Posts by Justin

7

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 3

by Justin in

why did russell see the necessity for dividing up christians into "classes"?

the distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, russell had three classes co-existing during the gospel age: justified believers, the great company, and the little flock.

it must be remembered that russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth.

Justin

O Happy Day, I accidently launched my previous post too soon. I meant to say more than just "Thank you."

I think that Russell basically said what he had to say in the first three volumes. The tragedy was that he did not leave well enough alone. But he had created an expectation of progressive revelation, and his people had to be satisfied that the light was constantly increasing. This caused him to disturb the harmony in his original teachings. The same tendency has continued in JWs today. They are not content to settle down in a tradition, but must constantly be fed "new truth" - even if this means just changing a few words here and there to give the impression of progress.

I have also attempted to show that Russell left more loose strings than the prophetic dates which, of course, would need to be revised. Rutherford inherited the loose strings. One of the first teachings he changed was to deny the existence of "tentative justification." It was only after attempting to put the "Russellite" house in order that he eventually made major changes and dumped the "divine plan of the ages" in exchange for "the vindication of Jehovah's name." For all his faults, he inherited the same set of circumstances that anyone succeeding to Russell's position would find. So it is not as if Russell had a completely harmonious system which someone else arbitrarily subverted.

But even during Russell's lifetime, once the volumes were complete, I can't imagine what it would be like getting someone interested in the "starter volume" (the first volume), knowing full well that when they finished the set they would have to unlearn some basics they had learned at the start. I also realize that my posts on the subject must sound like gibberish to the average poster, but the information was intended for whoever has ears to hear.

7

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 3

by Justin in

why did russell see the necessity for dividing up christians into "classes"?

the distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, russell had three classes co-existing during the gospel age: justified believers, the great company, and the little flock.

it must be remembered that russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth.

Justin

Thanks for your reply, O Happy Day.

7

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 3

by Justin in

why did russell see the necessity for dividing up christians into "classes"?

the distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, russell had three classes co-existing during the gospel age: justified believers, the great company, and the little flock.

it must be remembered that russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth.

Justin

Why did Russell see the necessity for dividing up Christians into "classes"? The distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, Russell had three classes co-existing during the Gospel Age: justified believers, the Great Company, and the Little Flock. It must be remembered that Russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth." Like William Miller before him, he had to appeal to Christians from various organizations. The "true church" had to be scattered invisibly among the denominations, waiting to be "harvested" at the end of the age. And, Christians had varying degrees of piety as well as belief. Russell had to find a way of saying that the 144,000, scattered among all churches and stretched out throughout the previous eighteen centuries, though being the cream of the crop, were not the only true Christians. Russell did this by stating that there was a class of Christians who had been justified because they believed in Jesus, but were never spirit-begotten. There was another class (the Great Company) who had been spirit-begotten, but had failed of their calling and yet had not been cast off completely.

But, by tampering with the doctrine of justification (see Part 2, my previous post), Russell created incalculable problems for his theology. When asked if his teachings had changed, he attempted to deny this. Nevertheless, justification had been the first rung in the ladder. If the Court of the Tabernacle pictured a condition that could not be scripturally proved to exist (mere tentative justification), how could Russell's other interpretations of the tabernacle (which, in turn, were re-worked into the Chart of the Ages) be relied upon? And a truth seeker would begin the quest by exposure to the "harmonious plan" of the first volume only to discover, in the sixth, that the harmony of the plan had been broken. This, after one had become throroughly enmeshed in the worldview, perhaps unable to exit.

A similar "Tabernacle problem" was Russell's inconsistency in identifying the antitypical Levites (as opposed to priests). Early on, Russell had stated that the justified believers (tentatively or otherwise) were the Levites because they never entered the Holy compartment but remained in the Court. But later, he claimed that the Great Company (who were spirit-begotten) were the Levites, as the Revelation (7:9-15) says that they serve God day and night "in his temple." Russell explained this by saying that the justified believers, as they lose their tentative justification, are expelled from the Court and go back to the Camp (the world). Thus, in the next age, they are no longer Levites. But the Great Company revert back to the Court. So while they (the Great Company) have been Priests during the Gospel Age, they return to being Levites in the future. The problem with this is that the Great Company is expected to enter upon a spiritual existence in the next age, not the human justified condition supposedly pictured by the Court. So Russell further confused his interpretation of the Tabernacle.

To conclude, there are difficulties in reading the SS. The original plan of the work was to conceal the realized eschatology from new readers, though this seems to have been didactic in nature rather a deliberate deception. But as inconsistencies in the theological system arose in succeeding years, the work was never thoroughly revised, leaving the unsuspecting reader to learn the early "errors" first and then having to re-learn the system. It is hoped this explanation helps any who may chance upon the volumes today and provide "a helping hand for Bible Students"! Finis.

2

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 2

by Justin in

as stated in my previous post, it was in the original layout of russell's educational program that people would learn the basics of the "divine plan" which he considered had been operative (though not properly understood) for the duration of the gospel age, and then through successive reading become acquainted with "new truths" that were due to be understood in the closing years of the age.

russell next wrote the battle of armageddon and the at-one-ment between god and man which elaborated on ideas presented in the first volume (namely, that armageddon would be a great social revolution, and that traditional christian ideas such as trinity, immortal soul and hell were actually impediments to understanding the divine plan).

but when russell came to the sixth and what turned out to be the last volume, the new creation, he was confronted with an error in his logic that threatened to overturn his theology.

Justin

As stated in my previous post, it was in the original layout of Russell's educational program that people would learn the basics of the "divine plan" which he considered had been operative (though not properly understood) for the duration of the Gospel Age, and then through successive reading become acquainted with "new truths" that were due to be understood in the closing years of the Age. Russell next wrote The Battle of Armageddon and The At-one-ment Between God and Man which elaborated on ideas presented in the first volume (namely, that Armageddon would be a great social revolution, and that traditional Christian ideas such as Trinity, immortal soul and hell were actually impediments to understanding the divine plan). But when Russell came to the sixth and what turned out to be the last volume, The New Creation, he was confronted with an error in his logic that threatened to overturn his theology. Intended as a volume of special instruction for those who had availed themselves of the "high calling," The New Creation reviewed the steps that were to be taken on the road to glory. Remember, those steps were justification, spirit-begettal, and finally resurrection. But Russell was now confronted with a dilemma in the very first step - justification.

Justification is an old theological term which means to "make right." Taken from the writings of the apostle Paul, it refers to the sinner's being put in a right relationship with God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Protestant Reformers noticed how Paul at times would use accounting terminology when explaining this matter, so the idea was conceived that human beings, still being sinful and imperfect this side of heaven, are merely reckoned or accounted righteous when they are saved by Jesus Christ. So this Protestant conception of justification (as distinct from the Roman Catholic) was inherited by Russell, but he gave it a peculiar slant.

In the first volume of SS studies, Russell reasoned that this justification made a person reckonedly the equivalent of Adam before the Fall; that is, a perfect human being. So for Russell, justification meant a plane of existence - human perfection. If someone were actually restored to this plane (as the world would be in the Millennium), they would achieve an existence no better than Adam had in Paradise. But those called to the heavenly kingdom had to go higher. So for them, reckoned human perfection was merely a step on the way - a step that would be superceded by the next one, that of spirit-begettal. So Russell had reasoned that, when one accepts Jesus as Savior, one is justified as an ordinary Christian. But later on, one may consecrate oneself to God and become spirit-begotten, thus entering upon the next step to glory.

What was wrong with this thinking, and how did the fallacy become apparent to Russell when he wrote the sixth volume? It meant that there were great numbers of people who had taken the first step - justification - but had never gone further. Not being entitled to heavenly life, these people would end up being restored to human perfection with the rest of mankind. But for this to occur, these ones would have to lose their justification (their reckoned standing as perfect humans) and instead partake of the gradual restoration and justification that was due the world. They had already taken the first step toward the heavenly kingdom, but now they would switch to a different plan. They would have partaken of both salvation plans! Unlike the members of the Great Company, who were already spirit-begotten and could thus receive secondary heavenly positions when they failed to be completely faithful, the (merely) justified believers could not be resurrected to heaven at all.

It was in response to this dilemma that Russell conceived the idea of "tentative justification." In the sixth volume, Russell claimed that those who had never fully consecrated were only "tentatively justified." They were on their way to the heavenly calling, but would lose their "tentative justification" if they did not proceed further within a reasonable time, and would thus be returned to the world with its earthly prospects. Only the fully consecrated were "justified to life," and would occupy the justified and spirit-begotten conditions simultaneously. This latter thought was actually more orthodox, as the two situations have never been juxtaposed within traditional Christianity - being seen as complimentary to each other. But when Russell changed his views, a contradiction and inconsistency was created within the SS series.

In the first volume, Plane N in the Chart of the Ages represented Russell's original view on justification. This was said to be the plane of human perfection, which was actually occupied first by Adam and then by Jesus. It was occupied reckonedly by justified believers during the Gospel Age. (A minor inconsistency was that Abraham was said to be on Plane N, but only as justified to "friendship with God.") This, in turn was said to correspond to the Court in the Tabernacle which was occupied by Levites who were not priests (based on an early work of Russell's, Tabernacle Shadows). But with the publication of Volume VI, any further discussion on the Chart of the Ages would have to designate Plane N as the Plane of Human Perfection, Justification to Friendship, and Tentative Justification - matters which do not consistently hold together. Furthermore, the Court of the Tabernacle would have to be designated as the state or condition of tentative justification only, and the actual justification of the Gospel Church would be left without any symbolic representation in the Tabernacle altogether. Could Russell revise the first volume to teach tentative justification? No, for it was impossible to prove from the Bible that such a state even existed, and such a teaching would destroy the harmony which attracted followers when they first read that volume. Remember, it was the first volume that acted as the doorway to the whole "present truth" scheme. Thus, in 1916, one month prior to his death, when Russell wrote new prefaces to later volumes of the SS indicating changes in his thinking, he did not do so for the first volume, for that would have discouraged newly interested ones from the start.

To be continued . . .

1

Studies in the Scriptures

by Justin in

as interest has been expressed from time to time regarding the wts' oldest publications, i would like to submit a few posts on my observations of studies in the scriptures, the original six volumes written by charles taze russell.

these are still published by various bible student associations but not by the wtb&ts.. the plan for the scripture studies (hereafter ss) was to use the first volume, the divine plan of the ages, as a base or foundation upon which the succeeding volumes would be built.

thus, the bible student is (was) encouraged to continually reread and restudy the ss in order to grasp the relationship between the first volume and the succeeding ones.. the "divine plan of the ages" is a dispensational scheme in which the present age is contrasted with the future (millennial) age, and in which there are two different salvation plans, each applicable depending upon the age in which one lives.

Justin

As interest has been expressed from time to time regarding the WTS' oldest publications, I would like to submit a few posts on my observations of Studies in the Scriptures, the original six volumes written by Charles Taze Russell. These are still published by various Bible Student Associations but not by the WTB&TS.

The plan for the Scripture Studies (hereafter SS) was to use the first volume, The Divine Plan of the Ages, as a base or foundation upon which the succeeding volumes would be built. Thus, the Bible Student is (was) encouraged to continually reread and restudy the SS in order to grasp the relationship between the first volume and the succeeding ones.

The "divine plan of the ages" is a dispensational scheme in which the present age is contrasted with the future (Millennial) age, and in which there are two different salvation plans, each applicable depending upon the age in which one lives. For the elect "little flock" there is the Gospel Age resulting in the selection of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ. These ones are justified by faith, spirit-begotten, and eventually raised to immortal life a spirit beings. Ordinary Christians are merely justified, and others who become spirit-begotten but fail to pass the trials that beset the elect little flock end upon in the Great Multitude as secondary members of the Kingdom of Heaven. But, in the next age, the world of mankind in general is lifted up to human perfection - and this constitutes their justification. The two ages are separated by Armageddon.

Russell held to a realized eschatology - that is, be believed that Christ's second presence was already in progress and that events of the end-time were already occurring. This is something the modern JWs have assigned to the era commencing with 1914. Most of them do not realize that Russell made the same claim for the year 1874. But in The Divine Plan, Russell concealed this realized eschatology and spoke of the Kingdom only in future terms. That is, he wrote from the standpoint of someone still living during the Gospel Age, and not during a transition period from one age to the next. This, no doubt, was for didactic purposes as the concepts which Russell was trying to convey were complex enough for traditional Christians, and he did not want to complicate them any more than was necessary. So the first volume, though published in 1886 (when Russell believed the events of the end-time were well underway) was written from the standpoint of someone living, say, in the 1860's.

It was only when someone was grounded in the basics of the divine plan, and realized the distinction between the two salvations and the different ages, that one could progress to the next two volumes which dealt with the subject of chronology (The Time is at Hand and The Kingdom Come). It was only then that the Bible Student (or prospective Bible Student) would learn that in 1874 a forty-year hearvest period had commenced which would end in 1914. Christ had returned invisibly in 1874 (the first 6,000 years of man's existence having ended in 1873), the sleeping saints had been resurrected in 1878, and Babylon the Great had fallen in 1881. The truly consecrated were now being called out of the churches by the havest workers to associate only with those in "present truth." In 1881 the elect number of 144,000 had been filled, but due to unfaithfulness (the unfaithful ones falling into the Great Company class), replacements were continually being selected. It was on the basis of this replacement process that newly consecrated ones could still entertain a heavenly hope. (Russell did not try to create a secondary earthly class as modern JWs have done. To him, the earthly paradise remained the hope of the world in general.) It must have come as a surprise to the reader of the SS that the glorious hope of attaining to the divine nature with Jesus Christ and Jehovah God which Russell had introduced in the first volume was even then coming to a close!

To be continued . . .

6

The Adventist Movement

by SharonUT in

after study... i have concluded that the jw's are nothing more than another off-shoot of the adventist movement.

see below.. the adventist movement (millerites) was started by william miller (a lay baptist minister) in 1843 and that created 3 off-shots.

the advent christian church, the life & advent union, and the seventh-day adventists (which sprang the branch davidians).

Justin

I would not consider invisible presence to be an Adventist belief. After Barbour's prediction that the second coming would occur in 1874 had failed, one of Russell's associates noticed in Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott translation that the Greek word parousia was there translated "presence." Russell then convinced Barbour that Christ had returned in 1874 as expected, but invisibly. So even though Barbour himself was an Adventist, the invisible presence doctrine really belonged to the new movement which was to be launched with Russell.

3

Hilda & Mystic, Mission Statement Please

by Guest 77 in

jw
friends

hilda and mystic, would kindly explain your 'mission statement' on this forum?

please avoid diarrhea of words.

guest 77

Justin

It's interesting to note that Hildegard of Bingen was a medieval Roman Catholic abbess and mystic. She is noted for approaching God from a feminine perspective. Perhaps our troll would like to choose another persona?

25

Real god name: Jehovah, Yahweh??

by Yaron777 in

i just today found this forum and read these discussion in here, some good stuff found, thanks.

reason why i'm here is, because one of my friend is jehovah witness, and we have discussed many things.

i myself don't know very much about bible.

Justin

As to the theory that "Jesus" is taken from the name of the Greek god Zeus: In actuality, "Jesus" is the Greek Insous (pronounce "Yee-soos") and is found in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) for Joshua. In Hebrew, Joshua is Yehoshua (which came to be shortened as Yeshua). So the short of it is that Jesus is the Greek Joshua, and can be derived directly from the Greek Old Testament.

7

God three whats and one whom????????????

by airmail special in

hello all.. i dont know if this is the right area for debate most i have read on here is pretty childish.

but im looking for debaters to handle this topic on the trinity.

ex jws say they now have the truth and many have gone back to churches.

Justin

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, derived from the decision of the Council of Nicea of 325 C.E., states the following:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth . . . And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father . . . And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified . . ."

This is the classical definition of Trinitarianism. It must be understood in the light of the alternatives which were offered at that time in history. One was Arianism - the belief that the Logos-Christ was a creature (and which is held by JWs today) - and the other was Modalism. Modalism was the belief that God was one Person who played three roles - that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalism can easily be mistaken for Trinitarianism, and people today who are simply contented to say that "Jesus is God" are frequently Modalists without realizing it. Both Modalism and Arianism have the advantage that they are logically consistent within themselves, but neither of these theories takes into consideration all the Scriptural evidence regarding the relationship of Jesus to the Father.

To illustrate the three approaches, let's look at John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God." The Arian says, "the Word was a god" (without the article), meaning that the word was a separate and distinct being from the Father. The Modalist says, "The Word was God," and therefore must have been the Father. But the Trinitarian says, "The Word was God," but not the Father.

Historically, the best way to explain the Trinity is to begin with the Father, and then to show the relationship of the Son and Spirit to the Father. The Son is begotten of the Father, meaning that the Son is generated out of the Father and is therefore not a separate and distinct God. The Spirit is like the breath of the Father's mouth, and is therefore divine like the Father.

In his "Dogmatic Theology, Vol. IV - The Trinity," Francis J. Hall wrote in 1910:

"(a) Several particulars are to be noted. In the first place, the principle of origin in the Trinity is absolutely one, and is seated in the Father. . . . The other divine Persons proceed from Him, but He proceeds from none. Each divine Person is [theos - God], for each possesses the divine essence, and without confusion contains the other two; but the Father is [Autotheos - God himself].

"(b) This introduces the second particular, that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is [Autotheos], for each derives His essence - His being as God - from the Father. These two are God in a subordinate MANNER, although not in a subordinate SENSE of the word God. That is, their being God is due to their proceeding from the Father; but they are as truly God as is the Father, because the very essence of the Father is fully and eternally Theirs. They are co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father." (p. 239)

Hall also states: ". . . when the Persons are mentioned together it is the Father alone to whom the name God is applied. This is so because He is the fountain of Deity, and the other two Persons are God because They are derived from Him and participate in His essence. They are indeed given divine titles at times when separately mentioned, lest we should be deceived as to Their co-equality with the Father; but none the less care is taken when the Father is mentioned with Them . . ." (p. 241)

This is not to deny that other Trinitarians refuse to recognize these relationships between the Persons, or to recognize that there is subordination WITHIN the Godhead, and thus revert to a sort of Modalism. But it also means that most JW arguments (coming from the opposite extreme of Arianism) are actually refutations of Modalism rather than the formal Trinitarian doctrine that was worked out in the fourth century.

Once the terms are clearly defined, let all search the Scriptures to determine which theory is most in accord with the Scriptural evidence.

12

A heavenly hope

by Dawn in

jw
friends

i have read a number of posts in the past few weeks from people who felt they had a heavenly hope and struggled with the issue "how do i handle the memorial" or "what will my friends think".. this interests me because i struggled with quite the opposite.

i always believed i was of the earthly class and that is where my hope always was.. when i started going to a new church last year and hearing about a heavenly hope i really struggled with this.

i couldn't imagine myself going to heaven - even if for a short time until the earth is made new.

Justin

Revelation 21:1-5 pictures the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, coming down and settling upon the earth. It would appear, then, that the actual hope portrayed in the Bible - 'the one hope of our calling' (Eph. 4:4) - is neither heavenly nor earthly as the WT portrays it. It is, rather, the union of heaven and earth.

If you read a few theology textbooks, you'll find that the final "heaven" is actually the new heaven and new earth together - the new creation. You need to distinguish between the official beliefs of what we used to call "Christendom" and the popular religion that is believed by the people. If you're not happy attending a church where they dwell on heaven, go to one where the details of the future life are not specified but they're simply content to be "saved."

Don't confuse your personal hope with whether or not you should receive communion. Receiving communion simply means that you're a member of the Body of Christ. It does not mean that you are going to heaven as opposed to living on the new earth. If the pictures that the WT painted of the "paradise earth" are more real to you than "going to heaven," that's OK because the reality will be more wonderful than either of these.

Justin