Monday, December 20, 2010

Russell Was Never the President of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Stephen E. Jones presented some erroneous statements concerning Russell to which we responded; he then presented even more errors in statements to which we responded, but since my responses were not allowed, we have decided to respond to them here. 

It is stated concerning Russell:
While JWs no longer have one absolute "earthly leader" in the sense of one dominant individual, as it did have in the reigns of its first three Presidents, Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916); Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1869-1942) and Nathan Homer Knorr (1905-1977)
Is this true? No, since there was no "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization in the days of Russell, and Russell certainly did not have  "reign" over anyone.

Indeed, Charles Taze Russell was never the president of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs' organization did not exist in the days of Russell. Russell was a non-sectarian who preached against such authoritarianism as is found in the JW organization. Furthermore, Russell disowned being any "ruler" of the church (which he stated many times existed amongst all the denominations of Christianity). The JWs have indeed rejected what Russell presented related to "organization" and Christian freedom in his Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 6.

Nor did Russell use fear of the "second death" as a whip to bring anyone into subjection (as does the JW leadership). The gospel - the good news of great joy which is to be to all the people - preached by Russell was almost the opposite message of that is preached by Jehovah's Witnesses. After Russell died, Rutherford immediately had the by-laws of the Watch Tower Society changed, and went about creating a new organization, which the bulk of the Bible Students movement rejected in 1920s.

See:
Was Russell the Founder of What is Now Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Bible Students Did Not Become Jehovah's Witnesses

Russell was indeed the main founder of the legal entity The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. However, that entity was not originally created so as to support or control an organization such the "Jehovah's Witnesses." Russell, being a non-sectarian, did not believe in any such kind of organization (and actively preached against such until he died), nor did he or the Bible Students believe in the message that is preached by that organization. Even though some of the Bible Students sought to give to Russell a special authority, Russell himself disclaimed any special authority for himself or for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

See Russell, Authority and Organization

Furthermore, Russell actively preached against similar kinds of alleged "good news" (as preached by the JWs) until he died. Russell never preached a gospel that Christians had to come to him, or to the Bible Students movement, for salvation, as do the JWs regarding their organization. He taught salvation only through Christ, irrespective of any human sect, organization, or denomination. No, the JWs did not retain what Russell taught in this regard, but claimed that for one to have salvation, one has to come to what they call "Jehovah's organization," meaning that which is headed by their leadership in Brooklyn.

Yes, in 1931 Rutherford named his new organization "Jehovah's Witnesses." He did this because the Bible Students (as a whole, represented by the majority) had rejected this new organization, as well as his new gospel of woeful bad tidings of eternal destruction for most of the people. As a whole, the Bible Students movement carried on its affairs without giving approval to Rutherford's new organization, or his new gospel, and are still doing so to this day. Therefore, as a whole, the original Bible Students movement did not take the name Jehovah's Witnesses.

It is true that Rutherford developed his new organization "out of" the Bible Students movement, but the Bible Students movement as a whole (represented by the majority) rejected that new organization. It is not just a matter of semantics; it is a matter of actually examining the facts.

There was no "central authority" in the days of Russell; the only "authority" -- if one can call it that -- that Russell maintained was that of "pastor" towards those congregations that had elected him as such. Russell did not seek to take control of the affairs of local congregations. All congregations were free to either elect him as pastor or not, or to reject him as pastor at any time. All congregations were free to make their own appointments of elders and deacons for whatever needs they might have. Such coercive methods of Rutherford and the JWs were not approved by Russell, and we are sure that he would not approve of the JW organization today because they do employ those methods, and especially since they have denied the ransom for all, the main doctrine that Russell started publishing the Watch Tower to defend.

Russell, however, allowed others to disagree with his conclusions; he often printed differing views in the pages of the Watch Tower, and even learned from those who disagreed with him. He did not go around -- or have any representatives going around --  disfellowshiping people because they disagreed with him.

Yes, one of the very first acts that Rutherford did was to deceive the voters into passing new by-laws for the Watch Tower (without permitting the voters to read the new by-laws) which new by-laws did indeed, in effect, create a "new organization," the very thing Russell had sought to keep from happening, both by the original charter and by his last will and testament, as well as written statements, which Rutherford ignored. Trusting Rutherford, the voters passed the by-laws without having read them. It was only later that many of them began to realize they had been deceived, and even later that the majority of the Bible Students began to realize what had happened.

The word "organization" rarely appeared in the Watch Tower publications in the days of Russell as related to the legal entity, and never in the sense that Rutherford began to use that term after Russell died. 

At first, back in 1917, only a few of the Bible Students understood what was happening; however, by 1930, the majority of the Bible Students movement had indeed rejected Rutherford's new organization, and his dogma related to that organization.

See:
What Did C. T. Russell Teach About "Organization" As Related to His Watch Tower?

Steven E. Jones made the following statement:
Most of Russell's core doctrines: denial of the Trinity, denial of conscious existence after death, apostasy of Christianity in the second century, Jesus' invisible return, destruction of this present world at Armageddon, salvation only through the Society, etc, were retained by Rutherford and by the Watchtower Society down to this day.
Denial of Trinity

Russell denied what is not in the Bible. He did not find any trinity concept in the Bible, and he did find that the trinity is in contradiction to the redemption that is in Christ as presented in the Bible. In effect, man's added-on trinity doctrine actually replaces what the Bible presents about the ransom for all. Russell, therefore, did not accept the adding of the trinity concept to the Bible.

See: Russell and the Trinity (links)

Denial of the Conscious Existence After Death

Russell actually denied that the dead are conscious while dead, he did not deny any conscious existence after death, since he believed those who have died, both the just and unjust, are to be raised in the resurrection of the last day.

Russell, however, showed how such doctrines as the trinity and the alleged inherent immortality of the human soul/spirit are not in the Bible, have to be added to the Bible, and how they have replaced and/or are in contradiction to the glorification of God and the central doctrine of the Bible pertaining to God's redemption out of sin and death in Adam, that is, the atonement (which is to the glorification of God).

See: Russell Regarding Hell, Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Lake of Fire

Apostasy of Christianity in the Second Century

Russell taught the apostasy had already begun in the first century, just as it states in the Bible. However, if Steven E. Jones does not believe there has ever been any apostasy, then why is he not a member of the Roman Catholic Church and in obedience to the pope in Rome? Indeed, most of the earlier protestant reformers did believe that there had been an apostasy and that the Roman Catholic Church was a result of that apostasy. This concept was indeed at the very basis of the protestant reformation.

Jesus' Invisible Return

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses preach Christ's invisible return the same as Russell? No; they do believe Christ returned invisibly in 1914; Russell, however, never believed that. Russell taught that Christ had returned in 1874, and was indeed present on the earth, since that date. The JW leadership has, however, rejected the chronology that Russell presented. Rutherford wanted to find some way to apply prophecies to his new organization in order to promote his claim that his new organization is "God's visible organization on earth", and thus rejected what Russell had presented on major applications of time prophecy so as to force those time prophecies into his alleged history of the alleged "God's visible organization on earth". The JWs have rejected practically everything that Russell presented in his Studies in the Scriptures, Volumes 2 and 3.

Additionally, Russell did not believe in the doctrine of "God's visible organization on earth," nor in the chrononology and applications of time prophecies as presented by Rutherford, and which are basically still held by the JW leadership to this day. Thus, while the JWs did retain the date 1914, what that date means to them, and what it meant to Russell, are totally different. Thus, the JW leadership did not retain what Russell taught about the year 1914.
See:
Russell and 1914 (links)

Destruction of This Present World at Armageddon; Salvation Only Through the Society

The JWs did not at all retain what Russell taught about the passing away of the present heavens and earth, nor of what he taught concerning "Armageddon." Russell did not believe in the JW-type Armageddon at all. Some of the Second Adventists as well as the 7th Day Adventists taught a doctrine similar to what the JWs preach, and Russell thoroughly countered those teachings, and openly opposed them. We are sure that he would also do the same concerning Rutherford's new doctrine of an Armageddon that would eternally destroy millions, billions, of unregenrated men, women and children without their ever having any benefit from the ransom for all. The JWs have rejected practically everything Russell presented regarding Armageddon in his Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 3.

Rutherford introduced a doctrine that is almost the opposite of what Russell taught, thus it is certainly misleading to say that the JWs have retained what Russell taught about the "destruction of this world" or about "Armageddon." They indeed teach almost the opposite of the core doctrines Russell presented in all six volumes of his Studies in the Scriptures. The core doctrine of Russell was the Biblical doctrine of the "ransom for all." Russell never believed in the JW-type of Armageddon, nor did he believe in the end of the world in the same manner that the JWs teach. The JWs did not retain what he taught on these topics. Russell never taught anything like the idea that all who disagreed with his teaching would be eternally destroyed without receiving any benefit from the ransom. Instead, he taught that they would be saved from the Adamic condemnation and be given a full opportunity to believe in the age to come. No, the JWs did not retain the doctrine of Armageddon from Russell, but Rutherford created a totally new doctrine of Armageddon. Russell most definitely never taught any doctrine of "salvation only through the Society." The JWs did not retain what Russell taught about salvation, but rejected what he taught and replaced it with a new gospel of salvation through their organization. Indeed, they have rejected the very basis of salvation as Russell presented in his Studies in the Scriptures, Volumes 1 and 5.

We assume that Steven E. Jones actually believes that Russell taught "salvation only through the Society", as he has not changed his statement on this, although it is totally false. Russell never taught such a thing! There are many others, however, who are also so ignorant of what Russell taught that have attributed many of the teachings of Rutherford and the later JW leadership to Russell.

Reference:
(We do not necessarily agree with all statements presented)

The Great Apostasy (Wikipedia)








Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Did Charles Taze Russell Deny the Bible Doctrine of Hell?

Something we keep seeing repeated over and over concerning Russell is that he denied the Bible doctrine of hell. One states: "Russell combined several strands of popular 19th century evangelical theology, but attracted criticism from evangelical Christians for his denial of hell, the immortal soul, the deity of Jesus, and his insistence that God was One, not a Trinity." Actually, while Russell certainly refused to add to the Scriptures man's added-on trinitarian assumptions, and he did not add to the scriptures the doctrine of the inherent immortality of man's soul, Russell did not deny the deity of Jesus, nor did he deny the Bible doctrine of hell, but rather he upheld and defended what the Bible says about hell, as opposed to what man's doctrines would have us imagine and assume on the scriptures. In other words, Russell's approach was not to deny that the Bible hell exists, but rather what the Bible hell is, and what it is not.

Thus, in the January, February, and March, 1888 issues of the Watch Tower, Russell presented a series of studies under the title "About Hell". In that series of studies, Russell did not deny what the Bible says about hell, but rather he examined every scripture that contains the Hebrew word sheol, and the Greek words hades, Gehenna, lake of fire, etc. He endeavored to show from the Bible itself what the Bible hell is, while at the same time showing that what is often thought of as hell is not in the Bible. What Russell denied was the various traditional views of man regarding hell, which are not found in the Bible, except that one uses the spirit of human imagination and create assumptions in order to "see" such ideas in the Bible.

Russell later presented a double issue of the Watch Tower (February 1 & 15, 1893), again showing what the Bible hell is. Nevertheless, he did not deny the existence of the Bible hell, but he did deny the existence of the kind of hell that man's dogma presents. 

Russell later presented basically the same material in his book, The Atonement Between God and Man, with some added details. Still, however, he did not deny the existence of the Bible hell, he only discussed what the scriptures say that the Bible hell is.

For links to many of Russell's studies that are related to the Bible hell (hades and sheol), Gehenna, Lake of Fire, etc., see our resource page: Russell Regarding Hell, Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Lake of Fire

We believe that Brother Russell was basically correct, although we believe that he fell short in many respects, in that he did not present everything in such a way that it actually addressed the arguments that many present for "seeing" a hell of eternal suffering in the Bible. We have expanded on Russell's studies, giving more detail and refuting some of the arguments of those who wish to uphold adding to and blending into Scripture the Hellenistic mythology. See our studies related to The Biblical Resurrection Hope. See especially the topical pages listed at the top: "Sheol", "Hades", "Gehenna", "Lake of Fire", and the study, "Tartaroo Versus Tararus".






Thursday, May 27, 2010

Russell and "Christian Truths"

This is in response a blog on a site called Christian Truths. We will not be providing too much in this blog, but will be mostly giving links to where we have provided information. Please click on the links for more information.

The author evidently considers Charles Taze Russell as having been of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, when in reality that organization did not exist when Russell was living.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/jws.html

Russell did not believe in an authoritarian organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/authority.html

Russell preached against demonic occultism, and certainly was not involved in such.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/occult.html


We are shown a picture of the Masonic Lodge building was constructed across the street from the Rosemont United Cemetery, where Charles Taze Russell. The evident design to deceive the reader into thinking that Russell was a Mason because the Masons, evidently several decades after Russell died, constructed a Masonic building across the street from where he had been buried.

We are falsely told that Russell was a "33rd Degree Freemason", when in fact, he was never even a member of the Freemasons' organization.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/russell-and-freemasons.html

We are then presented with another picture of the pyramid monument that is in the Rosemont Cemetery, which shows the Masonic Temple in the background. Again, the evident deception that is desired to be promoted by this is that the pyramid monument is a Masonic pyramid. The words above the picture tell us to the notice "the Illuminati pyramid". In fact that pyramid has nothing to do with any secret organization called the "The Illuminati." Such is being imagined and assumed. In reality, that monument was constructed several years after Russell died, as a memorial to those who had died while working at the WTS headquarters. The monument was to be a reminder of the God's witness in Egypt, the Great Pyramid, None of this has anything whatsoever to do with a secret organization called the "The Illuminati", nor with the Freemasons.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/great-pyramid.html


The statement is made concerning the picture of the pyramid monument that "this is where Russell is buried." The deceptive implication that this seems to be desired to leave is that Russell was buried in or under that pyramid monument, whereas in reality he was not buried in that monument, nor under that monument.  The pyramid monument was constructed a few years after Russell died, and it is located in the middle of the plot owned by the WTS in the Rosemont Cemetery. However, no one is buried in or under that monument, and there is nothing on or about that monument, that is connnected with the Freemasons' organization. The cross and crown symbol, of itself, is not a Masonic symbol, although many would like one to think this so that they can use that symbol to make it appear that Russell's usage of the symbol means that Russell was a Freemason. Such reasoning, if taken to its logical end, would mean that practically every traditional church denomination there is Masonic, since practically every denomination has used some form of the cross and crown symbology. In reality, what is being presented as proof that Russell was a Mason is what someone has imagined and assumed.


CLICK HERE to see where Russell is buried.

It is claimed that what is presented on the page is "irrefutable proof of the Jehovah's Witnesses are inseparably linked to Satanic Freemasonry." We are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and we do not believe in that organization, nor did Charles Taze Russell. Nevertheless, what is being spoken of here is concerning Russell, and thus we need state that, in realty, no proof at all was presented that Russell was linked to Satanic Freemasonry; what was presented is what someone has imagined and assumed.


HELL

Russell believed in the Bible hell, but he did not believe in the eternal suffering theories that are often associated with hell. Of the scriptures given, only one relates to the true Bible "hell" (hades/sheol)


Some links regarding the Bible hell:
https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/p/sheol.html
https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/p/hades.html
https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/p/gehenna.html
https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/p/lake-of-fire.html

1 John 5:7 says nothing at all about three persons in one God, nor do 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 20:28 or Isaiah 9:6 offer any proof that Jesus is the only true God.

Related 1 John 5:7, see:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/scriptures-examined.html#1john5-7

Related to 1 Timothy 3:16, see:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/scriptures-examined.html#1tim3-16

Related to Acts 20:28, see:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/11/acts20-28.html

Related to Isaiah 9:6, see:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/mighty-god.html

ADDENDUM:

As best as we can tell, "Christian Truths" removed in the original post that we responded to above. Another post now appears dated June 1, 2010, simply entitled "Cults," which is a label often used, especially by those who follow the men who developed the trinitarian dogma, to represent those who refuse to follow Athanasius and other who have developed a false "orthodoxy" for God.

At any rate, the pages allegedly presents "truths" concerning the cults listed; whether the things listed are actually truths regarding the other groups listed or not, we will not address here. Our concern is with what is stated about Charles Taze Russell, and what is presented as beliefs in connection with Russell.

Again, the "Christian truths" belies the truth in misrepresenting Russell as the founder of an organization that he did not believe in. Indeed, Russell preached against such authoritarianism as exists in the JW organization until the day he died. Russell certainly did not believe in the Gospel(?) of bad tidings taught the Jehovah's Witnesses.

See:
Was Russell the Founder of What is Now the Jehovah's Witnesses?

"Christian Truths" further belies the truth by stating that Charles Taze Russell taught that "the church belongs to the ecclesiastical wing of Satan's organization." Search as one may in Russell's writing, you will not find any mention of the church belonging to any ecclesiastical wing of Satan's organization. In this "Christian Truths" fails to present the truth. Russell never used the phrase "Satan's organization" at all. It does not appear in his writings. Russell did teach that the human sectarian church organizations formed by man were part of Satan's Empire (Kingdom); Russell denounced sectarianism, not the church. Although he denounced sectarianism, at the same time he believed that the true church could be found amongst all various Christian sects and denominations. Russell stated: “the Lord in Heaven records as members of His true Church all the saintly — whether Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. — and none others…. Do we not see that a part of our mistake was in calling the outward organization the Church of Christ, instead of remembering that the Lord alone writes the names of the Church, that He alone reads the hearts, that He alone is the Judge, and that He alone has the right to blot out the names of those who become reprobates? … We must see that the Church is a comparatively small company of saintly footstep followers of Jesus, irrespective of sectarian lines.” And Russell stated: “all who are worshiping any church organization should be warned. See thou do it not.’ These are thy fellow servants. ‘Worship God.’ `Rev. 22:9`.” He further stated: “so far as the true Church is concerned, the only authority in it is the Lord, the Head of the Church, and his Word, and the words of those whom he specially chose to be his mouth-pieces, the apostles.” And, “we believe that in every nation and denomination there are some true saints of God, members therefore of the true Church of God.” 
See:
Russell and the True Church


"Christian Truths" continues to misrepresent the truth by presenting the false statement that Russell condemned the teachings of the church in all ages. Russell did condemn the false teachings of men who claimed to represent the church, and which teachings have been formed by the spirit of human imagination; he never condemned the original teachings that were given to the true church in the first century.








Did Russell ever say that Christ did not rise from the dead? Absolutely not! Indeed, Russell taught that Jesus did rise from the dead. (CLICK HERE) Indeed, it is the one who claims that Jesus' soul never died who would be claiming that his soul was never raised from the dead, for, following such logic to its conclusion, how can a living soul that is not dead be raised from the dead? Indeed, if Jesus had been living at all, then he was not raised from the dead, but from the living.

See our own studies on Jesus' resurrection:

The Manner of the Resurrection
https://rlbibleresources.blogspot.com/2022/07/manner.html
Raised in the Spirit
http://hereafter.reslight.net/archives/430.html
Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being
http://atonement.reslight.net/archives/1.html

More may be added later, Yahweh willing.