[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ] Response to AF: Part Four

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Greg Stafford [GregStafford] on November 02, 1999 at 11:42:17 {.c1iAaocfM/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:

SECOND RESPONSE TO AF, PART FOUR

Posted by AF [AF] on October 18, 1999 at 00:01:02 {VmAHMooXmo1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}: Start of Part 4 :: AF :: However, as I'm sure you are well aware, this is simply not true. Not a single thing that Russell specifically predicted for 1914 or earlier years came true. . . :: The Revelation Climax book uses a misdirecting euphemism to describe how little Russell predicted correctly. The box on page 105 says: :: Charles Taze Russell and his fellow Bible students realized decades earlier that 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times, or the appointed times of the nations. (Luke 21:24) While they did not in those early days fully understand what this would mean, they were convinced that 1914 was going to be a pivotal date in world history, and they were right.

:: The statement that "they did not ... fully understand what this would mean" is true in the sense that today, Jehovah's Witnesses retain only a single item of Russell's many teachings about 1914: the term "the Gentile times". What Russell taught that "the Gentile times" was going to bring in 1914 has been completely abandoned. Unfortunately the statement implies that "they" fully understood far more than that a fuzzy term like "end of the Gentile times" might be applied to 1914.

: GREG: : I believe you are reading far too much into what they wrote. They are clearly highlighting Russell's view that 1914 would be a "pivotal date in world history"

ALAN_2 :: That's right, but as I documented above, they are also clearly highlighting Russell's view that a pivotal event of 1914 was supposed to be the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon, the beginning of "the Day of Wrath", the beginning of "the worldwide upheaval that . . . was so far-reaching that many long-standing monarchies disappeared", and that the "catastrophic events" that "would start in 1914" would "mark the end of the Gentile Times".

GREG_2 I have already explained where have erred in what you here write, or at least the conclusions you have reached from it. See my Part Three. Page 105 of the Revelation book is building on Russell's foresight regarding the significance of 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times. Reread par. 4, and the box on page 105. If you do not get it by now, there is nothing else I can say to help you.

: GREG : and that he and his associates did not "fully understand" just what it would mean. The ONLY thing they acknowledge Russell having a 'full' understanding of is that 1914 would be a significant date, marking the end of the Gentile Times.

ALAN_2 :: No, not just that it would be a significant date, but that it would be significant because of the occurrence of events that Russell had predicted long in advance.

GREG_2 Alan, please stop misquoting me. I did not simply say, as you have me saying, that it would "JUST . . .be a significant date." I said, "1914 would be a significant date, marking the end of the Gentile Times." When you quote and understand what I say in context, you might see where you are in error. If you don't, well, there is little else that I can do to help you see it.

: GREG : They are quite frank in stating that Russell's view of what this would bring was in error,

ALAN_2 :: Nowhere on page 105 does the Rev Cli book state that any of Russell's views were in error. Saying that he did not "fully understand" what the end of the Gentile Times would mean is in no way an acknowledement of error.

GREG_2 Really? Then are you saying they by their reference to his "understanding" they are simply pointing out INCOMPLETNESS, and not error at all? Tell me, Alan, since you obviously KNOW what they meant, what is that they believe Russell did not "fully understand"?

ALAN_2 ::Indeed, when accompanied by a very positive statement concerning their notion that it was going to be "a pivotal date" (which I've shown above was not even true except in a trivial way), namely, "they were right", it implies that Russell got far more than zero predictions right. It implies that he got most of them right.

GREG_2 No, you have shown no such thing, though you have obviously convinced YOURSELF of some such view. The box on page 105 which contains the statement "they were right," has direct reference to 1914 being a "pivotal date in world history." The two quotes from pars. 1 and 2 of this same box are from Russell's writings and relate solely to his view of the end of the Gentile Times, which is also PRECISELY the same thing mentioned in par. 4 of the main text, and the events that would mark its end. There is nothing, nowhere on page 105 of the Revelation book that in anyway implies that Russell foresaw WWI AS SUCH, and its aftermath.

ALAN_2 :: Suppose I speculated in print on the nature of your personal life, and I wrote that you were a 500 kilogram Australian aborigne, were born in Antarctica, had 25 children by 3 previous wives and became a Jehovah's Witness in 1932. Well, I got the part right about your becoming a JW, but not the part about 1932. Would I be justified in telling people how smart I was because I got one little thing right - and one that was actually wrong because the date was wrong? I think not. And if I gave the impression to people that I knew a lot about you, and characterized my wrong impressions by saying, "I didn't fully understand the details of Greg's life", would I be telling the truth or not?

GREG_2 If and when you come up with a proper analogy, or least one that is not so grossly out of touch with what we are discussing, I will be happy to explore it with you. Actually, I will help you anyway: Suppose I predicted that events in Alan's life would move him to come out of the closet in the year 2000, and admit that he was a homosexual. Additionally, let us say that I also predicted that shortly after, within a year of your disclosure, Alan will die of AIDS. Well, the year 2000 comes, Alan reveals his homosexual lifestyle, but does not die from AIDS. In fact, he does not even have the AIDS virus! Now it is the year 2010, and someone refers to my predictions and says, "Greg foresaw that events in Alan's life would move him to come out of the closet, but he did not fully understand the nature of Alan's situation." Since the reference is specific to what I DID foresee, and since that which I did not fully understand is not specific, it can only rightly be said that the person who, in the year 2010 made reference to my predication, only meant to acknowledge the rightfulness of my predication concerning the disclosure of Alan's sexual orientation. In fact, the person might have said, "Greg foresaw that events in Alan's life would move him to come out of the closet, but he did not fully understand the nature of Alan's situation. Indeed, Alan's has actually continued to live a normal, healthy life since that year." The use of "indeed" in no way implies that the person speaking means to agree with everything that I foresaw, to which he/she made reference. It is a means of connection what was said, part of which was true, to what has actually happened since.

True, all analogies break down at some point, but yours are not even close.

: GREG : and nowhere in the quotes to which you refer do they imply that "World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students."

ALAN_2 ::I've presented extensive documentation above that your statement is wrong.

GREG_2 You must have forgotten to include it in your response, because no such documentation is to be found in what you wrote in your six-part response. Please be sure to include it in your next reply, though.

:: AF ::The book Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom is more upfront about Russell's incorrect teachings about what would happen in 1914, but still uses euphemistic language to describe how wrong he was. See, for example, page 135, which gives a much better, but still incomplete picture of what Russell taught. On this page the statement is made: "The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen." This is true - with hindsight. Prior to 1914 Russell made many extremely dogmatic statements about how sure he was of his teachings, even calling the key dates in his chronological system "God's dates".

:GREG: : They also, on page 135, clearly state that "they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control."

ALAN_2 :: And?

GREG_2 "And" what? Did you have a question about something?

: GREG : The Proclaimers book further reveals that Russell and his associates "first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of 'the great day of God the Almighty') would precede that date,"

ALAN_2 ::Right, which nullifies your argument above, unless you argue that the writer of the Revelation Climax book was incompetent.

GREG_2 It nullifies no such thing, as we have seen. By the way, you seem to think that the result of any mistake in the Revelation book is either an indication of deception or incompetence. Is that true?

: GREG : and they also admitted that Russell believed "the year 1914 [would] mark a significant turning point for Jerusalem."

ALAN_2 ::Yes, that's included in my statement about the book being more upfront about Russell's incorrect teachings.

GREG_2 So where is the "euphemistic language" in the two items I mentioned above? Just because YOU are not satisfied with their not having pounded Russell for misunderstand issues related to Armageddon, anarchy, and Jerusalem, does not mean you have somehow made a point. They said what needed to be said, and I don't think they really care whether you think it was strong enough.

: GREG : Yes, dates derived from God's Word were naturally considered "God's dates."

ALAN_2 ::Sure, but Russell made far more of it than that. He was convinced that he was God's special messenger to mankind, even adopting the title "The Laodicean Messenger". He taught that, while he personally had no particular gift of prophecy and was not inspired in the sense that Bible writers were, God nonetheless somehow gave him special knowledge that He gave to no one else. Indeed, he taught that he was caused to understand many things in the Bible, especially about chronological matters, because "it was God's time" for Him to reveal them through his chosen "mouthpiece". The Lord actively, not statically through Russell's fallible interpretation of the static Scriptures, led him to do various things. Note how Russell expresses it in the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower (pp. 3821, 3823 Reprints): Many are the inquiries relative to the truths presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN and ZION'S WATCH TOWER, as to whence they came and how they developed to their present symmetrical and beautiful proportions -- Were they the results of visions? Did God in any supernatural way grant the solution of these hitherto mysteries of his plan? Are the writers more than ordinary beings? Do they claim any supernatural wisdom or power? or how comes this revelation of God's truth? No, dear friends, I claim nothing of superiority, nor supernatural power, dignity or authority; nor do I aspire to exalt myself in the estimation of my brethren of the household of faith. . . No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. . . So this re-examination showed further light upon the pathway and became a good cause for encouragement, as evidencing the Lord's continued leading. But while I was thus helped to clearer views . . . It now became clear to me that the Lord would no longer have me assist financially, or to be in any way identified with, anything which cast any influence in opposition . . . I therefore understood it to be the Lord's will that I should start another journal . . . Acting upon this leading of the Lord, I gave up traveling, and in July, 1879, the first number of ZION'S WATCH TOWER . . . made its appearance. While Russell more or less said that all Christians are mouthpieces, representatives and ambassadors for God (p. 4817 Reprints), the above shows that he himself was special in that respect.

GREG_2 Are you trying to make some argument against my position here? If so, what might it be? I have absolutely no problem with a Christian making these kind of claims, for I most certainly DO accept active 'leadings' from the Lord, and I DO believe that Russell was used mightily by God and Christ. The sense in which he was "special" clearly related to the responsibility and work that he felt compelled by God's spirit to do. He, as you quoted above, certainly did not believe his being special had anything to do with "superiority, nor supernatural power, dignity or authority," and since he did not "aspire to exalt [himself] in the estimation of [his] brethren of the household of faith," have not problem at all with his attributing what he accomplished to the 'leadings' of the Lord, and the might of His spirit.

ALAN_2 :: Concerning his journey toward Christian spirituality, Russell wrote in the December 15, 1914 Watch Tower (p. 5596 Reprints): Finally, we resolved to begin anew the study of the Bible, first assuring ourself that our colored creed-spectacles were thoroughly broken and our mind entirely untrammeled. Gradually the Lord led us to clearer and yet clearer light upon his Word. Was Russell saying that the Lord actively led him to a clearer understanding of the Bible? Of course, because to claim that he meant merely that the Lord was leading him to understand the Bible by means of the Bible is nonsensical - the Lord would have had nothing to do with the process of coming to an understanding. Russell would have had to say in concrete terms, "Gradually we understood the Bible better and so we got better and better understanding of the Bible." Not very informative, huh?

GREG_2 No, you're not. Again, you obviously do not understand my view, which is why you have advanced such arguments about active guidance throughout your replies. You are confusing the passive guidance that I argue for in relation to specific claims made by the Society, with the active guidance we all ask for, and believe we have received. One way that God actively guides persons who study His Word, is stated as follows: "

*** re 119 20 A Multitudinous Great Crowd *** Interpretations Belong to God For many decades the John class inquired as to the identity of the great crowd but without finding a satisfactory explanation. Why? We find the answer in the words of faithful Joseph, when he said: "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8) When and how does God interpret the fulfillment of his prophecies? Usually, it is when they are due to be fulfilled or are in course of fulfillment so that their message can be clearly discerned by his searching servants. This understanding is given "for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope."--Romans 15:4.

GREG_2 So, here, God's active interpretation of His prophecies is seen as occurring concurrently with the searching of His servants. When they are studying various points and God acts to cause their fulfillment, then they are "clearly discerned." This is one way that God's spirit is said to work with God's servants. We fully believe that God actively directs all of His "searching servants." Said Russell:

"A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and comfort of the Scriptures." --- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506.

GREG_2 It is hard to get much clearer than that above, and I wholeheartedly agree with what it said here. More recently, it was said:

"While we do not have, expect or hope for direct visions or inspired dreams from the Lord, we can study the visions and dreams of his faithful men of old. We can watch how God by Christ Jesus has fulfilled or is in the course of fulfilling them . . . While none of us can produce inspired speech and writings, God has committed his inspired Bible to us and we can govern [or guide] ourselves by its inspired commandments, teachings and instructions. We can quote and copy the Scriptures of God's inspired men and can apply them according to the facts. We can observe how God interprets them by Christ Jesus through the events and facts that he causes to appear." --- "Manner of Inspiring the Bible," The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, 157-158

ALAN_2 :: Note again the claim to active guidance from God in the following, from the December 1, 1892 Zion's Watch Tower (p. 1475 Reprints):

[DELETED]

GREG_2 I will no longer consider your misinformed view of how I understand God's active and passive guidance of His people. I should have stopped this a long time ago, but I tried to be patient with what you wrote, and address what you said no matter how off-track it was. No more. From here on if you present something that has been well-covered already, or that does not relate to the issues around which our discussion originated, I will delete what is said and explain the basis for the deletion. If there is something in the deleted material that you feel should have been commented on beyond what I have already said, re-post it and explain in clear terms why it should have been left in the discussion, in view of what I have already said.

: GREG : As for these "extremely dogmatic statements" you mention, tell me, what, specifically, do you have in mind?

ALAN_2 ::Here is a good selection to contrast with disclaimers that Russell did not claim inspiration or special authority from God. Indeed, he specifically disclaimed those things out of one side of his mouth, while in practice claiming the opposite out of the other side.

GREG_2 Whoops...Hold it right there. Earlier you wrote: "Russell . . . taught that, while he personally had no particular gift of prophecy and was not inspired in the sense that Bible writers were . . ." and that is all that he denied having! Unless you can produce quotations that show that he claimed to have the very thing he denied having, which have not done, namely, inspiration from God, then your quotations are irrelevant. Since you are here proceeding based on a misunderstanding of our view of ACTIVE guidance, which is NOT the same as inspiration (!), then there is no point going over this again, commenting on you misuse of the quoted material. FIRST get our view straight, then, if you can supply a quote that says we claim inspiration, then, since we elsewhere, and frequently at that, have denied any such thing, THAT would be double-talk. But acknowledging that we have consistently and repeatedly denied inspiration and then presenting quotes that speak of guidance from God's spirit, which is something ALL Christians ask for and believer we have received, only further reveals the deep level of your misunderstandings.

I have read through all of your quotes, and not one of them has anything to do with double-talk. Therefore, I will delete everything you wrote, as it fails to understand the issues as outlined above, and it also contains gross misrepresentations of my first edition, such as:

ALAN_2 :: Contrast the confident statements above [which I have deleted (GREG_2)], about having had so much truth revealed to him by "the Lord," with Russell's statement in the September 15, 1910 Watch Tower (pp. 4684-5 Reprints), by which time he had seen many time prophecies and teachings fall by the wayside. Judge whether his confident statement that Jesus "himself has been our teacher and served us" was true, or whether all along he was really speaking "man-made theories and guesses". See his doubletalk for yourself: . . . . We think that we get the right conception to thus view it rather than to think that we had some great power which enabled us to put together a great system of theology, more wonderful than all other systems of theology put together -- a thousand times more wonderful. Therefore, the simplest way to explain the matter is to acknowledge that the Lord's due time has come and that he has guided to the right understanding. If, then, the Lord has provided us with something in our day that other days than those of the Apostles knew nothing about, no matter how good nor how wise they were -- for us to ignore the line of teaching which has been thus developed would be, in our judgment, to ignore the Lord's providences. It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly. Note that last bolded statement carefully. It says clearly that "the Lord" has given Russell knowledge that was denied even to the wisest of men before him, even the Apostles. Since the Apostles and other wise Christians certainly had a measure of God's holy spirit, Russell is again claiming to have "divinely given" knowledge above and beyond that which he could have obtained by his own unguided study of the Bible. Hence, he is once again for all practical purposes claiming inspiration. Russell's statement meets your own definition of inspiration: "The person then receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known." (p. 281 JWD1)

GREG_2 You are having real trouble with very basic material, Alan, and that should raise red flags for everyone reading this exchange. I believe you misquoted this part of my book earlier, also, but note carefully that in JWD1, on page 281, I specifically and VERY CLEARLY said: "In the former case the person is TAKEN OVER BY GOD, GIVEN A VISION, REVELATION (sometimes in a dream), or PUT INTO A TRANCE. The person THEN receives God's thoughts and will which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known."

The only excuses I can think of in explaining your misquoting my book, in line with your apparent preferences, deception or incompetence. If you can think of some other reason for your horrific (mis)use of my book, please let me know. I am sure you and others reading this can see why I have lost my tolerance with you material, especially where it repeats errors and misquotations. Thus, my part four has ended.

END OF PART FOUR