William Miller (page 5)

JoenB75

vienne,

The one thing that fascinates me about Russell is this; from where did he get his teaching about a resurrection of most of mankind to a first real chance of proving themselves worthy to life on earth? Who taught it before him? Any clues?

Earnest

Thanks, Annie. I have read your mum's introductory essay to Separate Identity vol. 2, and there she writes (p.xxxix) : "So it's not a reliable chronology he rejected, but Adventist speculation that included world-burning and seemed unreliable....So Russell accepted a chronology [from Barbour]...when expressed in non-Second Adventist, Age-to-Come terms."

Barbour did have a Millerite background and had invested his faith and life in the movement. When Barbour developed his chronology he merely shifted the 1843/4 Millerite calculations thirty years forward to 1873/4. It was only after the 1874 failure that Barbour adopted Age-to-Come theology. So, while Russell's doctrines were not inherited from the Adventists, his chronology dating 1874 as the beginning of Christ's presence came directly from Barbour. I think it is in this sense that Russell is associated with the Second Adventists.

vienne

Earnest,

Barbour tells us that he got his chronology from a table drawn up by Christopher Bowen to fit the work of E. B. Elliott. Both of these men were Anglican Clergy, never Adventists. The Russell-Barbour chronology derives from Anglicans. So does the 1873/4 speculation. Barbour and the many others who look to that date got it from the early to mid-19th Century writers on prophecy almost all of whom were Anglican or Church of Scotland writers. There is a trail of date speculation unbroken back to the reformation era and scattered through the medieval era. Date speculation wasn't new when Adventists set their hand to it. Mom's intro essay considers some of this. So does Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. Though if you don't have that book, I'd hold off buying it. B. is revising it, adding new detail and removing or refreshing a few items. I'd wait for the revision to be published.

JoenB,

Again, there is a long train of similar belief extending back to the ancient church. Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum, VII, 4. dates the belief to the second century, and I see it as easy to derive from the Bible. In Russell's case, he came to it first by reading The Restitution, The Bible Examiner and one of George Storrs' tracts on the government of God over the earth. He read Henry Dunn's work too. Storrs left Adventism in 1844 among much argument and insult. When Russell was meeting with the early Allegheny Bible Study group, second-probation was widely debated, as were other doctrines they examined. Separate Identity chapter 4, vol 1, examines the sources of Watch Tower doctrine in the Russell era. Russell's doctrine was not exactly second-probation, but to me it is similar enough to call it that without much misrepresentation.

-Annie

vienne

Pete,

By suggesting that I'm comparing my words to those of Jesus, you are erecting a straw-man argument. If you felt I called you names, then you see yourself in the criticism.

vienne

I should add that Miller's chronology, though presented as his original work, was in fact derived from others who pointed to 1843 or 1844 on the same or similar basis. Adventists suggest it was only the work of Miller and that he did not read the work of others. This is unfounded, part of Adventist mythology meant to elevate Miller to near prophet status, even though he was totally wrong.

Both in American and in Britain books promoting that date and other segments of Millerite chronology were published, with a considerable trans Atlantic readership. Much of the rich heritage of published prophetic speculation before and after Millerism can be found reproduced on line or in key libraries. Start with Archives or Google Books. You'll be surprised what you can find.

Annie

JoenB75

Vienne,

I am not taking about mortality of the soul. I see nothing in chapter 7 of Tertullian's "Prescription of Heretics" about the teaching "about a resurrection of most of mankind to a first real chance of proving themselves worthy to life on earth". You then say "and I see it as easy to derive from the Bible." ok I must have missed that

vienne

You are correct about Tertullian. My bad. The rest of my comment stands. The discussions were current in the religious press. Storrs' booklet on the subject and one by Anglican rector Smith-Warligh [Russell paraphrases him without credit, almost to the point of plagiarism] are the most immediate sources of Russell's belief. Henry Dunn's work should be on that list. In the years Russell was first introduced to Storrs, The Bible Examiner was republishing Dunn's work.

Again, my apologies for the faulty reference to Tertullian.

Annie

Pete Zahut

If you felt I called you names, then you see yourself in the criticism.

Exactly !! Just because you didn't agree with ONE persons comment, you said "this forum is made up of a bunch of uninformed posters". Unless you were you referring to a group of individuals on another forum, I took that to include me.

By suggesting that I'm comparing my words to those of Jesus, you are erecting a straw-man argument.

You were the one who brought Jesus into the conversation and you used his authoritative way of speaking as a defense for your own rudeness. If you think I'm erecting a straw-man, then it's likely because you are trying to use my "straw-man as a "red herring" to derail the conversation and because you see yourself in the comparison, but can't bear that it's true.

vienne sorry for the typo in the last sentence, which should read "many of whom"

Yes....thanks for the apology....the uninformed bunch that we are, we'd have never figured that out for ourselves and would have the right to call you names such as uneducated or ignorant.

If you haven't figured out what I'm saying by now, it's either because you refuse to believe that you could ever be wrong or its because you're not as clever as you think you are....at least not clever enough to be using such harsh words such as moron or uninformed toward people whom you've never met based on a few words typed across a screen .

Earnest

Further to what Annie has said about second-probation, Russell also probably developed his ideas about this from William Spencer's book "The Curse Lifted: A Bible View of the Promised Restitution". William Spencer was a printer for George Storrs.

Also, Henry Dunn got many of his ideas regarding second-probation from Dunbar Isidore Heath's 1852 book "Future Human Kingom of Christ"..

vienne

Earnest,

Yes, that's correct. I read Heath's book. Mom had a copy in her research collection. It's very interesting. Heath also limits the Bride of Christ to 144,000, and has the rest of mankind living on earth.

Pizza,

You had no reply to the historical facts I presented, so you focused on two phrases I used. And lastly you wrote:

"If you haven't figured out what I'm saying by now, it's either because you refuse to believe that you could ever be wrong or its because you're not as clever as you think you are....at least not clever enough to be using such harsh words such as moron or uninformed toward people whom you've never met based on a few words typed across a screen ."

I suggest that is as rude as anything I wrote. Have you spent your entire life being ignored or focusing on secondary issues to avoid the main ones? I have a parent. I listen to my dad and I listened to my mom when she was alive. You, however, are a hypocrite as your degeneration into insult, the very thing for which you scold me, shows. I see no reason to take you seriously, no matter how much you rant. You want to talk history, I'm here. Otherwise, you're whistling in the wind.

-Anastasia

William Miller

Share this