By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist, but was teaching millenarian, age-to-come belief. Storrs left Adventism in 1844 for an independent age-to-come belief system which he maintained and continued to advocate even while associated with the Life and Advent Union. If you read the truthhistory blog you will also see that the Allegheny church was not Adventist but One Faith as associated with The Restitution. They did not teach Adventist doctrine, and none of Russell's doctrine is uniquely Adventist. He, in fact, says it's not. We have every reason to believe him.
The two doctrinal sets are significantly different and the two groups said really nasty things about each other. When Schulz and de Vienne's new book comes out, you will find much of this detailed in the first three chapters. All of Russell's principal doctrines are derived from Age-to-Come belief. All Russell owed to Wendell is relief from hell fire belief.
The 1914 date is not derived from Adventism. Barbour got it from an Anglican, E. B. Elliott. Date speculation predates Adventism. You will find it among 18th Century German Lutherans and Anglican millenarians. You're articles are interesting, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Another example would be the 2520 year count of time. Not Adventist in origin. American Congregationalist from a book published in 1808.
Russell's unique view of restored paradise for many and heaven for few is not adventist. It comes from an Anglican and from a Brethren commentator. The idea that the jews would return to God's favor was strongly rejected by Adventists, but is an Age to Come belief. His view of resurrection, what some called "simultaneous resurrection" doctrine came from Benjamin Wilson. Wilson was an Age to Come adherent, never an Adventist. The two stage advent Russell taught until 1881 derives from Anglican commentators of the 17th and 18th Century. It is not an Adventist doctrine. Rejection of World Burning came from One Faith believers. It was the known teaching of J. T. Ongley, a one faith evangelist who preached to the Allegheny congregation. You will find somewhere on the truthhistory blog a copy of the One Faith church directory listing them as approved One Faith (aka restitution church, church of god) congregation.
I like your articles, Terry. But you're on the wrong trail. You're just repeating what you find on the internet and in poorly researched books. You can trace the real story through The Restitution and Bible Examiner. They're hard to find, but not impossible to locate.
Why do some expect Russell to have originated anything. That wasn't his goal, and he never claimed to do so.
I may get kicked off Schulz's private blog for doing so, but here is a small extract of what they've written:
Curry and those who have followed him base their conclusions on a series of misstatements and misperceptions. Russell, far from avoiding any connection with Miller, referred to him approvingly. So while it is true that Miller believed in a fiery end and rejected Conditional Immortality in favor of Inherent Immortality, these things did not serve to separate Russell from Miller. He saw the Millerite movement as the first step in a prophetic fulfillment, but wrong in doctrine. The idea that Russell avoided Adventist identity so that he could appear to be the independent restorer of primitive Christianity is invented from whole cloth. Russell saw himself as a kind of cut-and-paste Bible Student, reassembling from scattered sources the Old Theology. Russell said as much in 1889:
We must disclaim any credit even for the finding and rearrangement of the jewels of truth. “It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” The writer wholly disclaims superior ability or qualification for the reorganization of the truth in its present solidarity. As the time had come for the bringing together of the scattered thoughts of past centuries in the marvelous inventions of our day. – so the time had come for the bringing together of the fragmentary hopes and promises of God’s Word scattered through Christendom. To deny that the Lord has simply “poured out” this harvest time blessing of “present truth” in his own due time and in his own way, would be as wrong as to claim it as of our own invention. … It came gradually, silently, as comes the morning dawn: the only effort necessary was to keep awake and face in the right direction. And the greatest aid in so doing was the effort put forth to awaken others of the “household of faith” and point them to the light and in turn to urge upon them the necessity for serving also, if they would overcome the lethargic “spirit of the world,” and be ready to go in to the marriage of the Lamb.
Russell believed he was led by God into increased understanding and a sound theology. Curry’s conclusion that all of Russell’s theology was Adventist is wrong. Russell’s doctrines came from outside the Adventist movement, or were held in common with others, or developed by others. Adventism wasn’t the source of his belief. Dunn, Seiss, Heath and others who influenced his thinking were anything but Adventists.
