Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 05, 1999 at 14:44:35 {6xiCHW3gJ2hxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: **Water, water everywhere posted by Farkel on November 05, 1999 at 14:03:02:
Does the following ring any bells?
What Christian religious organization was Charles Taze Russell baptized by? None, to my knowledge.
Now this is an interesting story.
To my knowledge there is only one recorded instance where Russell publicly offered anything about when and by whom he was baptized. This record can be found in the work entitled Russell-White Debate published in 1912. That publication is a word for word record of a debate between C. T. Russell and L. S. White. As recorded, White asked:
Eider [sic] Russell, I understand, practices immersion. I want him to tell this audience, was he baptized by immersion? Does he immerse people when he baptizes them? The point is not as to whether baptism is immersion or not, but what is baptism for? I am affirming that the Scriptures teach that it is in order to the remission of sins.—Russell-White Debate of 1908 (1912 printing): 130.
In answer Russell said:
I agree that nothing in the Bible indicates that either sprinkling or pouring constitute baptism.—Russell-White Debate of 1908 (1912 printing): 137.And: Raised a Presbyterian, sprinkled in infancy and with all my early prejudices in its favor and its arguments in my mind, I had my own. experiences, too, along the lines of getting free from the errors of the past.—Russell-White Debate of 1908 (1912 printing): 138.
To my knowledge this "sprinkling in infancy" comment is the only recorded instance of Russell acknowledging when and by whom he was "baptized." His comment that "nothing indicates that… sprinkling… constitutes baptism" seems to negate his answer to White’s question. However, the work entitled The Laodicean Messenger published in 1923 indicates that, at the age of 16, Russell was considered to have been "consecrated" for "some years." Considering the timing of things, that comment indicates that Russell’s "sprinkling" was considered his baptism. Now, look back at White’s question to Russell, he asked: "I want him to tell this audience, was he baptized by immersion?" White seems to have been privy about something Russell didn’t want to go into great detail about, that is, that he had not been immersed but rather "sprinkled." Considering White’s question, Russell’s only response and that published in the The Laodicean Messenger, my conclusion is that Russell was not baptized (immersed) but rather "sprinkled" while associated with Presbyterians. Of course, if this is true, then according to Russell’s own words, he was never baptized.
Friend