Posts by stev

57

Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell

by IW in

jw
friends

barbara,.

i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.

in the countless hours we spent on the phone.

stev

The Russell's relationship has been painted in black-and-white terms which does not do justice to the complexity of their relationship. In fairness to Charles, he was willing to marry a woman more educated than himself, and to have her serve as his associate editor. It is likely that Maria did colloborate in some capacity with him in the writing of the volumes up to Vol. 4. He supported her in leading a woman's group in the Allegheny church. He was also willing to leave her the control of the Society after he died. It appears that he treated her with respect and appreciation that compares favorably with other ministers of that time.

The exception would be their ill-advised agreement, assuming it was mutual, that they would remain celibate in marriage. Perhaps they were encouraged by their notion that their time on earth would be short, and best be devoted to religious work. Regardless, this likely caused Maria frustration as a wife, and prevented fulfillment as a mother, and she might have instead sought fulfillment elsewhere in her work.

Unfortunately, this brought her into conflict with her own husband. She had differences with Charles in the editorial work, and did not like the changes that he made to her articles. She developed views about the roles of men and women that differed from Charles' s more traditional views. Charles might have been willing to tolerate differences of opinion, but this subject had a bearing on his own power and authority, and coming from his wife/associate editor, would have been threatening to him and controversial to his followers. It seems that Maria was ahead of her time and was fighting a battle that at that point she couldn't win, but did not back down. There were other complications such as Rose Ball, and that Charles and his father married sisters.

Both Charles and Maria were dogmatic and self-righteous and inflexible, which many religious leaders possess, but makes for a difficult marriage. They became victims of the religious drama that they had created, with damaging consequences for them and the religious movement that formed. The bitterness and acrimony between them suggests that their relationship had indeed at one time been a close one. It is believable that Maria was treated cruelly after her being stigmatized as disloyal and apostate. Charles had more power and authority in the relationship, and no matter how much falsehood she might have spread about him, he had some duty toward her, and his failure and reluctance to pay alimony is indefensible.

Their marriage was further complicated by the religious roles that they played, and the boundary lines were not kept separate, and interfered with their marriage. Another example of how religion can bring families close, but also separate them.

57

Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell

by IW in

jw
friends

barbara,.

i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.

in the countless hours we spent on the phone.

stev

In the early editions of the Millennial Dawn, there is a preface in which C. T. Russell acknowledges the assistance of his wife. I think it only appears in the first three volumes. I do not recall that he explained what the assistance was, whether writing or research or encouragement. Perhaps someone who has these early editions can look it up. This preface did not appear in later editions of Millennial Dawn or Studies in the Scriptures.

Much of the first volume, The Divine Plan of the Ages, was based on previous material, word-for-word, from articles that appeared in Zion's Watch Tower. For example, the chapter on the Explanation of the Chart of the Ages, and other chapters, was taken from Food for Thinking Christians in 1881. Some of the subjects had been written about numerous times. So it is not likely that Maria Russell wrote this volume.

Volumes 2 and 3 contain time proofs, with some modification and additional material, that appeared previously in the Three Worlds, and Day Dawn by Paton.

In the book Countdown To Armageddon, the author speculated that the extensive quotations in the Vol. 4 The Day of Vengeance might have been due to the estranged relationship of the Russells, and that Maria was not available to help with the writing.

I have not seen the divorce transcripts, but someone who has told me that Maria did claim to write some of the volumes, and that Charles denied it.

It is not likely that Maria had any part in Vol. 5 and 6, since these were published 1899 and 1903.

Maria had the ability to write the volumes and probably had more than time than Charles to do so, but Charles also had the ability. It is unlikely that we can know how much she contributed to them. It is likely that the conflict that they had in the editorial work contributed to the lack of authorship noted in the WT publications after that. Russell had a writing staff, and did have women on the writing staff. It is highly unlikely that Russell could have written the thousands of pages attributed to him, although he did dictate much.

Each of the Millennial Dawn volumes followed a well constructed plan, and were written with some care. But they do not make for easy reading today, partly because of the language, but also because the doctrinal and chronological subject matter. Vol. 6 is especially verbose, with long-winded sentences, and flowery Victorian language.

41

John Chapter 1

by mavie in

i am wondering how those who believe jesus is the almighty lord god reconcile the following passages in chapter 1.

john 1:1 - ..."the word was god.

john 1:14 - "and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth.

stev

Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation by James D. G. Dunn

On page 241, Dunn in explaining John 1:1, quotes Philo, who applied "theos" without the article to the Logos. Philo called the Logos "the second God", and yet was monotheistic. Dunn considered that the contrast in John 1:1 between "theos" with the article and "theos" without the article was deliberate on the part of the author and would be significant to the Greek reader.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802842577/ref=sib_vae_pg_241/103-3191703-9928650?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=241&p=S080&twc=26&checkSum=9NkSWzCF4lttJJQw6yNFGQB9FSxYD0OmvABLrb8y1UA%3D#reader-page
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802842577/ref=sib_rdr_next1_80/103-3191703-9928650?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=241&p=S0AZ&twc=26&checkSum=DXKCP9aYEemR5jdduhdVLqHm7cCsHULJnDRyb3R2dzM%3D#reader-page

9

C.T. Russell's name in Adventist paper -1872

by stev in

the following notice appeared in the advent christian times, may 20, 1872, page 24. .

to correspondents .

russell, jr .

stev

One problem is with the terms, "Adventist", and "Second Adventist." Today, we would consider an "Adventist" to refer to any of the groups that came from the Miller Movement. But at that time, "Adventist" and "Second Adventist" were denominational labels. Russell denied that he was ever a member of an Adventist church. Others preferred "Church of God" instead. But Storrs even questioned that. During the Miller Movement, there was a call to come out of Babylon. So after that, Storrs and others were opposed to organizing or forming a denomination. The Advent Christian Church was formed, but Storrs objected to it. It was true that Storrs was the editor of the Herald of Life, the paper for the Life and Advent Union, but he considered that to be only a business association. The Advent Christian Church was the largest group at that time, and ones who opposed their views who were in the minority, might have considered themselves to be "independents", although today we might consider them "Adventists".

Russell does give credit to individuals - Wendell, Stetson, Storrs, Barbour. So it is not entirely correct that he stole their ideas without giving credit. However, his account is very sketchy, and not very complete. He does in several places give the development of his views, but there are holes in his accounts, and he leaves out the background information on how he acquired these views.

Russell must had some continuing relationship with the Adventists and the church in the Pittsburgh area after his encounter with Wendell. Otherwise, how did he learn about Wendell's time proofs for 1873, enough to recognize in 1876 that Barbour used the same proofs? How did he know that they taught the burning of the world? How did he learn from Stetson? Could Stetson have preached every Sunday in Allegheny during the period from 1871-1873, and Russell not have gone to hear him? On the other hand, how did Russell learn about the "age-to-come" views as early as 1869 if the Advent Christian church did not teach them? It is possible that the Advent Christian church in Allegheny had itself these different points of view, and that Russell actually learned from others there. If Russell had read the Advent Christian Times, he would learned about their views. If he also read the Herald of Life when Storrs was the editor, how did he become acquainted with it? It is possible that Jonas Wendell was the point of contact. Jonas Wendell had a relative, Rufus Wendell, who was an associate of George Storrs. Storrs was the one that introduced conditionalism into Adventism, and perhaps Jonas W. referred Russell to them. Or since Conley was a member of the Russell's Bible class, perhaps it was Conley. Russell's opposition to certain Adventist beliefs occurred so early in his contacts with Wendell points to some local person or influence on him in the other direction.

Steve

9

C.T. Russell's name in Adventist paper -1872

by stev in

the following notice appeared in the advent christian times, may 20, 1872, page 24. .

to correspondents .

russell, jr .

stev

The Advent Christian Times regularly printed notices of meetings of their churches.
The Allegheny church's meeting times were often posted.
Letters from the ministers who served that church were printed, such as Jonas Wendell, George Stetson, J. T. Ongley.
C. T. Russell apparently read this paper at that time.
There were articles by Nelson Barbour and others in the few years before 1873 on the time proofs of the coming of the Lord in 1873. Russell could have had the opportunity to have read them at that time, although according his account, he did not accept them.
There were also articles against the "age-to-come" view, against the views of Storrs while he was editor of the Herald of Life ( Storrs and the Life and Advent Union had separated from the Advent Christian Church), and then against Storrs' new position of 1871 on restitution, at which time he left the Life and Advent Union, and restarted the Bible Examiner.

Years ago, a JW researcher (Richard Rawe), told me that he had seen J L Russell's name in the Herald of Life in the year 1869. I had looked for the name myself when I perused that year, but was unable to find the name. However, the articles in the Herald of Life in 1869-1871 parallel Russell's development of beliefs at that time, and it is possible that Russell had gained these beliefs by reading the Herald of Life at time. There were "age-to-come" articles printed in the Herald of Life, articles against the burning of the world, against the Advent Christian Church as being a daughter of Babylon, the Seed of Abraham blessing the nations. Storrs was very anti-organization, against the label Adventist. Russell acknowledges that he has helped by Storrs, and read the Bible Examiner, which came later, but did he also read Storrs before then? .
It is possible that there was a subscriber(s) to the Herald of Life in the Pittsburgh vicinity, who met with the Adventists, and was a point of contact for Russell. Russell, even though a young man, resisted the ideas of Wendell in his date-setting, was against the burning of the world theory, and favored the "age-to-come" views. This suggests that there was other influences on Russell besides the Advent Christian Church.
It is possible that the Adventist church in Allegheny was made of different parties with various views, and that they tried to peacfully coexist. This would explain Stetson's remark that the schism in that church had been healed, also that that church was advertised as the Church of God for some time, and also that Stetson, who held to age-to-come views even though an Advent Christian minister, was the pastor for a while. In other words, that church might not have been a typical Advent Christian church, but tolerated differences of opinions then current among the Adventist groups.
Storrs had held to the age-to-come beliefs for many years, and while editor of the Herald of Life he wrote about it, and stated that the readership was about equally divided on the subject. Perhaps the Advent Christian church at that time also was divided on the subject for a while, that it was a matter of debate and discussion, but not yet division.
According the history book of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, many of their early churches were made up of age-to-come believers and Advent Christians, and this lasted even into the 1880s and 1890s when individual churches would divide.
So it is possible that Russell could have attended regularly the Advent Christian Church in Allegheny, heard Wendell preach, and then Stetson during 1871-1873, and yet never consider himself a member, because there were others like him who did the same. The Adventists during that time read each other's papers, the boundaries were fluid, people moved from one group to another, and rejected the name Adventist, even though they would met with others who called themselves Adventists.

Steve

9

C.T. Russell's name in Adventist paper -1872

by stev in

the following notice appeared in the advent christian times, may 20, 1872, page 24. .

to correspondents .

russell, jr .

stev

The name "J L Russell and Son" also appeared in issues of the papers of the Advent Christian Church. I don't have the dates handy right now. The name occurs numerous times from 1869-1873. The Advent Christian Times was a weekly paper of the Advent Christian Church. The other paper was the World's Crisis. The Advent Christian Quarterly came with the Times every quarter of the year.

Their names appearing repeatedly shows:

1. That Russell was aware of the existence of this paper.

2. That he had contact with the Advent Christian Church beyond his first meeting with Jonas Wendell in 1869(70).

3. That he sent them letters numerous times.

4. He likely read the Advent Christian Times regularly. Articles by Stetson appeared in the paper at that time.

5. The paper stated the printing of the names under Letters Received was a receipt for money sent in the letter. Perhaps Russell was ordering literature.

9

C.T. Russell's name in Adventist paper -1872

by stev in

the following notice appeared in the advent christian times, may 20, 1872, page 24. .

to correspondents .

russell, jr .

stev

C.T. Russell's name also appeared in other issues of the Advent Christian Times. Under the heading Letters Received, the name "C T Russell" was printed in the following issues:

3/28/1871 p. 244

4/1/1871 p. 260

4/18/1871 p. 268

6/6/1871 p. 324

7/25/1871 p. 372

2/25/1873

6/24/1873

9

C.T. Russell's name in Adventist paper -1872

by stev in

the following notice appeared in the advent christian times, may 20, 1872, page 24. .

to correspondents .

russell, jr .

stev

The following notice appeared in the Advent Christian Times, May 20, 1872, page 24.

To Correspondents

C.T. Russell, jr

Will comply with your request as soon as possible. You will find something to the point in the Quarterly, if you have them.

14

Who did Russell get his anti Trinity doctrine from?

by jwfacts in

a lot of russell's doctrines were taken from the adventists.

however, seventh day adventists worship the trinity, so i am wondering who russell took his anti trinity doctrine from.

christadelphians started in the mid 1800's, was it from them?

stev

Arianism was prevalent among the Adventists in the mid-19th century, even among the leaders. Arianism entered the Adventists through the Christian Connection, which later merged with other groups to become the United Church of Christ. There is a offshoot of the SDA that is Arian, and they have a website about how the early SDA leaders were Arian. Perhaps I can find it. The Adventist group Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith are Unitarians, but do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. They were influenced by the Christadelphians.

Storrs believed that Jesus was God, but believed that the relationship of the Father and the Son was a mystery, and would not characterize his belief as either Arian or Trinitarian. Russell was an Arian in his beliefs like many Adventists of his time. Russell likely got his Arian views from George Stetson. Stetson was an Advent Christian minister who was pastor of the Allegheny Advent Christian Church from 1871-1873. Stetson wrote an article on the Ransom that appeared at the time in the the Advent Christian magazine. He gives the view that the ransom was a corresponding price to Adam. It is on the internet and I can locate if anyone is interested.

The SDA, Adventist Christian Church, and the Worldwide Church of God all made moves toward accepting the Trinity, reversing an earlier anti-trinitarianism.

Steve

22

calvin and armenias

by I-CH-TH-U-S in

ive been doing some research latley in the christian church on the calvinism vs arminian debate.

and im just curious to what the jw believe on this..example .

calvinism: .

stev

I have found another sermon by C. T. Russell, which is longer than the others quoted. I found a web address for the sermon. It is entitled "God's Plans vs. Man's Plans". I have only quoted the portion concerning Calvinism and Arminianism. The sermon goes on to present Russell's own view, which attempts to harmonize the two. I have highlighted the portion in which the five points of Arminianism are mentioned.

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Sermon/Sermon.asp?xRef=SM77
Let us take a glance at a few of them as presented to us in the creeds of some of the most prominent Christian denominations.

THE CALVINISTIC IMAGE OF GOD
One of the highest conceptions of the Almighty, one of the most noble that prevails to a large extent in Christendom, is the Calvinistic. It pictures the Almighty as the high and lofty One possessed of all wisdom, knowledge, power; that He is grave, dignified, commanding reverence and worship. There is much in this image to attract our attention; it is so much nobler than any of the images of the heathen we have ever seen. It inspires us with awe, with reverence. But there is something lacking. A cold chill of fear comes over us as we gaze upon the august majesty. His face is serene and calm, but cold and unsympathetic, ungenerous; stern justice and uncompromising firmness are there. But love! oh, love is lacking! We tremble before this image, and the more so as we hearken to the message which this God of Calvinism has sent to those who have the ear to hear Him. He has declared His omnipotence, His justice and unchangeableness; He has declared an election and predestination of a little handful of our race to wondrous glory in His presence and equally foreordained and predestinated that the vast majority of our race shall have none of His loving favor, but shall die in heathen ignorance--non-elect, predestinated before their birth not only to ignorance of the only name in the present life but to an eternity of suffering in the ages to come.

To the inquiry respecting the justice of this program, the answer comes that those heathen not favored with a knowledge of Christ were foreknown of God to be unworthy, and that they would not have received Him if they had heard His message. If we ask respecting the [SM81] masses of Christendom who have heard of the only name but have rejected it and failed to become His footstep followers as saints--if we inquire what hope there is for these, the answer is that there is none. Alas! we say, as we turn away to seek for a still higher ideal, a still more glorious image and a still more blessed Message!

This Calvinistic image, glorious in many of its features and details, can never satisfy the longings of our hearts; for while its pictures of justice and of power are satisfactory, its lack of love and sympathy makes us fear that it is deficient of the most important element of a truly noble character. We say to ourselves that with all of our weaknesses and faults we would love even our enemies too much to torture them, especially to torture them to all eternity hopelessly, uselessly. We would say to ourselves that if we possessed the wisdom and power of the Calvinistic God, the love in our hearts and sympathy would have co-operated with our wisdom and power and would have hindered us from creating a soul that could not be destroyed, could not be blotted out of existence. For this is the claim made in the name of this image of God; that He so made man that he must live forever, that God Himself could not destroy him; that man being unworthy of a place in glory God has no alternative but to perpetuate his existence in misery. Our reply is that this implies a lack of either power or wisdom on the part of the Calvinistic God.

THE ARMINIAN IMAGE OF GOD
Arminianism offsets Calvinism. While the latter is held by almost all the various branches of the Presbyterians and by almost all Baptists, Congregationalists, etc., Arminianism is most particularly represented today by our Methodist friends of different branches. The celebrated "five points" of Arminianism are in substance:--

(1) Conditional Election. (As in opposition to the unconditional election held by Calvinists.) [SM82]

(2) A Universal Redemption, or that Christ died for all alike, though only those who accept His atonement by faith will be actually saved. (As in opposition to the Calvinistic theory that atonement was only for the Elect.)

(3) That Salvation is by Grace; or man can exercise true faith only by the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, with which, however, he can co-operate. (As in contradiction to the Calvinistic view that the grace of God--His mercy, His forgiveness, His assistance--was destined only for the Elect and applies to none others.)

(4) That God's Grace is not irresistible. (As in contrast with the Calvinistic theory, that it is irresistible --that the Elect cannot resist God's grace but must yield to it.)

(5) That to fall from a state of Grace is possible. (As in contrast with the Calvinistic view, that for the Elect to fall from grace is impossible.)
Looking at this mental image, which has appealed to an increasingly large number of Christian people during the past century, we perceive that while it is a less dignified image than the Calvinistic one it has more warmth, more love, more grace. This draws our hearts sympathetically toward this image, to a considerable degree. But as we look and hearken to its message we are impressed with the thought that it, too, is lacking in some particulars. It seems deficient in the qualities of wisdom and power. Its message is really no broader than that of the Calvinistic image; the same "Little Flock" alone will reach the Heavenly Kingdom, the same thousands of millions will be condemned to an eternity of torture. The only difference between these two images seems to be not in the result of their work, but in the method pursued therein. Unlike the Calvinistic image the Arminian one does not elect, does not foreordain, does not predestinate, but gives to every member of the race all the blessings, all the opportunities, all the knowledge, all the assistance it can render them, so that if they are lost it [SM83] is in spite of the best endeavors of the Arminian image for their aid. And so when the vast majority of mankind are lost in Eternal Torment it will not be because God willed it so, not because He predestinated it so, but because He could not help it; because with His very best endeavors He was unable to bring about a more favorable condition either in civilized or in heathen lands, because the great Adversary, Satan, had more power for evil than God could control for good.

Alas! Alas! The benevolent designs of this image can never reconcile us to its weakness, its inability, its unwisdom to foreknow and to forearrange and to accomplish its good and loving purposes. We need a God who is not only loving, generous and just, but who is wise enough and powerful enough to make His love of practical benefit to our race. These deficiencies in wisdom and power are the very point in which the Calvinistic image displays such grandeur. But the Arminian image possesses the love which the Calvinistic lacks. Alas! Neither image can fully satisfy our hearts. The proper mental image of the true God to be satisfactory to our hearts must be complete--perfect in justice, in love, in wisdom, in power. And this can be said of neither of these. We must look further. Surely the Bible is the Divine revelation of the Divine character, and surely an error has been made by which some of God's people have shown Him from one side, ignoring the other, while others have shown Him from the opposite side. It should be the ambition and effort, dear friends, of every true child of God to formulate before his mental vision that proper image of God which would be complete in all respects, which would be in harmony with every declaration of the Bible--the image of God before which we could bow and worship and adore, the image of God which would awaken in us that grand conception of the Almighty as superior in every particular to all of His creatures, infinite in Wisdom, Justice, Love and Power. [SM84]