Russellism (1920)

Download: PDF — Russellism (1920)

Russellism

THOS. CARY JOHNSON

BX8526 .J64

RIAN COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.

RICHMOND, VA.

Russellism

THOS. CARY JOHNSON

Author of "The Southern Presbyterian Church," "John Calvin and the Genevan Reformation," "The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney," "The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer," "Virginia Presbyterianism and Religious Liberty," "Introduction to Christian Missions," "Baptist in the Apostolic Age."

PRESBYTERIAN COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION RICHMOND, VA.

THE LIBRARY

Union Theological Seminary

RICHMOND, VA.

Russellism

This is one of the most insidious of all the modernisms

Literature on Russellism

C. T. Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, 6 Series.

Lawyer, A Great Ecclesiastical Battle in the Heavens.

Haldeman, Two Men and Russellism.

Haldeman, A Great Counterfeit, or The False and Blasphemous, Religion Called Russellism and Millennial Dawnism.

Haldeman, Millennial Dawnism, the Blasphemous Religion Which Teaches the Annihilation of Jesus Christ.

Chas. C. Cook, More Data on Pastor Russell.

I. I. Ross, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled Pastor Russell (of Millennial Dawn Fame.)

Chas C. Cook, All About One Russell.

Russellism

By Russellism is meant the teaching of Charles T. Russell, as set forth in his work, once published in (six) volumes, entitled "Millennial Dawn," and later published under the caption "Studies in the Scriptures."

This work claims for itself publication under the auspices of the "International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, London, Melbourne, Bremen, Elberfield, Orebro, Christina." The copyright is held by "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, U. S. A." A note on the reverse of the title page of volume I, asserts that "This volume can also be supplied in the German, Swedish, Dano-Norwegian, Finnish, French, Greek, Italian, Hungarian, Hollandish, Spanish, Polish, Slovak, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese languages, also in Braille (for the blind)."

There are reasons why this ism should be given a degree of study: (1) It has been given the shrewdest and most efficient advertising over vast areas of this earth's surface. The books are sold at a nominal price. There is an edition which may be had for twenty-five cents per volume. They are given to persons who wish them, but are too poor to buy them. The views set forth in them are published also in millions of tracts and in the official paper, or magazine, known as "The Herald of Christ's presence." (2) The ism makes a powerful appeal to people, of small capacity to reason, or small disposition to study God's word in a historic way, of large credulity, of readiness to follow the teacher who will speak with an air of prophetic certainty, or reason plausibly—to such people, when conscious of sin and in dread of its consequences. (3) It has already infected and unsettled vast numbers of such people; and it has bothered many of a different and nobler type.

The latter have not yet received it, but for lack of time, or conveniences, they have not been able to appraise Russellism in a satisfactory way, and to fix upon a proper course of conduct to be pursued with reference to it. (4) It is a pernicious, blasphemous and Satanic teaching—lulling to sleep multitudes, many of whom might, but for it, be led to seek life eternal in Christ Jesus.

For these and kindred reasons the following sketch and criticism of Russellism has been made.

Of Russell's Theology Proper, or his doctrine, as to the existence and attributes of the Gods, as to the Plan of the Supreme God; as to creation and as to Providence.

1st. His doctrine of the Gods:

With some considerations of force and with others destitute of either force or plausibility, Russell teaches that the light of nature discloses the existence of a supreme intelligent creator, of immeasurable power and wisdom, benevolence and justice, who will make known to his intelligent creatures his plan concerning them in "some such revelation as the Bible claims to be; and maintains the view that the Bible is a divinely inspired revelation."

Notwithstanding this expressed view of the Bible, we must beware of thinking that he gives the Bible the premier place in the teaching of theological truth. On page 198, of his "Watch Tower" of the issue of September 15, 1910, it is written concerning his books:

"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 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 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 the Scripture studies, with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such he would be in the right at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures." (Quoted in Chas. C. Cook's "All About One Russell," pp. 13-14).

It thus appears that the Bible is light-giving according to Russell, only as interpreted by himself.

From the Scriptures thus "reasonably interpreted" (i.e., interpreted according to Russell's views), and from many interpolations from his own "reason" such as to give the Scriptures the sense which he wishes to find in them, he proceeds to set forth his views concerning the nature of the Gods.

Of "the God," the one Almighty God, Russell teaches that He has "mind and body." He says: "Some may be a little startled by this expression, 'a divine body,' but we are told that Jesus is the express image of his Father's person. We could not imagine either our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies," p. 200, Vol I., "Studies in the Scriptures."

Now, God, in His word, not only gives us no ground for regarding Him as having a body, but represents himself as pure spirit, ascribing to Himself attributes such as unchangeableness, unity, omnipresence, which body cannot have. "God is a Spirit," John 4:24; "The heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee," I Kings 8:27; "Who (the Son) is the image of the invisible God," Col. 1:15; "the invisible," I Tim.

1:17; "As seeing Him who is invisible," Heb. 11:27.

Russell, in his further teaching concerning God, misrepresents ridicules and denies the doctrine of the Trinity.

(1) He misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity, which he calls "this confusing doctrine of men" (Vol. 5, p. 54),* and declares that for it "no authority can be found in the word of God." That he misrepresents, ridicules and denies the doctrine is clear from the following quotations:

"How could there be three Gods and yet only one God. If there are three Gods, "equal in power and glory," as the catechisms declare, then it is untrue to say there is only one God. If there is only "one God, the Father of whom are all things," as St. Paul asserts; and if, as Jesus declared, the Father is greater than his honored Son; and if the Father raised his Beloved Son from the dead, and exalted him on high, honored him, and has appointed for him a Kingdom; and if ultimately the Son will deliver up the Kingdom again to the Father, that he may be all in all; then it cannot be true that there are several Gods of equal power. Nevertheless, we shall show conclusively in the succeeding chapter that our Lord Jesus Christ is a God, but that still the united voice of the Scriptures most emphatically assert that there is but one Almighty God, the Father of whom are all things," Vol. 5, p. 55.

"Moreover, the words 'Father' and 'Son' imply a difference and contradict the thoughts of the Trinity and one-ness of person, because the word "father" signifies life-giver, while the word 'son' signifies the one who has received life from another," Vol. 5, p. 60.

"The idea of claiming three Gods, and at the same time claiming that the three were only one God, was no doubt considered a masterstroke in theology by which the views of believers converted from amongst the Jews could be brought into closer accord with the general sentiments of the Gentiles, who, it was desired, should be pleased and brought into the Church."

Vol. 5, p. 63.

"At the same time it is admitted that the doctrine is incomprehensible, and therefore that nobody really believes it, because nobody can, in a true sense, believe an incomprehensible thing. And various doctrines and practices, not only of Protestantism, but also of Catholicism, deny the doctrine of the Trinity: note, for instance, that all Protestants pray to the Father, 'in the name of Jesus,' 'for Jesus' sake,' etc., thus recognizing the fact that there are two separate persons and not one person. Vol. 5, p. 64.

Again, he speaks of "the unreasonable and unscriptural doctrine of a Trinity—three Gods in one person." Vol. 5, p. 76.

Quotations of like character might be multiplied in support of our present contention that he misrepresents and the ridicules and denies the doctrine of the Trinity. To them might be added his teachings that the Son, prior to his being made man, existed only as a created, angelic existence, and that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the influence, or power, of God, that He has no distinct personal existence. Quotations showing unmistakably that he does these latter things are to be given later.

(2) Contrast now the true orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as held by the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches.

"There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory."

This is no doctrine of tritheism—that there are three individual Gods. We shall find Russell teaching, that there is a plurality of Gods now—that the Almighty, the God who always has been, exists now; and that the Lord Jesus Christ has been made a God, and exists as such now; and, apparently that true believers who sacrificed their lives in the gospel age have been made Gods and exist as such now.

But of this hereafter. Observe that in his pantheon there are at least two Gods—the eternal self-existent God and a being who has been created a God. His view of Christ approaches that of the heretic Arius. He is a kind of ditheist.

The orthodox doctrine distinguishes between substance and person, a distinction to which Russell seems to be dead; it affirms one substance but a three-fold personal distinction in this one substance. The church was driven to this doctrine by the clear Scripture teaching that God is one, and yet that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. It does, of course, not teach that God is one and three in the same sense. It is guilty of no contradiction, just as it is guilty of no contradiction when it asserts that man is dual as to substance unitary as to personality.

The evidences for the truth of a doctrine may be the strongest and yet the doctrine incomprehensible. Here is John Smith, who teaches that a Jersey cow feeding on a blue grass field, turns some portions of her feed into constituents of milk and other portions into fat and others into muscles. Now, must I wait till I can comprehend everything about these processes—how they are carried on—before believing what said Smith teaches as to the cow's uses of the grass in these ways. Further, C. T. Russell should, of all men, for his own sake, avoid teaching that a man cannot believe what he cannot comprehend. For he teaches amongst many incomprehensible things concerning his Christ some impossible things, e. g., that he was changed from a "spirit being" into a "human being," which, he teaches, is not a spirit, even in part, teaches that that human being, Jesus, died, became non-existent, and remains so forever; and that Jesus Christ was called into existence at the end of three days, as a Spirit, lives today and ever will as a Spirit being, and of a type infinitely higher than that of his former spirit being, having been elevated to the divine nature.

Russell's teachings teem not only with incomprehensibles, but with real impossibles and contradictories; but let us now to his doctrine of the Son.

Russell teaches of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hear his words:

"Some claimed that he (Christ) was an impostor: Some that he was merely a good man: some that he had a miraculous birth, but never had a pre-existence; and others held the truth, viz., that he had pre-existence as a Son of God on a spiritual plane, that he became the Son of God on a human plane, in order to redeem mankind and that now he is highly exalted, so that all are commanded to honor "the Son even as they honor the Father." Vol. 5, pp. 62, 63.

"Searching the Scriptures carefully to note just what they do say, and what they do not say, respecting our Lord Jesus, we find their testimony very explicit, harmonious and satisfactory. We will first state in synoptical form, what we find to be the Scriptural teachings, the proofs of which we will give further along:

"（1）Our Redeemer existed as a spirit being before he was made flesh and dwelt amongst men.

"(2) At that time, as well as subsequently, he was properly known as 'a god'—a mighty one. As chief of the angels and next to the Father, he was known as the Archangel (highest angel or messenger), whose name, Michael, signifies, 'Who is God,' or God's representative.

"（3）As he was the highest of all Jehovah's creation, so also he was the first, the direct creation of God, the only begotten and then he, as Jehovah's representative, and in the exercise of Jehovah's power, and in his name, created all things—angels, principalities and powers, as well as the earthly creation.

"（4）This humiliation to Man's condition was not intended to be perpetual. It accomplished its purpose when our Lord had given himself, a human being, as our ransom, or "corresponding price." Hence, his resurrection was not in the flesh, but, as the Apostle declares, "He was put to death in the flesh, but quickened in Spirit.' I Pet. 3:18.

"（5）His resurrection not only restored to him a spirit nature, but in addition conferred upon him a still higher honor, and, as the Father's reward for his faithfulness, made him partaker of the divine nature—the very highest of the Spirit natures, possessed of immortality." Vol. 5, pp. 83, 84. Cf., also, Vol. I., pp. 176, 179.

The meaning of these statements is made clearer by other statements of Russell's. Thus he writes:

"Nor do the Scriptures in any place intimate that the existence of the Only Begotten ever ceased from the time it began, as "the beginning of the creation of God," until it ceased at Calvary for three days; after which he was raised from the dead to die no more, death having never more dominion over him." Vol. 5, p. 90.

Commenting on John 1:11, "The logos was made flesh and dwelt among us," he writes:

"The common thought in respect to our Lord's manifestation in the flesh is usually expressed in the word incarnation. This usual thought we believe to be wholly incorrect, unscriptural." (He proceeds to show that he does not understand the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, and to condemn his misconceived doctrine). (p. 94, Vol. 5).

"There was no sham about it: it was not that he merely appeared to humble himself, while really retaining his glory and power: it was not that he seemed to become poor for our sakes, yet actually remained rich in the possession of the higher spiritual nature all the time; it was not that he merely put on the clothing, the livery, of a servant.

No, but he actually became a man—"the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all.' I Tim. 2:5."

"We shall see subsequently, when we come to consider particularly the ransom feature of his work, that it was absolutely necessary that he should be a man—neither more nor less than a perfect man—because it was a man that sinned, a man that was redeemed, and the divine law required that a man's life should pay the redemption price of a man's life." Vol. 5, p. 95.

"Nor could our Lord have been raised from the dead a man, and yet have left with Justice our ransom-price: in order to the release of Adam and his condemned race from the sentence and prison-house of Death, it was necessary not only that the man Christ Jesus should die, but just as necessary that the man Christ Jesus should never live again, should remain dead, should remain our ransom-price to all eternity." Vol. 5, p. 454.

He teaches that Christ's "human existence ended on the cross," that "after being dead three days, he was raised to life—to the perfection of spirit being—born of the Spirit—the first-born from the dead'— Jesus, therefore, at and after his resurrection, was a spirit—a spirit being, and no longer a human being in any sense." Vol. 1, pp. 230-231.

He writes:

"Our Lord's being or soul was non-existent during the period of death. 'He poured out his soul unto death; he made his soul an offering for sin.' But his soul (being) was revived in resurrection, being granted a new spiritual body." Vol. 5, p. 362.

He defines soul as "sentient being, intelligence, the man himself, the being, or soul." Vol. 5, p. 308.

"Man's superiority over the beast, according to the account given in Genesis, consists not in his having a different kind of breath or spirit, but in his having a higher form, a superior body, a finer organism—endowed with a brain organism which enables him to reason upon planes far above and beyond the intelligence of the lower animals of the brute creation." Vol. 5, p. 310.

He teaches that our Lord Jesus "is no longer a man but a spirit being, whom no man hath seen nor can see without a miracle." Vol. 2, p. 131.

"Our Lord's human body was, however, supernaturally removed from the tomb; because had it remained there it would have been an insurmountable obstacle to the faith of the disciples, who were not yet instructed in spiritual things—for the spirit was not yet given." (John 7:39). We know nothing about what became of it, except that it did not decay or corrupt. (Acts 2:27, 31). Whether it was dissolved into gasses or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love, of Christ's obedience and of our redemption, no one knows." Vol. 2, p. 129.

"Neither was Jesus a combination of two natures, human and spiritual. The blending of two natures produces neither the one nor the other, but an imperfect, hybrid thing, which is obnoxious to the divine arrangement. When Jesus was in the flesh he was a perfect human being; previous to that time he was a perfect spiritual being; and since his resurrection he is a perfect spiritual being of the highest or divine order. It was not until the time of his consecration even unto death, as typified in his baptism—at thirty years of age (manhood, according to the law, and therefore the right time to consecrate himself as a man)—that he received the earnest of his inheritance, divine nature. (Matt. 3:16, 17). The human nature had to be consecrated to death before he could receive even the pledge of the divine nature.

And not until that consecration was actually carried out and he had actually sacrificed the human nature, even unto death, did our Lord Jesus become a full partaker of the divine nature. After becoming a man he became obedient unto death; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him to the divine nature. (Phil 2:8,9). If this Scripture is true, it follows that he was not exalted to the divine nature until the human nature was actually sacrificed—dead."

"Thus we see that in Jesus there was no mixture of natures, but that twice he experienced a change of nature, first from spiritual to human; afterward from human to the highest order of spiritual nature, the divine; and in each case the one was given up for the other." Vol. I., pp. 179-180.

Russell teaches also an inclusive Christ, or an extended Christ: that "Christ includes all anointed of the Spirit" (Vol. 1, p. 85); that "the Christ (the Anointed) is not one member but many." Vol. 1, p. 82.

"The great work before this glorious anointed company—the Christ—necessitates their exaltation to the divine nature; no other than divine power could accomplish it. Theirs is a work pertaining not only to this world, but to all things in heaven and earth—among spiritual as well as among human beings." Vol. 1, pp. 289, 290.

Russell thus teaches: (1) That Christ before his advent was not God, but a created angel. (2) That when he was in the earth he was neither God, nor a spirit of any order of being, but a human being, body with the spirit of life, or breath of life, in it. (3) That his atonement was exclusively human, a mere man's. (4) That since his resurrection—really creation with a consciousness precisely like that with which Jesus passed into non-existence—he is a God—a made God. (5) That Jesus' body was not raised from the dead. (6) That his soul became non-existent and must continue so forever.

The orthodox Christology which Russell either misconceives, or intentionally misrepresents, is briefly set forth in the answer to question 21 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was and continued to be God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever."

The bare statement of Russell's Christology as has been done above, first in his own words, and then, in more compact form, in our words, should be enough to kill it. The indulgent hearer will, however, it is hoped, pardon a shot or two at these positions of Russell.

(1) John 1:1 says, "The word was God." Reverent and real scholarship says of this passage, "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article Theos, not ho Theos, inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say "the word was ho Theos." No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression which simply affirms the true deity of the Word," (Cannon Westcott, following the great current of thoughtful and learned Bible students of all the ages). Three majestic truths are set forth in this passage: (a) The eternity of the Word. In beginning (without the article) was (not came into existence) the Word. Timeless existence is predicated of him. (b) The eternal personal existence is set forth. He was with God. By the Word all things were created and enlightened. (c) His deity is taught. "And the Word was God."

(2) If Christ was an honest man, he was also more than man—was God—when on earth. For he said, "It is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,' and yet he said, 'the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.'

He said, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." How could a mere man so speak without sheer impiety? How, as a mere man, could he make himself the very object of supreme worship in the Lord's Supper, saying, "This do in remembrance of me?" The like argument might be made from many passages of Scripture. Truly, the attributes, works and worship predicated of Christ in the Scriptures represent him to be very God of very God, as well as man.

In denying that Jesus Christ is the eternally generated Son of God, who took a perfect human nature into union with himself, that he was at once the Son of God and the Son of Man, Russellism accuses Christ of falsehood and treason against the Most High; and brings him before man as the worst fraud, hypocrite and deceiver of the world's history down to the time of Mrs. Eddy. For he set himself up to be the God of the Universe.

(3) If he was a mere creature he could have no imputable obedience, active or passive; and could work out no redemption. The Scriptures say, "God sent forth from himself his Son, born of a woman born under the law, to redeem them that were under the law," Gal. 4:4, 5. This Scripture cannot be true if Russellism be true. Again, if he was a mere creature, how could Paul say, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:9. How could we explain Isaiah 9:6, "His name shall be called wonderful, counselor, the mighty God?"

(4) The Scriptures teach not that the Son is a made God, but that being in the form of God, he humbled himself for man's salvation; and hath, in consequence, been given Media-torial lordship, Phil. 2:6-11. "The form of a thing is the mode in which it reveals itself; and that is determined by its nature." Chrysostom said: "It is not possible to be of one essence and to have the form of another."

He was "God over all blessed forever." Rom. 9:5. See here "Fundamentals," Vol. VII., pp. 109-110.

(5) The Scriptures teach that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead. "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless but believing." See also John 20:24-28; Luke 24:39, etc. Shall we believe Christ, or C. T. Russell? Christ or the seller of miracle wheat at $60.00 a bushel? In denying the bodily resurrection of Christ, Russellism reached a pitch of extreme audacity and falsehood. The doctrine of the resurrection is basal to Christianity. If Christ be not risen then Christians are of all men in a most pitiable and deceived condition. The lie invented by the chief priests that his disciples stole his body away during the night while the soldiers slept is not so shocking as this baseless speculation. Baseless it is. God had predicted His resurrection a thousand years before it occurred (Ps. 16:9; Acts 2:26-28). The gospel proof of the resurrection is bomb-proof. It was testified to by a large body of disciples, plain, competent, capable men who had ample opportunity to ascertain its reality, and were of honesty undoubted which assures us that they testified to fact as they saw it. (See "Fundamentals" VII., pp. 115-116). In his efforts to interpret away the Scriptural teaching as to Christ's resurrection, Russell ignores the fact that the Lord's resurrection body, while retaining its identity, was a spiritual body (I. Cor. 15:44), perfectly adapted to the Spirit, and not under the sway of natural laws which govern our ordinary bodies.

(6) Russell teaches that Jesus Christ passed into nonexistence on Golgotha. Christ said to the repenting thief, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." If their personalities became non-existent at death, they could not be together, for they were not.

Who was right? Jesus or the man who said under oath, in the course of the same hour, that he knew the Greek language and that he was not familiar with it, and who appeared devoid of ability to name the letters of the Greek alphabet, on page 447, of Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, when asked to do it in court? More, the Christ, which now is, according to Russellism, is a brand new one. The other gone forever. He was annihilated.

(7) Our Lord has two natures and not one as Russellism affirms. We read in John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. Notice: (a) The Word became flesh, he did not cease to be God in doing so. He was not changed into a man, a mere man. (b) He did not cease to be the Word, "He dwelt among us." The pronoun He has the Word for its antecedent. (c) The term "dwelt," literally is tabernacled, an allusion to the tabernacle of the Wilderness. God said, "And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them." Compare I John 1:1-3, where John summonses the three most trustworthy of our senses, hearing, sight and touch, to bear witness to the reality and presence of the Word of life, as dwelling among us.

See also John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: Again I leave the world and go unto my Father," which teaches eternal son-ship, sojourn in the world, return to the Father, of Jesus Christ.

See also I Tim. 3:16: "God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

(8) The doctrine of the extended Christ is a diabolical abolition of the distinction between Christ and ourselves as generic.

Russell's Christology is an impious jumble, somewhat akin to unitarianism, more akin to Arianism, but much less worthy of respect than either and supported by an interpretation of Scripture wholly arbitrary—a reading into Scripture of notions foreign to it, that he may fool the people.

Russell's teaching concerning the Holy Spirit.

He says:

"This subject of the Holy Spirit, its office and operation, has been grievously misunderstood by many of the Lord's people for centuries: and only in the light of the rising Sun of Righteousness—in the light of the parousia of the Son of Man—is this subject becoming thoroughly clear and reasonable, as it evidently was to the early Church, and in harmony with all the various Scriptural testimonies pertaining to it. . . .

"There is consistency in the Scripture teaching that the Father and the Son are in full harmony and oneness of purpose and operation, as we have just seen. And equally consistent is the Scripture teaching respecting the Holy Spirit—that it is not another God, but the spirit influence or power exercised by the one God, our Father, and by his only Begotten Son—in absolute oneness, therefore, with both of these, who also are at one or in full accord. But how different is this unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from that held and taught under the name of Trinitarian doctrine, which in the language of the Catechism (Questions 5 and 6), declares: "There are three persons in the one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: These three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory." This view suited well 'the dark ages' which it helped to produce. The period in which mysteries were worshipped instead of unravelled, found a most choice one in this theory, which is as unscriptural as it is unreasonable. How could the three be one person, in substance?

And if 'one in substance,' how could they be equal? Does not every intelligent person know that if God is one in person, he cannot be three? and that if three in person there can be only one sense in which the three could be one, and that not in person but in purpose, in mind, in will, in co-operation? Verily, if it were not for the fact that this trinitarian nonsense was drilled into us from our earliest infancy, and the fact that it is soberly taught in Theological Seminaries by gray haired professors, in many other ways apparently wise, nobody would give it a moment's consideration." Vol. 5, pp. 165-166.

"It is impossible to harmonize these various statements" (The Holy Spirit of God, etc.), with the ordinary idea of a third God." Vol. 5, p. 168.

"In the light of the Scripture we may understand the Holy Spirit to mean:

(a) God's power exercised in any manner, but always according to lines of justice and love, and hence always a holy power.

(b) This power may be an energy of life, a physically creative power, or a power of thought, creating and inspiring thoughts and words, or a quickening life-giving power, as it was manifested in the resurrection of our Lord, and will again be manifested in the resurrection of the Church, his body.

"It would be strange indeed if one member of a co-equal Trinity of equal gods referred to another as able and willing to give the third as earthly parents are to give bread, fish and eggs to their children." Vol. 5, p. 224.

In these passages Russell betrays anew his misconception of, or his caricaturing, of the doctrine of the trinity. He speaks as if Trinitarians were Tritheists—as if they held that the several persons of the Godhead were related as three individual men are related, as if they were three individual beings, with substance the same in kind.

Whereas the Trinitarian holds that the one substance of the deity exists in a three-fold mode—which modes are more nearly like that of personality in man than anything else with which man has to compare them. Hear the clear statement: "There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory."

That the Holy Spirit is represented as personal, as distinguished from the Father and the Son, and as divine, is the clear teaching of the word. The Scriptures say that the Holy Ghost "teaches" and "reveals," John 14:26; I Cor. 2:13; John 15:25, 26; I Tim. 4:1; that He searches the decrees of God, I Cor. 2:10; that He calls to special work in the Church, to special work in the ministry, Acts 13:2; that he distributes gifts as He will, I Cor. 12:10; and exercises many other personal agencies; that He exercises the active feelings of a person, Eph. 4:30. Scripture distinguishes Him alike from Father and Son and represents Him as sharing in honors and acts undoubtedly personal to them, Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14. Pneuma though neuter, is construed with a masculine pronoun, John 16:3. He is represented as lied to, and therefore as personal, Acts 5:3. These are but a few of the indications of his personality. They suffice.

His Divinity is so clearly set forth that Russell does not question that, only endeavoring to show that he is a Divine influence.

The subordination of the Holy Ghost as well as that of the Son is evidently that of economy. The three modes of the divine existence-three persons-are to be treated each with the same honor. They are therefore equal in honor, though subordinating themselves in a given order in the outworking and application of redemption.

2d. The plan of God.

Russell teaches that God planned three great dispensations: The first "lasting from man's creation to the flood, 1656 years; the second, from the flood to the commencement of the millennial reign of Christ, at his second advent, 4344;* and the third, or "Dispensation of the Fulness of Times,' lasting from the beginning of Christ's reign for 'ages to come'." Vol. 1, p. 219.

He teaches that, in each of these three dispensations, "God's plan with reference to men has a distinct and separate outline;" that "the dispensation before the flood was under the supervision and special ministration of angels, who were permitted to try what they could do to recover the fallen and degenerate race." Vol. 1, p. 220. That during the second dispensation, 'the present evil world,' up to 1874, man was permitted to try governing himself; but by reason of the fall he was under the control of Satan, the "prince of this world;" that "this dispensation was to end in the greatest time of trouble the world ever saw;" that this dispensation was composed of three distinct ages; the age of the patriarchs from the flood to the death of Jacob; the Jewish age, and the Gospel age; that in this gospel age, "We had the 'royal priesthood,' composed of all those who offered themselves to God," living sacrifices, 'holy and acceptable through Jesus Christ," that during this period "the body of Christ was called out of the world, and shown . . . the exceeding great and precious promises whereby (by obedience to the call and its requirements) they might become partakers of the divine nature." Vol. 1, pp. 221-22. That 'the third great dispensation is to be composed of many ages,' that the first of these is the Millennial age; that "it is the thousand years during which Christ will reign over and thereby bless all the families of the earth, accomplishing the restitution of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets.

During that age, sin and death shall be forever blotted out." Vol. 1, p. 222.

"The ages to come following the great reconstruction period, are to be ages of perfection, blessedness and happiness, regarding the work of which the Scriptures are silent." Vol.1,p.223.

"Each of these dispensations has its distinct seasons for the beginning and development of its work, and each ends with a harvest manifesting its fruits. The harvest at the close of the Jewish age was a period of forty years, lasting from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. A.D.29 until the destruction of Jerusalem,A.D.70.Vol.1,p.223.

"A harvest constitutes the closing period of the Gospel age also, during which there is again a lapping of the two ages—the Gospel age ending, and the Restitution or Millennial age beginning. The Gospel age closes by stages, as did its pattern or 'shadow,' the Jewish age. As then, the first seven years of the harvest were devoted in a special sense to a work in and for Israel after the flesh, and were years of favor, so here we find a similar seven years indicated as having the same bearing upon the Gospel Church, to be followed by a period of trouble (fire) upon the world as a punishment for wickedness, and a preparation for the reign of righteousness." Vol. I, p. 224.

He teaches that God planned that during the Jewish age some persons might avail themselves of God's overtures of mercy and win for themselves, the title to recreation in the millennial age, as perfect human beings; that God planned that a few persons in the Gospel age, through faith and the sacrifice of their human lives, might win the title to a call into spiritual existence and elevation to the Divine nature in the millennial age; that in the Millennial age all the hosts of those who have died shall be "resurrected" (created) and given a trial full and sufficient, when, if they choose to serve Christ, they shall be made perfect with the perfection with which Adam started.

(See Vol. 2.)

He says, "Let us not be misunderstood. We have heretofore shown that God's plan does not extend to the converting of the world during the Gospel Age. He did not intend to do so, but merely designed the selection and trial of the Church now, and the blessing of the world through the Church, the Christ, in an age to follow this. We do not contradict this when we say that the Elijah (Christ in the flesh), has tried to convert the world and failed . . . for though God knew and foretold that our mission to the world would be largely a failure, except in selecting of a choice little flock, yet knowing that the effort would react favorably upon ourselves, his commission to us through our Lord Jesus Christ was to try to convert the world, when he said, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the good tidings to every creature'." Vol. 2, p. 252.

He says with regard to election and free grace:

"If the distinctive features of the epochs and dispensations outlined in a preceeding chapter be kept in mind, and all the passages relating to election and free grace be examined and located, it will be found that all those which treat of election apply to the present (Gospel and past ages, while those which teach Free Grace are fully applicable to the next age."

"Since the fall of man into sin, to the present time, certain of God's favors have been restricted to specify individuals, nations and classes, while in the next age all the world will be invited to share the favors then offered, then made known to all, and whosoever will may come and drink at life's fountain freely." Vol. 1, pp. 96, 97.

"That the Christian Church, the body of Christ, is an exception to God's general plan for mankind, is evident from the statement that its selection was determined in the divine plan before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, 5), at which time God not only foresaw the fall of the race into sin, but also predetermined the justification, the sanctification and the glorification of this class, which during the Gospel age, he has been calling out of the world to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be partakers of the divine nature and to be fellow heirs with Jesus Christ of the Millennial Kingdom for the establishment of universal righteousness and peace."

"This shows that the election, or choice, of the Church was a pre-determined thing on God's part: but mark, it is not an unconditional election of the individual members of the Church. Before the foundation of the world God determined that such a company should be selected for such a purpose within a specific time—the Gospel Age. While we cannot doubt that God could have foreseen the action of each individual member of the Church, and could have foreknown just who would be worthy and therefore constitute the members of that 'little flock,' yet this is not the way in which God's word presents the doctrine of election. It was not the thought of an individual predestination which the Apostles sought to inculcate, but that a class was predestined in God's purpose to fill the honorable position, the selection of which would be upon conditions of severe trials of faith and obedience and the sacrifice of earthly privileges even unto death. Thus by an individual trial, and by individually 'overcoming' the individual members of the predetermined class are being chosen or accepted into all blessings and benefits predetermined of God for this class."

"In selecting the little flock, God makes a very general call—many are called." . . . "But even of those who hear and come, all are not worthy.

Wedding garments are provided, but some will not wear them, and must be rejected; and of those who do put on the robes of justification, and who receive the honor of being begotten to a new nature, some fail to make their calling and election sure by faithfulness to their covenant." (Vol. 1, pp. 193-195).

According to this plan, Jesus, Russell teaches, was to become present (spiritually) October, 1874; "Israel after the Spirit" was to obtain from the death of Jesus till 1878; her period of favor was thus to cover 1845 years; the nominal house of Sons, or the Christian Church, was then to be spewed out, in A. D., 1878; she was to be thirty-seven years in falling, and was to fall in 1915, the end of an age of harvest of 40 years—a harvest extending from the year 1874 to the end of 1914, or to 1915. Vol.2, pp.246,247.

Here, again, the statement of this plan of the modes of the dispensation, of how God related himself to the world in the several ages, should be enough to kill it. But, ex abundantia a few weaknesses may be pointed out.

1st. Russell's teaching that, in the first dispensation, God let the angels see what they could do toward man's recovery, is a vain dream of his. The Scriptures which he cites in support of this teaching are Job 38:7, which tells of the joy of the angels at the creation of the lower universe; and Heb. 2:5, "Unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come." If from the assertion, that God hath not subjected the world to come to angels, there be a legitimate inference that he hath subjected a certain other world to angels, it is that he hath subjected the world of the Jewish age to angels. For in the context we are taught that he had promulgated the law through them; and in the context it is precisely a contrast between the Mosaic dispensation and the Christian dispensation that the Apostle means, and not a contrast between the Antediluvian and later ages.

2d. Russell's teaching that God does not intend the conversion of the world in the Gospel age—that he intends that in the Millennial age; that Christ commissioned the Church not to convert world in the Gospel age—but to try to convert it in that age, is supported by the kind of eisegesis that permits and exacts the gratuitous interpolation of the word try into the very language of the great commission. In that commission Christ said: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations;" and, to guarantee success in that effort, Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and earth had been given, added, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." It is supported also by an eisegesis that turns Christ's visible coming into an invisible coming; and by an eisegesis which represents Christ as having thus come in 1874, as having assumed the power and title of king in 1878, and as having accomplished utterly the destruction of the nominal Christian Church in the next "thirty-seven years," or in 1915. Vol. 2, p. 247.

3d. Russell's teaching that God has planned to restore, in the Millennial age, all men who have not in previous ages accepted Christ, to the perfection of nature with which Adam was naturally endowed, is supported with similar eisegesis, and with utter disregard both of God's sanity and of the havoc such teaching, if believed, would make of men's morals: No sane ruler, wishing his righteous laws obeyed, would advertise to his subjects that the only penalty of sin would be temporary annihilation, coupled with a recall into existence and a new period of probation vastly more favorable. No righteous ruler would hold such a prospect out before sinful men; and so encourage universal license in a race set in sin. But, more, the Bible teaches nothing of a salvation which shall result in the status of Adamic perfection. It teaches only of a salvation to the life which is life—heirship with Christ to eternal glory.

4th. Russell minimizes the number of the saved in the Gospel age, by stressing isolated texts. It is with him always the "little flock" that is saved. Now, the Bible does not teach that every man is to be saved, but it does teach that a great multitude that no man can number is to be saved; that a number so vast as to justify our Lord in saying, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

5th. Russell's teaching that there is a future probation for all who do not accept Christ in the Gospel age is without Biblical warrant, or any warrant in reason. He has no more evidence from either source than the average assertor of future probation, which in the face of Scripture teaching is nil. In 2 Cor. 5:10, for example, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad," we are taught that in the great award the things done here and now are determinative of our future. In 2 Cor. 6:2, "Now is the day of salvation; behold now (in the Gospel Age), is the day of salvation," the same truth is reiterated. So also in Matt. 28:19, 20, in connection with Matt 24:3, 6, 14. Many other passages show that the time of salvation is now, till the end of the world—till Christ's second coming.

6th. Russell's teaching that election is not of individuals but of classes, is a form of Pelagianism; and is refuted by the usual arguments against Pelagianism, e. g., by the fact that Scriptural language shows that individuals not classes possessing given characteristics were elected to salvation. See Rom. 8:29, ff., et passim.

In identifying election with "acceptance into all blessings and benefits predetermined of God for this class," the baldness of his Pelagianism appears.

7th. In teaching the doctrine of falling from justification, Russell follows the Pelagian error.

8th. The facts of history as well as the teachings of Scripture show to be false the dates which Russell fixes upon for the coming of Christ and Christ's spewing out the Church and the utter collapse of the Church.

3d. Russell's Doctrine of Creation.

He seems to reduce creation to formation; at least, to be unwilling to teach de nihilo creation. He says, "The wise will not attempt to guess that which God has not revealed respecting how he previously gathered together earth's atoms." Vol. 6, p. 23. He teaches that a personal God framed "the universe, man excepted, out of these atoms, probably by a method of evolution. He teaches that "man was a direct and perfect creation" (Vol. 1, p. 32); but by this creation he seems to mean nothing more than formation of his body out of earthy particles and vivifying it with the breath of life, i. e., with that vitality (as he explains), that man shares along with the lower animals.

Here the author intermingles senile dreams with nonsense, which he reads into the word of God in order to support his theory.

4th. Russell's doctrine of providence resembles as far as his peculiar crotchets allow, the Semi-Pelagian view, and therefore, calls for no specific representation or refutation, that having been done in the regular course in theology.

II. Russell's Anthropology; or Doctrine of Man's Origin, Constitution, Soul, Original Moral Character, Fall, Sin, Penalty, Destiny.

As has just been shown, Russell teaches that God created (formed) man by an immediate exertion of his own power, as the crown of material creation.

He teaches that man consists of body and the spirit of life; that man's body is the most perfect of animal organisms; and that the spirit is simply vital, animal energy. Thus he says: "Man's superiority over the beast, according to the account given in Genesis, consists not in his having a different kind of breath or spirit, but in his having a higher form, a superior body, a finer organism—endowed with a brain organism which enables him to reason upon planes far above and beyond the intelligence of the lower animals, the brute creation.

We find that in these respects man was created a fleshly likeness of his Creator, who is a Spirit being." Vol. 5, p. 310.

"But as we have found, and as all men are witnesses each has a different bodily organism which gives to each his different characteristics, and which alone constitutes one higher and the other lower in the scale of intelligence." Vol. 5, p. 327.

In support of these teachings, he quotes amongst other passage, Eccles. 3:21, "Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward?" He endeavors to break the force of Eccles. 12:7, "The dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth to God who gave it," by making spirit to mean "the privilege of living the power or permission of living." But, in the 5th verse, the writer says, "because man goeth to his everlasting home." How can man be said to go to his everlasting home, if his body goes back to the dust and his spirit is nothing but "permission to live." In that case man is not. He has no home. He has become non-existent.

He teaches that the soul of man is a resultant quality or condition from the injection of spirit (vital energy) into the body; that a soul is a sentient being. He says:

"Examining this question from the Bible standpoint, we will find that man has a body and has a spirit ('vital force,') but is a soul. Science concurs with the Scriptures in this. Indeed, one of the sciences, Phrenology, undertakes to treat the skulls and lower animals as indexes and to read therefrom the natural traits and characteristics of the owners."

"The word 'soul' as found in the Scriptures, signifies sentient being; that is a being possessed of powers of sense, sense-perception. With minds freed from prejudice, let us go with this definition to the Genesis account of man's creation, and note that (1) the organism, or body, was formed; (2) 'the spirit of life,' 'called Breath of life,' was communicated, (3) living soul, or sentient being resulted. This is very simple and easily understood. It shows that the body is not the soul, nor is the spirit or breath of life the soul; but that when these two were united, the resultant quality, or condition, was living man, living being—a living soul, possessed of perceptive powers." Vol. 5, pp. 322-323.

Over against this: (1) Set the words of our Lord. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. 10:28. Such is the common representation in Scriptures. The body and soul are set forth as distinct substances; Christ also represents Dives and Lazarus as living in the unseen world. Their bodies were in the grave. (2) There is another class of passages which equally refutes this point in Russellism. These passages represent the body as a garment which is to be laid aside—a house in which the soul dwells. Peter says that he "must shortly put off this tabernacle." Paul says, "If our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God," 2 Cor. 5:1-9; and in the same connection he speaks of being unclothed and clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.

While soul is often used in Scripture with special reference to man's sensuous and perceptive faculties, and spirit is often used with special reference to his higher faculties, the words are often used as equivalent and of a substance and not of a mere vital energy, albeit the substance is qualified with vital energy, of a kind.

Russell teaches that man was good—morally good—as he came originally from the hands of God. He apparently holds a position as close to the Wesleyan Arminians as his crochets will allow on this point.

With regard to the Fall, Russell teaches the fact of it as well as the morally excellent character of Adam prior to the fall, in the following words:

"Mental and physical perfection, under the conditions presented in the divine account of the creation, clearly and positively imply moral perfection; for we are to remember that, according to the Scriptures, moral obliquity and consequent degradation had not set in. Nor is it supposable that man, without moral elements to his mental development, would be described in the Scriptures as a "very good" man, or as an image of his Creator." . . .

"The death sentence, or 'curse,' pronounced against Adam, viz.: 'Dying thou shalt die' (Gen. 2:17, margin), was not merely against his muscles and physical frame—it included the entire man, the mental as well as the physical; and this also included the moral qualities, because they are a part of the mental. It is in full confirmation of this that we see today that man is a fallen being in every sense of the word. Physically he is degenerated, and his average of life has fallen, under most favorable conditions, to thirty-three years; mentally and morally we also see that he is very deficient, yet possessing organs capable of much higher development than his short life will permit." Vol. 5, p. 407.

To one who is sufficiently superficial this quotation may appear to be a simple, pious statement of the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject; but let him begin to think, and it will appear unworthy of respect. What right has Russell to contrast in these words the physical and the mental, since he teaches that man consists simply of matter organized in given ways and vital, animal energy.

For that is physical too, only physical according to Russell.

Russell falsely resolves sin into that which produces unhappiness. Thus he says: "We distinguish these opposite principles of right and wrong by their effects when put into action. That principle which, when active, is beneficial and productive of ultimate order, harmony and happiness we call a right principle; and the opposite, which is productive of discord, unhappiness and destruction, we call a wrong principle. The results of these principles in action we call good and evil, and the intelligent being, capable of discerning the right principle from the wrong, and voluntarily governed by the one or the other, we call virtuous or sinful." Vol. 1, pp. 118, 119.

A peculiarity of his doctrine of sin is his representing it as an "asset" for all those who are not received into the "little flock." He tells us that in the millennium all those who have not been received into this body shall be called into existence ("resurrected") and given a new trial; whereupon he says: "The experience with evil, contrasted with the experience with good, which will come to each during the trial of the coming age, will constitute the advantage by reason of which the results of the second trial will differ so widely from the results of the first." Vol. 1, p. 151.

Teach this doctrine to men and women—of unrenewed hearts—teach them that sin is a "valuable asset"—no matter what sort of sin—teach this doctrine along with Russell's doctrine that death is going into non-existence—that it involves the saint and the sinner in exactly the same penalty, and you will incite those so taught toward the grossest wickedness.

Of the penalty of sin, Russell writes:

"It should be remembered, however, that it is not the pain and suffering in dying, but death—the extinction of life—in which dying culminates, that is the penalty of sin.

The suffering is only incidental to it, and the penalty falls on many with but little or no suffering. . In the penalty pronounced there was no intimation of release. (Gen. 2:17). Vol. 1, p. 154.

"What, then, dies? We answer that it is the soul that dies—the sentient being ceases. Let us remember that the sentient being was produced by the union of the breath, or spirit of life, with an organism, and that the dissolution, or separation, of these two causes the cessation of being the soul—death. That this is true of the lower animals, none would for a moment question; but is it not equally true of man, the highest animal, created in the intellectual image and moral likeness of God?" Vol. 5, p. 341.

Remark:

This is utterly unbiblical. We read in that book that Abraham "died in a good old age and was gathered to his father." A little later we read that his sons "buried him in the cave of Machpelah. Gen. 25:8,9. His people were not buried "in the cave of Machpelah; he while buried there, was gathered unto his fathers." The meaning must be that he was buried as to his body in Machpelah and gathered as to his soul to his fathers. His soul survived the shock of death. So Samuel is represented as surviving the shock of death. He came up at the interview of Saul with the witch of Endor. I Sam. 29:15.

Our Lord Jesus Christ represents Abraham, a dead beggar, Lazarus, and a rich man as all existing in Hades—Abraham and Lazarus as in one portion of Hades and Dives as in another portion. Our Lord teaches of the rich man that he survived and suffered, of Abraham and Lazarus, that they survived and were happy.

The Apostle John, saw, Rev. 6., the souls of multitudes who had been beheaded in the great transgression, existing and full of activity.

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Russellism (1920)