Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Welcome to my new Blog

I recently just started reading the 1st book in "Studies in the Scriptures" by C.T Russell. Immediately I found some really good things and some really bad things. I thought it was so profound, especially in light of what this organization would eventually become, that I had to start a blog. I never had the desire to blog. I never thought I had anything good enough to say that would necessitate one.

But I have a reason now. My first posts will be a critical (though not entirely negative) examination of Book 1 of "Studies in the Scriptures - The Divine Plan of the Ages."

I will continue to update this blog regularly (hopefully weekly).

But let me make known my intentions.

The intention of this blog is not the "Witness Bash" or "Watchtower Bash". The intention is to give an honest examination into the historical and cultural implications of this religion. Why, and more importantly, how did this organization evolve to be what it is today? Did the original vision of C.T Russell change? Would he be pleased with the way this organization has turned out today? If so, which parts would he agree with, and which, if any, issues would he have contentions with?

This is neither an "apostate" blog nor a Jehovah's Witness apologetic blog. The tendency in each of these is to try and prove a point, instead of giving an honest examination of the facts. This is NOT apostate in that it is not intended to turn anyone away from God, the Bible, or his son Jesus Christ. This not "apologetic" in that it is not trying to defend any creed or denomination. It is purely for research use only and attempts to compare what has been written to the words of the Bible and the word of reason.

That being said, there are a few assumptions that I will make in writing this blog.

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Thus all of our beliefs should be viewed through biblical "glasses" to see if these things are really so.
2. Atheism is not a reasonable conclusion that I personally can accept through my studies thus far (although I respect many Atheists and their viewpoint deeply)
3. While it is not correct to believe something because someone else believed it, there are valuable lessons to be learned by the early Christian fathers and other Christian thinkers.

So if you are interested in an analysis of early Bible Student and Jehovah's Witness material and history, then welcome! If this type of examination causes fear, then remember the timeless quote from Thomas Paine: "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."

4 comments:

  1. I love your presupposition #3! Some have the mistaken idea that "Sola Scriptura" means laying aside all previous thought and doctrine, and just figuring it all out yourself, just you and your Bible. That is not remotely what the Reformers meant by Sola Scriptura. Here's a little quote about guess who, William Miller!

    Accordingly, he determined to 'lay aside all my presuppositions' , 'all commentaries, former views, and prepossessions' and for 2 years working from Genesis to Revelation rationalized and clarified every inconsistency.' He....laid aside all partisan and peculiar interpretations of the Bible, and 'using only a copy of Cruden's concordance,' set out to 'correct all interpretations' so that its own pure light would shine 'without the mists which traditional belief had involved it in.' (God's Strange Work, by David Rowe)

    auntbee

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is VERY interesting that you bring this up, auntbee! This will be in my first analysis of Study 1 in this book.

    Russell stated the following on page 12 of "The Divine Plan of the Ages":

    "The testimony of modern theologians has been given no weight, and that of the so-called Early Fathers has been omitted. Many of them have testified in harmony with thoughts herein expressed, but we believe it to be a common failing of the present and all times for men to believe certain doctrines because others did so, in whom they had confidence. This is manifestly a fruitful cause of error, for many good people I have believed and taught error in all good conscience."

    I understand his honest desire to come to the scriptures fresh and new. But I can only reach the conclusion that we MUST give consideration to previous studies from the scriptures that were written by men MUCH closer to the time the originals were written.

    To refuse to give ANY consideration to their thought would be like a scientist saying that he was going to study science without using ANY of the knowledge acquired by previous scientists (such as Newton or Einstein) because they were wrong in certain things, and he will be MORE right in HIS analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds very interesting!!! I'm curious as to what you'll find when you come to Rutherford's material; he took - perhaps 'dragged' is a better word - the "International Bible Students" off in a totally different direction... Zid

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glad I was directed to your blog via JWD. I look forward to reading with great interest. To your three points outlined -

    "1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Thus all of our beliefs should be viewed through biblical "glasses" to see if these things are really so."

    I believe strongly that Jesus is the Word of God and believe that the Bible, which makes no claims of inerrancy, upholds these beliefs. Further that Jesus is the glasses for which we should get, not just our world view, but also our view of God himself. ("You have seen me you have seen the Father") In regards to your comment regarding the OT I would say that if that collection of writings were perfect in explaining God that there would be no need Jesus to have shown him to us.

    "2. Atheism is not a reasonable conclusion that I personally can accept through my studies thus far (although I respect many Atheists and their viewpoint deeply)"

    I'm a hardcore believer. As a follower of Christ, I believe that atheists deserve our love, compassion, and honor. I'm all for expressing my experience with Jesus but I'm not interested in debates.

    "3. While it is not correct to believe something because someone else believed it, there are valuable lessons to be learned by the early Christian fathers and other Christian thinkers."

    I think that early Christian "fathers" do offer valuable insight as to how particular doctrines and practices developed in the time period after the NT. From my research I have seen that Augustine has pretty much become the primary father of many of fundamental beliefs in Catholicism and especially Protestantism. It is remarkable how much the pre-nicene "fathers" differed on subjects today that are seen as orthodox, such as salvation by grace alone.

    (If you are interested in that sort of thing, I highly recommend Bercot's "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up." (He is a former JW from what I understand.) For church practice Frank Viola and George Barna's "Pagan Christianity" is very informative.)

    I believe that the same Holy Spirit that was the teacher of the apostles and early Christians is still our primary instructor. The teachings and presentations of men are auxiliary. When I say this I include not just what we commonly would consider as church fathers but also noted early Christians like Paul.

    ReplyDelete