Post by ResLight on Feb 18, 2013 22:32:07 GMT -5
Russellism; Self-Inflicted Wound.doc (66 KB)
I have attached Brother Scheider's comments regarding Russellism. Although I do not agree with all of his conclusions, much of what he states is similar to my own conclusions. I cannot go over all the points, but I will present some below:
In the document, it is stated:
Personally, I believe that it is best not apply the label "Russellism" at all to anyone. I personally would not consider myself as believing in "Russellism" even though I do agree with much of Brother Russell's chronology, and yet, I would not hold to any chronology of events before Christ dogmatically. However, I do not agree with many of Russell's conclusions concerning the chronology he presented. However, that chronology was not developed by him, it was developed by others who had preceded him. Even most of the prophetic views regarding that chronology were developed by others before him, although he did present those views with his own slant.
Generally, labels such a "Russellism" are hard to define, since the label may be given, usually by those antagonist to certain beliefs, to any who hold to any beliefs similar to "name" implied in such a label. In this case, the name is that of Charles Taze Russell. I do not know of anyone who would believe that absolutely everything that Russell wrote is absolute truth, although I have heard a few Bible Students who, in general conversation, have claimed to believe "all" that Russell wrote. And yet, when their beliefs are examined, even those who make the claim to believe "all" Russell wrote will be found to actually not doing so, and indeed it is actually impossible to do so. Russell himself did not believe that everything he had written was absolute truth, and did change his mind on several issues, as he came to what he considered to be a clearer understanding. For instance, in his earlier writings, he was expecting the kingdom rulership to be fully set up in 1914, and that Satan would be abyssed in that year. Are we to continue to believe such today, because he wrote that? Should we continue to believe that in 1914 the Kingdom was fully set up, peace now prevails all over the world, and no one is being deceived by "Satan"? I do not know of anyone who so believes.
While Brother Schneider seeks to limit the label by giving it his own definition, the label of "Russellism", is often applied to the "Jehovah's Witnesses", even though much of what the JWs teach is almost the opposite of what Russell taught.
My point is that this is one of the things I would disagree with Brother Schneider; I would not label any of the brothers with the label of "Russellism," regardless as to what extent they might hold to Brother Russell's teachings.
It is true that many "leaders" sought to divide the Bible Students movement after Russell's death, and that various congregations and individuals did "take sides" with various ones of these "leaders", often leading to condemnation of others who did not so take the same "side". Overall, however, I do not believe that the Bible Students movement as a whole was as "splintered" as many make it appear to have been. Nevertheless, there is a point in this in that Russell was viewed as the "faithful and wise servant", "the Laodicean Messenger", etc., which doctrines were held to as a basis for supposed doctrinal "unity", but which doctrines themselves actually have led to divisions amongst the Bible Students. The viewpoints extended from Brother Russell's thoughts concerning the harvest also became a dividing point. And all of this does show the results of limiting belief to a certain set of thoughts revealed in the writings of one servant of the Lord to such an extent as to view those writings as though they were nearly or actually divinely-inspired scripture. And yet, like the holy scriptures, the meaning of much that Russell wrote is still debated to this day, often without thought that we should move beyond what Russell wrote, and simply consider what the scriptures state.
The word "orthodox" has almost become a synonym for "traditional view/belief". The dictionary gives as the first three defintions of "orthodox":
1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
These definitions are based on general usage, and, in effect, would give the "orthodox" to mean that which has been accepted by man as true.
The word "orthodox" itself, however, literally means "right/correct viewpoint". In this regard, only God's viewpoint is right/correct (Psalm 19:80; 33:4; Romans 3:4), regardless of what man might consider to be the "right/correct viewpoint". It is also stated as meaning "right belief". With this definition in mind, it would only apply to man, and what a man believes, and it would also imply that a man can believe that which right as well as that which is wrong. So the determining factor of what is right or wrong should still go back to God, and not to man, for although by tradition a man may consider his belief to be "right", he could still be wrong in the eyes of Jesus and his God, whether he be a true sanctified servant of the Lord who has been to some extent deceived or whether he be a nominal servant who was never actually sanctified at all. -- Matthew 7:21,22,23; Luke 12:48.
Our brother speaks of those claiming to hold to the "truth"? What is the truth? Many speak of being "in the truth". How does one be "in the truth"? Is it by accepting the doctrine of this or that man, even to accepting the thoughts of this or that man as "doctrine" when such is not directly revealed in the Bible? (1 Corinthians 4:6) Jesus claimed to be "the truth" (John 14:16); that is, that the words he spoke were true words of the only true God. (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 14:10; 24) Thus, scripturally, to be 'in the truth', as it relates to the Christian, is to be "in Christ". -- Romans 8:4; 12:5.
Regarding Brother Russell's view of the light increasing. The actual directly revealed light due for us in this day is that of the Bible itself. "The faith" was once delivered to the saints in the first century. (Jude 1:3) I do not expect any direct revelation from anyone else before Satan is abyssed. The recovery of doctrines of that faith once delivered should not be viewed as "new light", but rather of uncovering light that had been concealed through the errors of men. And as we each walk individually in the light, if we submit to the spirit's revealing the Word of God, the light is increased for us individually as we walk in that light.
And yet, there is also an understanding of prophecies that are due to be understood in our day, that were not previously understood. (Daniel 12:8-10) Part of our walking in the light would entail walking in agreement with such increased understanding. As we understand these prophecies, although the revealment of the "light" itself is in the prophecy, our understanding of the prophecies does constitute an increase of light for us individually, and even collectively, as the understanding becomes available to us, regardless of who is/are the agent(s) in showing the understanding. However, it is the thought of men's reasoning beyond what has been written (1 Corinthians 4:6) to assume that a Christian has to identify this or that man, or group of men, etc., so as to follow such a man or men in order to walk in the light of truth. Jesus did not say "You must find and identify that one faithful and wise servant whom I have appointed to give to you food, and if you do not so recognize that one faithful servant, you are not in the light." Yet this appears to be what many have thought and read into Jesus' words.
Christian love,
Ronald
I have attached Brother Scheider's comments regarding Russellism. Although I do not agree with all of his conclusions, much of what he states is similar to my own conclusions. I cannot go over all the points, but I will present some below:
In the document, it is stated:
By “Russell-ism”, reference is made to those who, after his death in 1916, continued, and still continue, to hold his views (primarily prophetic views, but not limited to these) unchanged, even though nearly a century of unforeseen events have taken place since that date. This is basically a “stand fast” theology.
Personally, I believe that it is best not apply the label "Russellism" at all to anyone. I personally would not consider myself as believing in "Russellism" even though I do agree with much of Brother Russell's chronology, and yet, I would not hold to any chronology of events before Christ dogmatically. However, I do not agree with many of Russell's conclusions concerning the chronology he presented. However, that chronology was not developed by him, it was developed by others who had preceded him. Even most of the prophetic views regarding that chronology were developed by others before him, although he did present those views with his own slant.
Generally, labels such a "Russellism" are hard to define, since the label may be given, usually by those antagonist to certain beliefs, to any who hold to any beliefs similar to "name" implied in such a label. In this case, the name is that of Charles Taze Russell. I do not know of anyone who would believe that absolutely everything that Russell wrote is absolute truth, although I have heard a few Bible Students who, in general conversation, have claimed to believe "all" that Russell wrote. And yet, when their beliefs are examined, even those who make the claim to believe "all" Russell wrote will be found to actually not doing so, and indeed it is actually impossible to do so. Russell himself did not believe that everything he had written was absolute truth, and did change his mind on several issues, as he came to what he considered to be a clearer understanding. For instance, in his earlier writings, he was expecting the kingdom rulership to be fully set up in 1914, and that Satan would be abyssed in that year. Are we to continue to believe such today, because he wrote that? Should we continue to believe that in 1914 the Kingdom was fully set up, peace now prevails all over the world, and no one is being deceived by "Satan"? I do not know of anyone who so believes.
While Brother Schneider seeks to limit the label by giving it his own definition, the label of "Russellism", is often applied to the "Jehovah's Witnesses", even though much of what the JWs teach is almost the opposite of what Russell taught.
My point is that this is one of the things I would disagree with Brother Schneider; I would not label any of the brothers with the label of "Russellism," regardless as to what extent they might hold to Brother Russell's teachings.
Those holding this theology are best described by CTR himself:---
Little did CTR expect these words of his would apply to his own movement after his death. After all, it was generally expected by the brethren (and probably CTR also) that he would continue with the brethren until the church’s earthly journey was completed. But, it was not to be so. The movement, like all those before it, splintered on the death of its founder into a number of groups (each claiming to be more or less “orthodox”, and holding to the “truth”).
“Many faithful souls in the days of the Reformation walked in the light, so far as it was then shining. But since their day Protestants have made little progress, because, instead of walking in the light, they have halted around their favorite leaders, willing to see as much as they saw but nothing more.
“They set boundaries to their progress in the way of truth, hedging in, with the little truth they had, a great deal of error brought along from the "mother" church. For the creeds thus formulated many years ago, the majority of Christians have a superstitious reverence, supposing that no more can be known of God's plans now than was known by the Reformers.
“This mistake has been an expensive one; for, aside from the fact that but few great principles of truth were then recovered from the rubbish of error, there are special features of truth constantly becoming due, and of these Christians have been deprived by their creed fences.
“To illustrate: It was a truth in Noah's day, and one which required the faith of all who would walk in the light then, that a flood was coming, while Adam and others had known nothing of it.
“It would not be preaching truth now to preach a coming flood, but there are other dispensational truths constantly becoming due, of which, if walking in the light of the lamp, we shall know; so, if we have all the light which was due several hundred years ago, and that only, we are measurably in darkness.”
The Divine Plan of the Ages, pages 23-24.
“They set boundaries to their progress in the way of truth, hedging in, with the little truth they had, a great deal of error brought along from the "mother" church. For the creeds thus formulated many years ago, the majority of Christians have a superstitious reverence, supposing that no more can be known of God's plans now than was known by the Reformers.
“This mistake has been an expensive one; for, aside from the fact that but few great principles of truth were then recovered from the rubbish of error, there are special features of truth constantly becoming due, and of these Christians have been deprived by their creed fences.
“To illustrate: It was a truth in Noah's day, and one which required the faith of all who would walk in the light then, that a flood was coming, while Adam and others had known nothing of it.
“It would not be preaching truth now to preach a coming flood, but there are other dispensational truths constantly becoming due, of which, if walking in the light of the lamp, we shall know; so, if we have all the light which was due several hundred years ago, and that only, we are measurably in darkness.”
The Divine Plan of the Ages, pages 23-24.
Little did CTR expect these words of his would apply to his own movement after his death. After all, it was generally expected by the brethren (and probably CTR also) that he would continue with the brethren until the church’s earthly journey was completed. But, it was not to be so. The movement, like all those before it, splintered on the death of its founder into a number of groups (each claiming to be more or less “orthodox”, and holding to the “truth”).
It is true that many "leaders" sought to divide the Bible Students movement after Russell's death, and that various congregations and individuals did "take sides" with various ones of these "leaders", often leading to condemnation of others who did not so take the same "side". Overall, however, I do not believe that the Bible Students movement as a whole was as "splintered" as many make it appear to have been. Nevertheless, there is a point in this in that Russell was viewed as the "faithful and wise servant", "the Laodicean Messenger", etc., which doctrines were held to as a basis for supposed doctrinal "unity", but which doctrines themselves actually have led to divisions amongst the Bible Students. The viewpoints extended from Brother Russell's thoughts concerning the harvest also became a dividing point. And all of this does show the results of limiting belief to a certain set of thoughts revealed in the writings of one servant of the Lord to such an extent as to view those writings as though they were nearly or actually divinely-inspired scripture. And yet, like the holy scriptures, the meaning of much that Russell wrote is still debated to this day, often without thought that we should move beyond what Russell wrote, and simply consider what the scriptures state.
The word "orthodox" has almost become a synonym for "traditional view/belief". The dictionary gives as the first three defintions of "orthodox":
1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
These definitions are based on general usage, and, in effect, would give the "orthodox" to mean that which has been accepted by man as true.
The word "orthodox" itself, however, literally means "right/correct viewpoint". In this regard, only God's viewpoint is right/correct (Psalm 19:80; 33:4; Romans 3:4), regardless of what man might consider to be the "right/correct viewpoint". It is also stated as meaning "right belief". With this definition in mind, it would only apply to man, and what a man believes, and it would also imply that a man can believe that which right as well as that which is wrong. So the determining factor of what is right or wrong should still go back to God, and not to man, for although by tradition a man may consider his belief to be "right", he could still be wrong in the eyes of Jesus and his God, whether he be a true sanctified servant of the Lord who has been to some extent deceived or whether he be a nominal servant who was never actually sanctified at all. -- Matthew 7:21,22,23; Luke 12:48.
Our brother speaks of those claiming to hold to the "truth"? What is the truth? Many speak of being "in the truth". How does one be "in the truth"? Is it by accepting the doctrine of this or that man, even to accepting the thoughts of this or that man as "doctrine" when such is not directly revealed in the Bible? (1 Corinthians 4:6) Jesus claimed to be "the truth" (John 14:16); that is, that the words he spoke were true words of the only true God. (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 14:10; 24) Thus, scripturally, to be 'in the truth', as it relates to the Christian, is to be "in Christ". -- Romans 8:4; 12:5.
Regarding Brother Russell's view of the light increasing. The actual directly revealed light due for us in this day is that of the Bible itself. "The faith" was once delivered to the saints in the first century. (Jude 1:3) I do not expect any direct revelation from anyone else before Satan is abyssed. The recovery of doctrines of that faith once delivered should not be viewed as "new light", but rather of uncovering light that had been concealed through the errors of men. And as we each walk individually in the light, if we submit to the spirit's revealing the Word of God, the light is increased for us individually as we walk in that light.
And yet, there is also an understanding of prophecies that are due to be understood in our day, that were not previously understood. (Daniel 12:8-10) Part of our walking in the light would entail walking in agreement with such increased understanding. As we understand these prophecies, although the revealment of the "light" itself is in the prophecy, our understanding of the prophecies does constitute an increase of light for us individually, and even collectively, as the understanding becomes available to us, regardless of who is/are the agent(s) in showing the understanding. However, it is the thought of men's reasoning beyond what has been written (1 Corinthians 4:6) to assume that a Christian has to identify this or that man, or group of men, etc., so as to follow such a man or men in order to walk in the light of truth. Jesus did not say "You must find and identify that one faithful and wise servant whom I have appointed to give to you food, and if you do not so recognize that one faithful servant, you are not in the light." Yet this appears to be what many have thought and read into Jesus' words.
Christian love,
Ronald
