8 replies to this topic

[DWray]

Isn't this one of the fathers of the moderrn Jehovah's Witnesses, a group denying the deity of Christ?

* Russell, Charles T. - Studies in the Scriptures - The New Creation.topx.exe

[Ebed Doulos]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are just one of several denominations which are descendants of "Pastor Russell's" Bible Student Movement. 75% of the membership which followed Russell left after his death or formed/joined a splinter group such as those following.

Elijah Voice Society,
Epiphany Bible Students Association
Laodicean Home Missionary Movement
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement
Pastoral Bible Institute
Dawn Bible Students Association
Independent Bible Students
Church of the Kingdom of God

After almost a hundred years, if anything, Pastor Russell's teachings can be said to more closely align with the Millerite/Adventist wing of Christianity and its progeny. In all candor, though, Pastor Russell had enough theological quirks to make many of the off-shoots of his original following to steer a careful course around his teachings.

Edited by Ebed Doulos, 13 January 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[DWray]

Bingo. Most of the history I knew, just kinda' wondered what the response would be. I hope nobody goes after this stuff thinking it will enhance genuine Bible study for believers.
Dan

[ResLight]

Isn't this one of the fathers of the moderrn Jehovah's Witnesses, a group denying the deity of Christ?

* Russell, Charles T. - Studies in the Scriptures - The New Creation.topx.exe

Charles Taze Russell actually was never associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization; Russell did not believe that the church needed any such "outward organization", and he preached against the kind of authoritarianism that exists in the JW organization.

Russell did not deny the deity of Jesus, but, in Volume 5 of Studies in the Scriptures, he demonstrated from the Bible what Jesus' deity means as related to the Hebraic background for usage of the words for deity as applied others than the only Most High.

[BaptizedBeliever]

In speaking of his books in "The Watch Tower" of September 15, 1910, page 298, Russell said:

"If the six volumes of Scripture Studies are practically the Bible topically arranged with Bible proofs given, we might not improperly name the volumes 'The Bible In Arranged Form.' That is to say they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself . . . . .

"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see also, that if any one lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years, if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light."

[RR144]

Interestingly, while the Jehovah's Witnesses claim C.T. Russell as their founder, he would be ashamed of the modern day Watchtower Society. It has become EVERYTHING he abhorred in Christendom. The WT Society was simply a publishing house, the various Bible Student congregations were autonomous from each other and the Society. Russell or the Society did not "lord it over" the congregation. Emphasis was on Bible study and ones personal relationship with Jesus and building Christ-like character.

While there was one major split during Russell's day (1909), the bigger schism happened in 1917 shortly after Russell's death in October 1916. As a result various groups were formed, publishing new journals and Bible study aids. As a result of all these Bible Student groups, Rutherford, who had tossed out just about everything Russell taught, changed the name of his followers to the Jehovah's Witnesses and began to "lord it over " the independent congregations like a Pope, that caused the split along with the many changes in doctrines. Those individuals and congregations who gave up their Christian freedom, became Jehovah's Witnesses.

The splits happened between 1917-1928. But smaller splits afterwards. There have also been several Jehovah's Witness splits. particularly in the 1950s, in several European countries. This gave way to several Jehovah's Witness splinter groups, who look and act like Jehovah's Witnesses, even using the name.

[ResLight]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are just one of several denominations which are descendants of "Pastor Russell's" Bible Student Movement. 75% of the membership which followed Russell left after his death or formed/joined a splinter group such as those following.

Elijah Voice Society,
Epiphany Bible Students Association
Laodicean Home Missionary Movement
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement
Pastoral Bible Institute
Dawn Bible Students Association
Independent Bible Students
Church of the Kingdom of God

After almost a hundred years, if anything, Pastor Russell's teachings can be said to more closely align with the Millerite/Adventist wing of Christianity and its progeny. In all candor, though, Pastor Russell had enough theological quirks to make many of the off-shoots of his original following to steer a careful course around his teachings.

Yes, by 1928, over 75% of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's new organization and Rutherford's new dogma, and remained with the Bible Students movement. Rutherford's new dogma had, in effect, already rejected the "ransom for all", and eventually Rutherford openly rejected the "ransom for all" and replaced it with a message that basically states, "join us or be eternally destroyed in Armageddon." Russell never preached such a doctrine, and Russell's views of Armageddon were almost the opposite of that preached by Rutherford.

After 1928, many others of the "old-time" Bible Students who were still associated with Rutherford also came to reject Rutherford's new organization, especially through the radio work that was done by the Dawn Bible Students Association.

The Bible Students movement itself was not intended to be sectarian; nevertheless, some forms of sectarianism have developed. Yet, if you attend the General Covention, you will find literature available from many of the different printing houses of the Bible Students movement. I have never been to one of the International Coventions, but I would assume that the same is true at that convention. As it was in the days of Russell, each local ecclesia is autonomous, and free to use or not use whatever publications they wish.

The doctrine that ties the various groups of Bible Students together is the "ransom for all", which is as it was in the days of Russell. Within one congregation of Bible Students, you may find differing views regarding chronology and time prophecy, and various applictions of scripture, and this was also true in the days of Russell.

The Adventists groups do not believe the central doctrine that Russell believed, that is, the "ransom for all" who were condemned in Adam, including Adam himself. Russell did not consider his presentations on chronology and time prophecy to be "doctrine" on the same level with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the latter of which he believed to be solidly taught in the Bible; regarding the former (chronology and time prophecy), he stated many times that there could be errors in the application and conclusions given, and he did not reject anyone as brother in Christ for disagreeing with him on his conclusions. Indeed, Russell taught that we should construct no human sectarian boundaries regarding recognizing one as a brother in Christ, and thus Russell believed the true church existed, not just within the Bible Students, but within all the denominations and sects that profess to be Christian.

Edited by ResLight, 15 January 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[RickB]

Not quite..Russell dismissed interdenominationalism..did not believe or teach a Fiery hell, so much so that one NY paper stated that Russell had turned the hose on hell. He also predicted an invisible return of Jesus, and this was to occur in 1914 . The rift in 1917 was not over doctrine but rather on Russell's hand picked successor Rutherford. Russell also did not just think his Bethel was just a publishing Company. He toured worldwide organizing classes as he called congregations. He also did extensive studying on Pyramids and their theological meanings. FYI, JW's do not claim Russell as their founder, but as they will tell you, were founded by God. And JW's are not just a small flame-up, they are listed as one of the fastest growing denominations going..close to 8 million, last i heard.

[BaptizedBeliever]

Let us not be spreading untruths about what Russell did and did not believe. I present to you the following, written in 1916, about C.T. Russell.

FROM THE PEN OF R. H. BOLL
(From The Word and Work, July, 1916)
RUSSELL AND THE BIBLE

We will undertake to be helpful in drawing some clear distinctions between Mr. Russell's views and what commends itself to us as true and faithful teaching of God's word.

1. Mr. Russell teaches that Christ was not originally a Divine Being, but a creature of God--the chiefest of all God's creatures to be sure, and through whom all the rest of the creation was made, but a creature nevertheless.

As to this fundamental point we are assured that "God has in much mercy taught us better." Our Lord was "God," from the beginning, before any created thing came into existence, and was with the God. There was nothing of all that was ever made but was made through Him. In Him were all things created--visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; and He is before all things; in Him all things hold together; and all things were created through Him and for Him. (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17).

2. Mr. R's teaching (which if he had believed in the deity of Christ would have been impossible) is that during the three days that Jesus lay in the tomb He was non-existent. I forbear making any comment on this.

3. As to the intermediate state, in common with several other sects, Mr. Russell's followers hold the theory of "soul-sleeping" and "conditional immortality"--a theory resting upon a very shallow and inadequate generalization of scripture. This is the very framework of Russellism. [2]

4. Mr. Russell teaches the annihilation of the (finally incorrigible) wicked. This annihilation theory is involved in the just mentioned doctrine of "conditional immortality." Mr. R. scouts, caricatures, and ridicules the commonly received doctrine of hell. In his lecture "To Hell and Back," he makes "hell" equivalent to the grave. In common with the false prophets of Jeremiah's time, he succeeds in leaving the general impression on the minds of sinners that "no evil shall come upon them." But the solemn and awful Bible descriptions of the doom of the lost, demand a deeper significance than the easy-going views of Russell attach to them. We cannot but believe that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus was not merely a wild fable, employed for purposes of illustration; that the "weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth", "tribulation", "anguish", "indignation and wrath"; the "eternal fire", the "torment", and "eternal punishment", are not to be explained away or interpreted so lightly as Mr. R. takes them. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

5. Mr. R. teaches that the body of Christ was never raised. Since His spirit (according to R.'s theory) could have no separate independent existence; since in fact the Lord ceased to exist for three days; and even then His body was not raised--Mr. R.'s doctrine amounts to a denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For what he calls the resurrection is an out-and-out new creation and there could be no identity between the Lord who died and then wholly perished, and that new being which (according to R.) constitutes the risen Christ. But we are constrained by the testimony of the Word to believe that the Lord's body which was buried, was raised, glorified, and incorruptible.

6. In his contention that Christ is now a spirit-being Mr. R. (doubtlessly not realizing that he does so), imputes a fraud to the Lord Jesus Christ. For this strange teacher says that Jesus, when He appeared to His disciples after His resurrection, said, "Handle me and see that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me having" (Luke 24:39). He had assumed a body for the time, for identification. So then Jesus, although a spirit, assumed a body for a few minutes to make His disciples believe He was not a spirit!

7. As the foregoing items show, Mr. Russell denies that Jesus is in any sense Man now. Strangely, some who are loud against Russellism agree with Mr. Russell in this important point. But I, for one, heartily believe and confess that He is man now (1 Tim. 2:5) and man's Representative, Mediator, and Highpriest before God; and judge also by the very virtue of His humanity (John 5:27, Acts 17:31).

8. Mr. R. teaches that Christ, as a spiritual presence, has already come--has for years been here like a thief (since 1874). We believe that Jesus has not come, but is coming.

9. We confess that "Jesus cometh in the flesh"--the Lord himself (Luke 24:39; 1 Thess. 4:16), identical with the Lord Jesus whom they had seen and handled, and who was taken up from them (Acts 1:11). Mr. Russell, as already seen, denies this. [3]

10. Mr. R. teaches that all the dead are raised before or during the millennium. He denounces Rev. 20:5 as a forgery. But the Bible speaks plainly that the "rest of the dead" are not raised until after the Millennium (Rev. 20). There is no evidence of the supposed spuriousness of Rev. 20:5.

11. Mr. R. declares that during the Millennium the unsaved dead, being raised, shall have an opportunity to obtain salvation. This is the distinctive peculiarity of Russell's doctrine. None of the brethren in Christ of whom I know teach or countenance such a theory.

12. Mr. R. maintains that the judgment (Greek, "Krisis") is a new trial; but we are assured that it is the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous sentence and execution of the Judgment of God.

13. Mr. R. denies the personality of the Holy Spirit. None of the writers of the Word and Work believe or teach so.

14. Mr. R.'s interpretations of prophecy in general are, in my judgment, puerile and ridiculous. The idea of a man's making the lightning-like flash of the Lord's glorious coming to signify a gradual process (!); or of his holding that the church is the Elijah that was to come (!); or that the warning, "Woe to them that are with child and that give suck in those days means woe to the churches in those days who have a lot of new converts"! Such vagaries are of themselves sufficient to eliminate Mr. Russell from the ranks of prophetic students and interpreters who deserve serious consideration.

Such are some of the differences (not all, by any means) between the views of "Pastor Russell" on the one hand, and probably the majority of those who believe in the pre-millennial and imminent coming of the Lord, and look for and love His appearing, among whom the editors and many friends of Word and Work would gladly number themselves. If the reader will examine these points of difference he will perceive that: These items comprise what is peculiar and vital to Russellism. Take them out of Russell's doctrine and he has no distinctive doctrine left. And yet Gashmu and his friends feel justified in accusing the men who radically dissent from every one of these items as being teachers of Russellism!

Now it should be a small matter with God's servants as to who holds or repudiates any part of God's truth. A thing is neither false nor true merely because Russell, or any other man, advocates it. "What hath the Lord answered? What hath the Lord spoken?" It is only that that really counts. Doubtless Russell holds, alongside of vital error, much truth which is also held by faithful Christians everywhere. But that fact neither detracts from those truths, nor does it prove that those Christians belong to Russell's movement. But to use a name which, like "Russellism", carries a deserved stigma, in order to discredit a brother's teaching, and to prejudice the minds of other brethren against him--when, for a fact, he opposes that which is vital and distinctive in the teachings of Russell is a practice which (unless it is done in ignorance of the real facts), as we shall always, in absence of proof to the contrary, prefer to believe, we will forbear to characterize. [4]