Joen,
My mom and her writing partner presented considerable background to Russell's probation views:
One of the first issues tackled by the Allegheny group was
Probation doctrine. The idea that this life is a probation that ends at death
after which one’s destiny is inexorably fixed was deeply imbedded in the
thinking of Christians of all sorts, and it was the topic of some considerable
discussion. If death ended human “probation,” irrevocably fixing one’s destiny,
then there could be no Restitution – no return to paradise earth and no
restoration to divine favor for the bulk of mankind.
Articles were written to support the doctrine and others
were written to refute it. In this era probation was hotly debated, especially
among Congregationalists in America, where many declared “in favor of
posthumous probation.” In 1870, The New Englander published an article
defending the doctrine, citing among other things, universal belief in the idea:
“In confirmation of this analogy of nature to the Scriptural
doctrine that this life is a probation which ends at death, we have the conclusion to
which human reason and conscience have come, unenlightened by revelation. It is one
of the most striking facts of human history that God, by the reason and
conscience of man, has made a universal impression that there is a future life, that there
are two conditions there, and two places for the two grades of character. This natural
theology also teaches that that destiny is sealed at death. According to the idea
of the Armenti of the Egyptians, the Hades of the Greeks, the Tartarus of the
Latins, the future lot of all men is decided when they depart this life, and they are at
once assigned their final places in the future world. Hear also the philosophical
Plato … All of this indicates, as a tenet of the religion of nature, that this life is the
only probation, and with this doctrine God’s Revelation is found in harmony.”
Basing a doctrine on the “revelations of nature” or its “universal
acceptance” rather than Scripture is poor work. There are more grounds to look
askance at a doctrine believed by Greeks and Egyptians than there are to find
in them support for probationism. This line of argument stemmed from the
enduring influence of Butler’s Analogy of Religion.
The Allegheny Bible class rejected the idea that Christ’s
return would end “probation” for everyone. Russell’s reasoning was similar to
that which led him to reject Hell-Fire doctrine:
“We reasoned that, if Christ’s coming were to end probation,
and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could
scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, “Come,
Lord Jesus, Come quickly!” We had rather request – much as we should “love
his appearing” – that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that “if
by any means we might save some.” Not only so, but great masses of scripture
referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that “All nations which thou
hast made shall come and worship before thee,” &c., &c., would be left
unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. …
“The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among
whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs,
who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to
be followers of men, however good or wise, but “Followers of God, as dear
children.””
This was a set-piece of Storrs’ theology. Many, many
articles from his pen reject the idea that Christ’s return fixed human destiny.
Storrs was often accused of Second-Probationism but replied that for many the
first opportunity for salvation would be hearing the gospel after Christ
resurrected them. This was not, he said, anything like advocating a second
probation. Russell borrowed ideas and phrases from Storrs’ Bible Examiner
articles to make the same points. Neither they nor Storrs were the first to reject probationism on these or similar grounds. In 1704
Thomas Staynoe, an English clergyman, wrote:
“We do conclude, That to qualifie these People for the
farther Mercies of the Saviour, over and beyond the Resurrection, (which I shall in this
Place adventure to call his general and unconditional Purchase) we may suppose,
1. That the Saviour shall be then tendered to them: For, not
having heard of him in this Life, they had no possibility, either of receiving or
rejecting him here, as the rest of Mankind had.
2. That after they are, upon their Resurrection, made
acquainted with the Saviour, they shall be put upon the same Probation, whether they will
receive him upon the Conditions of the Gospel; as those were, who had heard of
him, and the Gospel-Conditions, in this Life.
3. That if, upon such their Probation, they do receive him;
they shall then be in the same happy Condition, in which Life, and who do therefore
enjoy the Happiness of the first Resurrection."
The Russells and their associates adopted Storrs’ views in
toto. This was true not only of Storrs’ belief that the Probation doctrine was
a human contrivance, but with his approach to theology. Millennialist sects in
general believed in a “progressive” revelation; that is, they believed, that
led by Holy Spirit, scriptural understanding increased over time. Storrs and
others among the main-line churches believed this before their introduction to
Millerism. Making this point¸ Storrs wrote:
“We have but just emerged from the dark ages of the church;
and it would not be at all strange if we should find some “Babylonish garments” still
worn by us for truth; or to speak without a figure, we have no reason to suppose that
the Reformers, as they are called, divested themselves of all the superstitions and
false interpretations that had been put upon the Bible, when ignorant men were kept in awe
by the supposed sanctity of the priests.
The Reformers may have done well, considering their
circumstances, and the prejudices of their education; but must we sit down and
quietly follow exactly in their steps, without employing the understanding and Bible
God has given us, to see if there are not things “new,” as well as “old” in God’s
blessed word? Our Saviour saith: “Every scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of
God, bringeth forth out of his treasures, things new and old.” Must we, then,
confine ourselves to the old track; and must every thing that is new be rejected? …
There are many points of doctrine that a few years ago
passed for truth, that are now rejected. That this is the case in science, generally, no
one will doubt. How long is it since men were satisfied that the world is round and
revolves on its axis? …
If it is a fact, in science generally, that false theories
have been held for ages, may it not be so in religion? Since my recollection, the theory has
been held, and promulgated for Bible truth, that there were “infants in
hell not a span long” – and that “God made some men on purpose to show His power in
their eternal torments in hell fire.” Yes, and that He “decreed all their sins which
led to that result,” and sent “the gospel to some people on purpose,” i. e. with the
design “to increase their damnation!” And it is within my remembrance, that a man was
not considered
orthodox who did not hold these views. But, I doubt if any
man now can be found who holds such sentiments; or, if he does, will be willing
to avow them."
Polemicists ridicule this approach, suggesting that it is
used to account for every doctrinal whim. Storrs (and Russell, at least in his
earliest years) believed each Christian was obligated to “prove all things.” The
mere claim of progressive truth was insufficient to grant it acceptance. This
prompted many debates, and it refined on the bed of fiery debate the doctrines
presented as “Truth.” Progressive truth doctrine, though it opens one up to
many conflicting claims, prompted a serious, continuing Bible study. - Separate Identity, vol. 1, pages 156-158.
By the time Russell met him, Storrs did not consider himself
an Adventist, dating his departure from Adventism to Literalism to 1843/4. What
Storrs adopted and Russell after him, was a common thread among Protestant
writers from the 16th Century, though a non-Calvinist, minority
view.
