By Ronald R. Day, Sr.
As reflected in the article, Brother Russell -- assuming the article was actually written by Russell -- was answering the question: Is the reading of "Scripture Studies" Bible Study? He shows it to be "Bible study" only if one has proved and accepted each point as being in harmony with the light of the Bible. Russell certainly believed that his writings were in harmony with the light of the Bible; no Christian author should be writing anything about the Bible that would not be an endeavor to be in harmony with the Bible. However, if any author believes that what he has written is in harmony with the light of the Bible, then that author must to also believe that anyone who is not in harmony with what he has written must be, to some extent, in darkness. Brother Russell, however, was addressing those who had presumably proven the Scripture Studies to be in harmony with the light of the Bible. For such, it would not be necessary to again prove each point presented, except that something arose which would appear to not be in harmony with the Bible. As can be seen by the immediate context as well as the context of Russell's work as a whole, we should not read anything stated in the article as saying that Brother Russell thought that his work was without error, or even equal to or greater than the Bible. Nor does it mean that everyone needs to agree with all that Russell stated. Nor was he making his Studies to be a replacement for the Bible.
Regarding chronology and his conclusions concerning time prophecy, however, Russell made no claims that either the chronology or his conclusions were without error, and stated so. He did not reject anyone as a brother in Christ for disagreeing with him on these matters; he even presented some other views in the Watch Tower, although he did not agree with them. He advertised the Edgars' books on the Great Pyramid in the pages of the Watch Tower, although the Edgars' conclusions were not exactly the same as what he had presented in the Studies in the Scriptures. Anyone truly familiar with Russell's writings should know that he was not claiming that he thought that God was only using him to present Bible truth.
Nevertheless, many often quote some things in this article out of context -- making some strong false accusations against Russell -- while ignoring the context in which he states:
The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible.... It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly.... We should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says." And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint... because the Scriptures are the standard.... "SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE. -- Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, page 298.
The immediate context as well as many other statements made by Russell throughout the years of his ministry show that he was not placing his Studies as being something that should replace the Bible, and certainly not as being better or greater than the Bible.
Links to some of our research related to Russell and the Bible -- many of these postings contain a lot quotes from Russell about the Bible.
Did Charles Taze Russell Claim that his Studies were superior to the Bible?
The only reference that can be provided to allegedly support the above is the article that referred to earlier entitled: "Is the Reading of 'Scripture Studies' Bible Study?" Even then, one has to take what Russell wrote out of context, and this is usually done by focusing on two paragraphs of the article. The two paragraphs often quoted from are:
a.. If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes-- the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
b.. 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 anyone 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 his 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 at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
One cites part of the above, and claims: "Russell implied that his own 'Scripture Studies' were superior to the Bible." One, after quoting some parts from the article referred to above claims: "it asserts that Studies In The Scriptures is superior to the Bible itself." In actuality, no such claim is made by Russell; the claim has to be presumed and read into what Russell actually stated.
Those who make the claim that Russell promoted his Studies as being superior to the Bible will often ignore most of what Russell stated, and focus on a few quotes that would appear to support their claims. Most of the article is usually ignored, and the quotes are also sometimes placed in the context of the authoritarian claims of the JW leadership today, or in the context of making it appear that Russell was making the same or similar claims as the JW leadership claims for itself.
However, it should be presumed that any Christian writer who writes books would believe that what he is written is in harmony with the light of God's Word, and thus, that if one is out of harmony with what he wrote, to that extent a person would be considered to be in darkness. Russell certainly believed that the references he had given to the Bible in what he wrote represented the light of the scriptures, and thus that the Studies contained the "light of the scriptures." To be in disagreement with the "light of the scriptures" then would place one to some extent in darkness. Nevertheless, at the same time, we should not take Russell's words out of context and use that as though he were laying down some kind of hard set rule by which he expected others to bow down to his conclusions. Even Russell's words in the context contained in that same article show that such is not what Russell meant. Nor was Russell condemning anyone to some kind of eternal punishment, as some appear to think.
Many quote one or more parts of two paragraphs of Russell's article, and place the quote(s) in the context of JW organization doctrine, or in an effort to claim that Russell was claiming to be the ultimate authority, and, in effect, try to make Russell say something that Russell never intended to mean by his words. We believe this because of what Russell states in the context, as well as the general tenor of the works he produced during his entire life. Russell continuously referred to the Bible, or to Jesus and the apostles, as the final authority, and encouraged others to do the same. Indeed, he does this very same thing in the article that many quote to claim that Russell put his writings on par with or as superior to the Bible.
Notice that he says that if a person had merely the Scriptures Studies "with their references," that is, the references to the Bible, the "only authority" that Russell accepted for divine light. As we stated earlier, Russell believed that what he had written was in agreement with "the light of the Scriptures." Can you imagine any Christian author who would write a book and claim that what he had written was not in harmony with the "light of the scriptures"?
Nevertheless, Russell, in this article, was not specifically referring to the Watch Tower magazine, but more specifically to the Scripture Studies series. He certainly never claimed that one would be better off to leave the Bible, since his argument was concerning the references to the Bible in the Scripture Studies.
The experiences Russell and others related of those going into darkness mostly involved universalism, the belief that all, including Satan, will eventually live forever. And there were those often referred to as the "New Covenant Bible Students" who disagreed with him over the covenants. Russell did not condemn them to the second death for their darkness, nor did he claim they were no longer Christians, etc., as might the JWs. Nor was Russell speaking of the JWs' Watchtower of today, which basically preches the kind of organization that he never believed in, and which he preached against
See:
Russell on Authority and Organization
See:
Russell on Authority and Organization
While we believe that the article overstated the matter and probably, if Russell had foreknown how some would be misusing what he stated, he would have stated if differently; we do not believe that he intended the claims that many make concerning what he said. Earlier Russell stated:
The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible.He further stated, related to the study of his volumes:
Brother Russell went on to say:It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly.
If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says." And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint.In that same article, we find the subheading:
"SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
Read the entire article:
Is the Reading of "Scripture Studies" Bible Study?
Is the Reading of "Scripture Studies" Bible Study?
Even so, one should realize that everything Brother Russell stated in the article is in harmony with his many other statements regarding the Bible.
One claims that the article does tell Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept the Bible as the final authority.
We are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and there was no Jehovah's Witnesses organization in 1910, so "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1910 were not told anything. Nevertheless, the Bible Students were not told that the Bible was not the final authority, nor were they told not to read the Bible itself. Indeed, in the context in that same article we find that Russell spoke of the Bible -- not his Studies -- as the standard for truth. Furthermore, in the same article referenced, Russell states that the "Scriptures Studies" are "not a substitute for the Bible." Russell did not tell anyone not to accept the Bible as the final authority, but rather just the opposite, as can be seen from the context.
Brother Russell, of course -- as he presented in the article, believed that what he had written was in harmony with the light of truth as revealed in the scriptures, and as due to be understood. If he believed otherwise, then he was wasting his time in writing anything. No other system of theology presented those truths. Thus, if he believed that what he had written was the light of God's Word due to be understood, as he expressed in that article, then if one was not in harmony with that light, he would be to that extent in darkness.
We do not, however, believe that when Russell said "by itself", that he was speaking of not having help from anyone else. No one actually studies the Bible in the absolute sense of "by itself", that is, without any aid whatsoever from any other source. Taken to the extreme limit of "by itself", one could not use English translations, since that would be mean that one is not actually studying the Bible "by itself", but with the interpretive help of whoever translated it into English (or any other language). In the absolute sense, one would need the original autographs of the Bible in order to absolutely study the Bible without help from anyone else, so as not to have had help from copyists who may or may not have copied the material correctly. To study the Bible in the extreme sense of "by itself" would mean no help from any priests, ministers, teachers, church, tradition, parents, etc. It would mean without the help of any sermon from anyone at all,. In truth, anyone who comes to a study of the Bible has to first have received help to read to read the Bible. His manner of approach to such a study of the Bible is also influenced by the shaping and molding of his mind by one's parents, teachers, friends, and other influences all the while he was growing up.
We believe that when Russell said "by itself," he simply meant without the aid of his "Scripture Studies", and this conclusion is corroborated by the context, as well as by Russell's writings as a whole. If the "Scripture Studies" revealed the light of the Scriptures, as Russell believed, then, of course, without the scriptural understanding revealed in those "Scripture Studies" one is to that extent in darkness.
It is claimed by some that Russell said that if a Bible Student stopped studying the Scripture Studies, that he would return to the traditional doctrines of the trinity, immortality of the soul, etc. Actually, Russell never stated this at all.
Russell, of course, was writing from his experience. He was speaking in general terms, and was definitely not setting up some rules that he was demanding anyone had to obey. Nevertheless, we don't remember ever reading of any great number of Bible Students who had actually understood the scriptural principles of doctrine revealed in the Scriptures Studies who, in Russell's time, went back into belief in the trinity, the immortality of the soul, eternal conscious suffering, etc. The ones we have read about, even if they stopped studying the "Scripture Studies," generally did not go back to those doctrines of men. Most were being influenced by some who were denying some points that Russell taught, such as, that the "new covenant" is made with restored Israel rather than the church, or that Jesus returned in 1874, etc. Some were promoting the idea that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus covers those under the condemnation of the second death, Satan and all demons, etc. (a form of universalism).
Russell, himself, however, never sought authority so as to make all of his conclusions, especially as related to chronology and Bible prophecies, binding on other believers. Not all associated with the work of Russell accepted all of his conclusions. Nevertheless, if Jesus returned in 1874, as Russell believed, then to be in the light of this truth would mean acceptance of this truth; to not believe this truth would mean that one is in darkness on this truth. This did not necessarily mean that if a Christian did not accept the conclusion that Christ returned in 1874, that such would not be a Christian. Correspondingly, if the "new covenant" is made with restored Israel in the age to come, then to be in harmony with this truth would mean one was in the light of this truth; to deny this truth would mean that one was in darkness on this truth. If one once believed in any truth, and then turned aside from that truth for some doctrine of man, then such a person would have gone into darkness concerning the real truth.
Indeed, this same kind of principle applies to every "denomination" of Christendom that has taken a stand on some doctrine or teaching, especially if the doctrine was considered to be of essential importance. They would claim that others who disagree with them on whatever doctrine they consider to be of such essential importance are in darkness regarding that doctrine.
Please note that when Russell speaks of one going into darkness, he did not mean what JWs might mean if they had used such an expression. Russell did not condemn those who disagreed with him to the second death, as did Rutherford. For instance, those who believed that the "new covenant" is made with the church, he still called "brethren". They were not disfellowshiped, although many of them withdrew fellowship from the Bible Students who believed that the "new covenant" is to be made with Israel. Nor did Russell consider any who disagreed with him to not be a Christian; rather, he believed that many Christians were simply in the dark concerning many scriptural truths due to their having their minds bent toward studying the scriptures by use of the blinding influence of the traditions of men, rather than in the light of what the holy spirit was actually revealing through and from the scriptures, and which truths from the Bible he believed he presented in his books.
One claims that Russell 'implied' that "his own Scripture Studies were superior to the Bible." The author further states: "Russell usurps the authority of the Holy Writ and posits that the Bible, which Witnesses claim as the inspired word of Jehovah, is inadequate by itself. Russell clearly elevated his own teachings above the authority of the Bible."
In reality, Russell never spoke for an organization such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Furthermore, Russell did not make such an implication that his Studies were superior to the Bible, nor does the quote cited from the Watch Tower, September 15, 1910 (page 298), which is taken out of context, say, or even imply such a thing. Even within the statement, Russell is speaking of reading the Scriptures Studies "with their references," that is, with their scriptural references to the Bible, which in the context, he explains that the Bible is standard for acceptance of truth.
Further, by what he stated in the context, we can definitely find that Russell had no intent whatsoever of stating that the Scripture Studies are superior or even equal to the Bible. Before the part quoted, Russell states: "The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible." Already, we should know that he is not then saying that the Scriptures Studies are superior to the Bible.
After the quote given as an alleged proof that Russell implied that the Scripture Studies were superior to the Bible, Russell wrote:
If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says." And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint."
Does this sound like Russell was implying that the Scripture Studies are superior to the Bible? Indeed, Russell himself, if he found some points that he had written that he later found to be in error, did not say that one should hold to the error because it was in the Scripture Studies, but rather that one should hold to the Bible itself.
And then, later in the same article, we find the subtopic:
"SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
Again, the question is, does this sound like that Russell was placing the Scripture Studies as superior to the Bible?
In the context of Russell's writings over the years, it becomes even more apparent that Russell had no intention of saying that his writings are superior to the Bible, See:
In the context of Russell's writings over the years, it becomes even more apparent that Russell had no intention of saying that his writings are superior to the Bible, See:
A comment was presented that, in the book, The Divine Plan of the Ages, "Russell prophesied that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon and the dawn of Christ’s thousand-year reign on the Earth."
There are at least two major things wrong with the statement.
The word "prophesied" is evidently being used in the sense of a divinely-inspired seer or prophet who claims to be delivering a direct message from God. Russell never claimed to be such a prophet. He plainly stated: "I am not a prophet".
See: Charles Taze Russell Was Not a Prophet
See: Charles Taze Russell Was Not a Prophet
There is nothing in the book, The Divine Plan of the Ages, about 1914. This book is online at:
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol1
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol1
Nevertheless, it is important to realize that Russell was not expecting the kind of Armageddon that the JWs preach. Russell's view of Armageddon was that it was a period of time in which the peoples of nations would be chastised, not eternally destroyed. Russell never believed in the kind of Armageddon as the JWs teach. Russell did NOT teach that Armageddon was to eternally destroy most of earth's unregenerated population, as Rutherford later claimed.
No comments:
Post a Comment