Some Inaccuracies Regarding Russell
I had posted a comment on paradosparables regarding some inaccurate statements being made concerning Charles Taze Russell; it appears that my comments are not being allowed, so I am resposting the comments here, with some edits. https://paradoxparables.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/confronting-the-inaccuracies-of-a-false-critique-of-my-post-falling-tulip-petals/
The Assertion is made that Russell “was having bible studies with the leader of the 7th Day Adventist movement”.
Charles Taze Russell started the Watch Tower to defend the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for all, as opposed to the teachings of some of the Second Adventists who were, in effect, denying the necessity of that sacrifice, as well as the “end of the world” doctrines presented by many of the Second Adventists. Russell was never “having Bible studies with the leader of the 7th Day Adventist movement.” Russell did study under some of the authors who had been associated with the “Second Adventist” movement. It is possible that the author of the blog is confusing the “Second Adventists” with the “Seventh-Day Adventists.” The “Second Adventists” had no “the leader”. Supplement of the First Issue of the Watch Tower
The assertion is made that “That is where they got all their failed end time date prophecies based upon a false view and interpretation of the Mayan calendar.”
I know of no association of the Bible study of time prophecies that Russell adopted that had anything to with any kind of interpretation of “the Mayan calendar.” A search of Russell’s and Barbour’s works on the Bible Students Library DVD show no reference whatever of the “Mayan calendar”. William Miller based his expectations on study of the Bible, not the Mayan calendar. However, study of Biblical prophecy and making conclusions concerning that study is not the same as making prophecies. See: Charles Taze Russell – Prophet?
Russell is presented as “the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness”.
Charles Taze Russell, however, never founded any sectarian or authoritarian organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was a non-sectarian who actively preached against such sectarianism and authoritarianism. Furthermore, he actively preached against the kind of alleged “Good News” that is preached by that organization. He certainly was not the founder of that which he preached against. The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization was created by Joseph Rutherford after Russell had died. Charles Taze Russell: Founder of the JWs?
CLICK HERE to see what Russell thought about Calvinism.
CLICK HERE to see what Russell thought about Arminianism.
Addendum in Reply to Comments Received:
It is being claimed the same Watch Tower Society of which Russell was the main founder is the same Watchtower Society that Jehovah’s Witnesses use today. Actually, the Watch Tower Society as Russell had left it was virtually destroyed within a few weeks after Russell died. Rutherford introduced and by means of deceit and trickery, had new by-laws passed which, in effect, destroyed the intended structure of the original Watch Tower Society.
Whoever of the Russell family may have been members of the Freemasons does not mean that Russell must have also been a Freemason. We have no reason at all to think that when Russell stated, “I have never been a Mason,” that he was lying. We have tens of thousands of pages produced from Russell’s works that overwhelmingly testify that he was not in league with the Freemasons.
In referring to the Mason “brethren”, it should be obvious that Russell was not saying that they were brothers in Christ, but he was using the term as they refer to each other as “brethren”. In saying “our Masonic brethren”, while Russell, being imperfect, may not have chosen the best way to express it, Russell was not saying that he was acknowledging them as “brethren” in Christ, but in a sense that are our neighbors who consider themselves to be “Masonic brethren”.
It is being claimed that Russell’s gravestone is a pyramid. This claim is false, but it would not make much difference to us if his gravestone were in the shape of the Great Pyramid. It is the intent of this claim that is of more concern, as it would imply that there something sinister and evil about the Biblical study of the Great Pyramid as God’s Stone Witness. While we do not agree with all of the Edgars’ conclusions, we believe they do present overwhelming evidence that the Great Pyramid is indeed God’s Witness in Egypt.
It is hinted that Russell would deny being a Mason because of Masonic secrecy. Is this logical? Would a man spend most of his money, time and energy sabotaging what is he supposed to be supporting by sabotaging what is is secretly supporting? This logic would work only those who have not actually studied Russell’s writings to know what he taught, and why he taught what he taught.
It is claimed that Russell used the measurements of the Great Pyramid to date “the end times”. This is deceptive, since Barbour and Russell based their study on the Bible, not the Great Pyramid. The Great Pyramid does support the time prophecies of the Bible, but the measurements of the Great Pyramid only corroborate the Bible; those measurements are not the basis of the dates. It had been presented by several before Russell, based on Biblical time prophecy, that “end times” (The Bible does not say “end times”, it does refer to “the time of the end”) had begun 1798. Russell placed it six months later, in 1799.
It is being hinted that the start of World War was a collaborative effort, evidently between Barbour, or Russell, and the Freemasons. There is no evidence that Barbour, back in 1875, had collaborated with the Freemasons in order to have World War I begin in 1914, or that Russell himself ever collaborated with the Masons to have such a war started. Russell was expecting, from 1904 onward, that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914. He was expecting the end of the world in 1914, and he stated so. He died in 1916 believing that the time of trouble did begin in 1914. I believe that the time of trouble did begin in 1914, and that we are still in that time of trouble.
It is hinted that Russell was expecting “the end of days” in 1914. Russell was expecting the end of the days of the Gentile Times in 1914, and the ending of the Gentiles would bring the foretold “time of trouble”; nevertheless, Russell never used the expression “end of days”. Russell was certainly NOT expecting the end of this world, or the JW kind of Armageddon, in 1914. Russell preached against the kind of Armageddon that Rutherford later taught. A quote is given concerning an expectation (not a prophecy) that Russell had stated in 1889 that the battle of the great day of God Almighty would be over in 1914. Russell rejected that view in1904, ten years before 1914 came.
It is stated that one cannot force God’s hand. I am sure that Russell would have agreed with that statement. Russell admitted the possibility that he might be in error regarding chronology and/or his expectations related to time prophecy; he never claimed his studies on these to be infallible, nor even necessary doctrine.
Did William Miller Get His Chronology and Dates From the Mayan Calendar? and Did Russell Claim Infallibilty? Russell, although he had some association with some of the Second Adventists, which neither he nor any of the Bible Students have ever tried to hide, never had any association with the 7th Day Adventists. The genuine history of the relationship regarding these various groups and organizations, however, has never been denied by Bible Students. Russell never believed in a sectarian religious organization such as the 7th Day Adventists, and certainly not the claims of its leaders to have received “visions” from God. We believe as did Russell, that Christ did indeed return in 1874. Although we believe this to be true, we do not try hinder the service of other Christians who may not be able to see this matter; indeed, we, as did Russell, do not even claim that our belief concerning this to be infallible. And, if in the coming age when all matters will be set straight, we are proven to be wrong, a true Christian should be humble enough to admit that what he was mistaken concerning the matter, and accept whatever discipline may be needed at that time. The reverse is also true; if it is shown in the next age that what we believe is true, those Christians who have rejected this should be humble enough to submit to truth and any necessary discipline. I believe all of us will surprised in some way at errors we have believed. See our study: Parable of the Four Servants — Luke 12:42-48 It is claimed by paraDOXparABLEs: “The fact is I do know what I am speaking about and its based in fact.” We believe that he may be convinced that he knows what he is talking about, but we also believe that we do know what we are talking about, as, for instance, we KNOW Russell’s gravestone is not in the shape of pyramid. Here is a picture of Russell’s gravestone:
Russell’s GravestoneAs one can see, that gravestone is not in the shape of pyramid. There is no way to escape that a statement that Russell’s gravestone is a pyramid is not “based in fact”, except that one totally distort the “fact” to make it appear that Rutherford’s pyramid monument is Russell’s gravestone. And then the “fact” that Russell believed that the Great Pyramid is God’s Stone Witness in Egypt has to be distorted by means of human imagination so as to make it appear that Russell’s belief regarding this was because he was in support of the goals of the Freemasons, which it would have to imagined and assumed that he supported the goals of the Freemasons by spending his wealth, most of his time and energy to sabotage in tens of thousands of pages of material what he is being imagined to have been supporting by such a sabotage. For more information on Charles Taze Russell, see:
Regarding Russell’s gravestone:
Yes, Russell never lost all faith in the Bible because of the Calvinistic views, but not just because of that, because of the Arminian view also. Both views called for an eternity of unimaginable concious suffering for those considered to be lost according to those views. Russell, once having learned of the ransom for all, rejected both the Arminian views as well as Calvinism, although he did show how the scriptures present both election as well as free will.
Here are some of his sermons or studies pertaining to this (although we are in generally agreement, we do not necessarily agree with all the details of his statements).
The scriptures say nothing about man’s soul being inherently immortal, nor of a triune God. Both doctrines would end up nullified the purpose of Christ’s death. There is no reason for a truth seeker to add those doctrines to scripture.
See our sites: