall 2001. Jan is a Church of God, General Conference (Atlanta) historian.

  Neuffer touches on the differences between Adventists and Age to Come believers, writing:

  Indeed, the winds of doctrine developed hurricane force in 1850 among the Adventists – especially the majority group – over “the age to come.” This was a new name for the old Literalism that the Millerites had denounced as “Judaism.” The result was the emergence of an unorganized but distinct age-to-come party, comprising those who adopted the Literalist view of the millennium. The leading exponents described it in slightly varying forms, but they all saw it as a period of continuing probation, with mortal Jews in literal Jerusalem. ...

  Where did the age-to-come doctrine of the 1850s come from? Possibly it stemmed chiefly from the British Literalist publications that had been circulated among the Millerites. However, the name seems to have come from the title of the 1850 editorials and the 1851 book by Joseph Marsh. Certainly his paper, The Advent Harbinger (Rochester, N.Y.), became the sounding board for the doctrine, although other individuals had taught it before him.

  Surprisingly, Neuffer did not know that Age to Come is a Biblical phrase as found in the King James Bible. In fact the Age to Come theologies extend back to Renaissance/Reformation writers, primarily English, Dutch and German. Though they believed in the near return of Christ, they were not Adventists and would not have been accepted into the Adventist fellowship because of strong differences in doctrine. None of Russell's doctrines trace to Adventism. Without exception they came from the Age to Come movement, variously called Restitution, Literalism, Church of God (Which caused confusion with Campbelites and others). Mom and Schulz present a long list of examples in both volumes of Separate Identity.
• 

  vienne

  I should add the text of an email sent from Penton to one of the authors of Separate Identity:

  Many thanks for the texts you have sent. I have only had time to read your introduction, but I was greatly pleased by it. I feel as irritated by the long-continued “Adventist Theory” as do you. I see also that you have added to my own understanding of the origins of Russell’s thinking, and I hail you for that.
  
  I have not been well of late since my heart is acting up. Therefore, I may be a bit slow in getting back to you. But I will certainly read what you have discovered and written with anticipation.
  
  Again, my best regards.

  James Penton
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Zoe Knox does not define Adventism as “any belief in the near return of Christ”. She places Russell specifically, as she describes, in the “Second” Adventist strand of Adventism. She identifies specific Adventist influences on Russell—named individuals—and specific Adventist beliefs, as shown extensively in the quotes above.

  To say that Knox defines Adventism as “any belief in the near return of Christ” when describing JWs/Bible Students as emerging from the “Adventist movement” is entirely misleading.

  Knox refers to Rogerson’s point about Russell borrowing his doctrines from Adventism on page 54.

  However Knox offers her own conclusion at the end of her book:

  Few of Russell’s insights were entirely new, despite claims to the contrary by both his admirers and his critics, but instead drew on currents in contemporary Adventism, departing from it in significant ways but remaining firmly within the broader Protestant tradition. (Page 206)

  That is entirely Knox’s own conclusion from her own research.
  

  Zoe Knox has read the work of Schulz and de Vienne and concludes that their disavowal of the Adventist roots of Jehovah’s Witnesses “defies historical orthodoxy”.

  Knox acknowledges that Schulz and de Vienne are good on detail but lack historical context and analysis so that on the one hand:

  “Schulz and de Vienne, committed amateur historians, make a valuable contribution to early Witness history by tracing the transition from disparate, disconnected readers of Russell’s tracts to an identifiable, unified community of Bible Students.”

  And on the other hand Knox criticises their work for:

  “dismissing the important analytical work historians do to place their discoveries within broader contexts and debates. Schulz and de Vienne make little attempt to connect their work meaningfully to research on nineteenth-century American religious history, which they might have done by, for example considering what was unique about the emergence of the Bible Students as compared with other “American originals.”

  Knox, Z. (2017). The history of the Jehovah's Witnesses: an appraisal of recent scholarship. Journal of Religious History, 41(2), 251-260.

  You say that modern scholarship uses the terms Literalist and age to come. But where do they use these terms in relation to the origins of the Bible Students?

  I don’t know of any modern scholarship that describes the roots of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Bible Students as “Literalist” or “age to come”, rather than Adventism. Can you point to them?

  The quote from Neuffer does not mention the Bible Students or describe them as anything other than being influenced by Adventism. In fact, if anything, Neuffer describes age-to-come as a “doctrine” rather than a movement, and he seems to imply that the “age to come” doctrine arose “among” Adventists, and that the term itself came from The Advent Harbinger published by Joseph Marsh who was an Adventist.

  Modern scholarship, including those up you specifically highlighted, Knox and Chryssides, explain the background of Russell and his teachings in the context of Adventism. I have not seen any modern scholarship that disavows the Adventist roots of JWs. I don’t find the term “age to come” in modern scholarship of JWs at all. I would be interested to read about it, but you haven’t supplied any scholars who use this term for Russell or the Bible Students.
• 

  minimus

  Slim, very insightful rebuttal.