next »

[RRD]

The following appeared in another forum:

Many Protestants refer to the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc, as 'cults.'  As in Walter Martin's book, 'The Kingdom of the Cults.'  These cults have set themselves up as authoritative interpreters of scripture, something that the Protestant Reformers said did not exist.  It is because the founders of these cults, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, et al, recognized the need for an authoritative interpreter, that they established religious organizations that do interpret the bible authoritatively for its members.  There is no 'individual interpretation of scripture' in these churches!

My reply:

Charles Taze Russell did not establish an authoritarian religious organization. He did not believe in such an organization, and accepted the authority of Jesus and the apostles as all that was needed.

Russell wrote:

In our day, the natural tendency in this direction is greatly accentuated by the long established custom of all denominations of Christians to regard the ministers or servants of the Church as of a different class from the others of the flock,--a class vested with authority from God, and not amenable to the same regulations which govern all the members of the body. But how great a mistake this is! The Apostle distinctly points out that a servant is not a ruler, that a servant has no authority. Indeed, so far as the true Church is concerned, the only authority in it is the Lord, the Head of the Church, and his Word, and the words of those whom he specially chose to be his mouth-pieces, the apostles.

-- The Watch Tower, July 1, 1900, page 195 (Reprints page 2654)

Russell's view, which he held to his death, was that each individual congregation was to take care of its own affairs, and was not to be in subjection to any human "authority".

The one who began to claim authority was Joseph Rutherford, who after Russell died, immediately had the by-laws changed, so that, in effect, authority for the legal entity, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, was taken away from the Board of Directors, and given to the President of the Society. Rutherford then proceeded to create an authoritarian religious "organization" with himself as the high authority of that organization, something which Russell never sought to do. Overall, the majority of the earlier Bible Students movement rejected Rutherford's "new organization" and made an official statement to that effect in 1933.

See Russell's references to "only authority":
http://tinyurl.com/ctr-onlyauthority

Christian love,
Ronald

[joyful]

Ronald,

When you see what is going in RR's forum who is claiming to be Bible students and following Russell, and the bible class I attended who is affiliated with RR's Bible student, you cannot stop people from believing they are no different from JW organization with the way they operate.

h

[Alexander]

Hello RRD,

I have just read your quote: “Many Protestants refer to the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc, as 'cults.'” Now I find this most interesting due to the fact that the original movement of Jesus’ followers ‘The Way’ (Acts 9:2; Acts 19:23) were  referred to by the established religious leaders of the day as a ‘sect’ (Acts 24:14) which is far more correct as it is affiliated to the original and of which the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh day Adventists and Exclusive Brethren come under the same category; while the Mormons are indeed a ‘cult’ as they are a system of religious worship of it own origination.

So the point is that in referring to any movement incorrectly [‘cult’ instead of ‘sect’] could draw attention to the fact that when confirmed as a ‘sect’ [like the followers of ‘The Way’] could find them placed in ‘good’ company! Where scripture is concerned, ‘wording’ is all important.

Alexander 

[RRD]

Ronald,

When you see what is going in RR's forum who is claiming to be Bible students and following Russell, and the bible class I attended who is affiliated with RR's Bible student, you cannot stop people from believing they are no different from JW organization with the way they operate.

h

h,

Yes, it is sad to see that there is so much sectarian judging going on amongst the Bible Students, usually over what is perceived as being loyal to Brother Russell or not being loyal to perceived teachings regarding Russell, etc. I do not believe that this is what Jesus intended. We are not supposed to preaching "Bible Students", or a certain "sect" of Bible Students, but rather we are supposed to be preaching Christ and the Kingdom of Yahweh through Christ. The more energy and time that is given to preaching sectarian judgmental causes for division, the less one is actually preaching Jesus.

Although there are several things I view a little different from that set forth, I believe that it is on the right tracK:
http://biblestudents.net/history/witnessbulletin5.htm
The document was originally published in 1933.

Christian love,
Ronald

[joyful]

Ronald,

When you see what is going in RR's forum who is claiming to be Bible students and following Russell, and the bible class I attended who is affiliated with RR's Bible student, you cannot stop people from believing they are no different from JW organization with the way they operate.

h

And I would like to add that they are the main "Bible Students" groups imho.

h

[111]

One thing I want to clarify, In CTR time the term Bible Students, was it generic or brand of christianity in such a way that all christians associated with CTR will be called in that name. I ask this because right now "Bible Students" is an exclusive name for those who follow the teaching of CTR.

Example, I am a christian here in the Phils. never been associated with so called modern "Bible Students" mostly in America. I can call myself a Bible student or student of the Bible because that is what I am a "student", but I am not related at all to any group in America, nor do I have the intention of using "Russell" just to be accepted in any group. But I must admit what I do believe is closely related to you.

As a christian and a student of the Bible (and as far as I know all christians are students) I don't want to waste my time studying Mr. Russell, let God be the judge for him and all of us. More precious to me is the Bible and sharing my God to anyone I know.

[freyd]

The problem with Br Russell and the Bible Students, as I see it, is that Br Russell wrote so eloquently and was so right about so much, that to disagree on a minor point makes one seem almost like a full blown heretic. And so there seems to be an unwritten eleventh commandment amongst the conservatives that thou dasn't say anything contrary to Br Russell. The net result is study groups tend to wind up studying Br Russell's eloquence rather than appreciating it for what it did to unlock the understanding of Scripture, and where Scripture isn't even mentioned.  It's almost like being in an English Literature class studying Shakespeare's writing style rather than what he was actually writing about. And thus you wind up with a kind of political correctness - which is authoritarian where certain ones either self appointed or otherwise, act as enforcers and personalities dominate. Then you can go the other extreme where there is no mention of Br Russell at all and you wind up sounding very churchy or just plain ridiculous, where philosophy, personalities and error dominate.
The only answer I have is 1Cor 11:18-19.

The issue is, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater, ie, do you throw Jesus out because there were disagreements amongst his disciples?

[RRD]

One thing I want to clarify, In CTR time the term Bible Students, was it generic or brand of christianity in such a way that all christians associated with CTR will be called in that name. I ask this because right now "Bible Students" is an exclusive name for those who follow the teaching of CTR.

Example, I am a christian here in the Phils. never been associated with so called modern "Bible Students" mostly in America. I can call myself a Bible student or student of the Bible because that is what I am a "student", but I am not related at all to any group in America, nor do I have the intention of using "Russell" just to be accepted in any group. But I must admit what I do believe is closely related to you.

As a christian and a student of the Bible (and as far as I know all christians are students) I don't want to waste my time studying Mr. Russell, let God be the judge for him and all of us. More precious to me is the Bible and sharing my God to anyone I know.

The terms "Bible Students' movement," or "Bible Student Movement," covers many shades of "Bible Students." There are many of the "Bible Students" associated with the movement who rarely, if ever, refer or study the works of Russell at all, while on the other extreme there are some who believe that no one should study the Bible at all without the works of Russell, and even some who claim to "fully" believe all that Russell taught. There are those "Bible Students" who believe that Russell was appointed as the faithful and wise servant, and there are those "Bible Students" who do not believe such. Russell advocated the usage of the expression "Associated Bible Students" as recognizing Bible Students associated with each other, but yet he viewed this phrase to be a descriptive, non-sectarian, non-denominational designation. To a great extent, however, many Bible Students have come to use that term in a sectarian way as a label for those "Bible Students" who claim to believe in Russell as a authority foretold in the scriptures; thus, those "Bible Students" who do not view Russell as an appointed authority came up with the label "Free Bible Students." In all my conversations with many Bible Students, most seem to be in between the extremes often presented, but the sectarian labeling does exist.

I believe Russell was used by God to restore many truths, but I do not view him as a divinely-appointed authority, nor did he himself claim to be such.

Then the interpretation many on the harvest work leads to a sectarian view of who is and who is not a Christian, and/or who is and who is not a true Bible Student. Those who 'claim' to adhere strictly to Russell will sometimes claim that any who do not agree with them is not a true "Bible Student," while on the other extreme, many Bible Students who refuse to accept Russell in that light may claim that those claim to adhere to Russell are actually "Russell Students," or "Volume Students," rather than true "Bible Students." I have met some who said that one cannot be truly consecrated (or, one cannot make his calling and election sure) unless he adheres strictly to what Russell taught.

How saddened Paul must have felt at the divisiveness of church in his day, and yet he knew that such would be. Most of the things that many would use to draw disciples (students) after themselves are not what the Bible actually says, but rather a theory or theories that are being placed over certain scriptures. It is not necessarily "wrong" to suggest applications of this or that related to scripture, but when it leads to sectarianism, that sectarianism is certainly wrong. There are some of these applications that placed upon certain scriptures wherein the application itself advocates some kind of sectarianism.

I personally believe that Brother Russell erred in allowing the congregations far and wide to appoint him as their "Pastor". Such did indeed lead to a kind of sectarianism, although Russell did not seem to realize that. He certainly did not foresee that his actions were laying the groundwork for the "organization" doctrine that Rutherford began to openly advocate within a few weeks after Russell died.

http://tinyurl.com/rl-sectarianism

http://tinyurl.com/rl-fws

http://tinyurl.com/rl-carnaldivisions

http://ctr.reslight.net/2009/11/12/abs.html

Christian love,
Ronald

[111]

The problem with Br Russell and the Bible Students, as I see it, is that Br Russell wrote so eloquently and was so right about so much, that to disagree on a minor point makes one seem almost like a full blown heretic. And so there seems to be an unwritten eleventh commandment amongst the conservatives that thou dasn't say anything contrary to Br Russell. The net result is study groups tend to wind up studying Br Russell's eloquence rather than appreciating it for what it did to unlock the understanding of Scripture, and where Scripture isn't even mentioned.  It's almost like being in an English Literature class studying Shakespeare's writing style rather than what he was actually writing about. And thus you wind up with a kind of political correctness - which is authoritarian where certain ones either self appointed or otherwise, act as enforcers and personalities dominate. Then you can go the other extreme where there is no mention of Br Russell at all and you wind up sounding very churchy or just plain ridiculous, where philosophy, personalities and error dominate.
The only answer I have is 1Cor 11:18-19.

The way I see it, present day Bible Students are authoritarian and sectarian just like their JW cousins. (My own opinion and observation)

The issue is, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater, ie, do you throw Jesus out because there were disagreements amongst his disciples?

Of course, I will not throw my Bible and my God just because there is disagreement among these so called Christians. But we must be very careful whom to associate to.

[111]

One thing I want to clarify, In CTR time the term Bible Students, was it generic or brand of christianity in such a way that all christians associated with CTR will be called in that name. I ask this because right now "Bible Students" is an exclusive name for those who follow the teaching of CTR.

Example, I am a christian here in the Phils. never been associated with so called modern "Bible Students" mostly in America. I can call myself a Bible student or student of the Bible because that is what I am a "student", but I am not related at all to any group in America, nor do I have the intention of using "Russell" just to be accepted in any group. But I must admit what I do believe is closely related to you.

As a christian and a student of the Bible (and as far as I know all christians are students) I don't want to waste my time studying Mr. Russell, let God be the judge for him and all of us. More precious to me is the Bible and sharing my God to anyone I know.

The terms "Bible Students' movement," or "Bible Student Movement," covers many shades of "Bible Students." There are many of the "Bible Students" associated with the movement who rarely, if ever, refer or study the works of Russell at all, while on the other extreme there are some who believe that no one should study the Bible at all without the works of Russell, and even some who claim to "fully" believe all that Russell taught. There are those "Bible Students" who believe that Russell was appointed as the faithful and wise servant, and there are those "Bible Students" who do not believe such. Russell advocated the usage of the expression "Associated Bible Students" as recognizing Bible Students associated with each other, but yet he viewed this phrase to be a descriptive, non-sectarian, non-denominational designation. To a great extent, however, many Bible Students have come to use that term in a sectarian way as a label for those "Bible Students" who claim to believe in Russell as a authority foretold in the scriptures; thus, those "Bible Students" who do not view Russell as an appointed authority came up with the label "Free Bible Students." In all my conversations with many Bible Students, most seem to be in between the extremes often presented, but the sectarian labeling does exist.

I believe Russell was used by God to restore many truths, but I do not view him as a divinely-appointed authority, nor did he himself claim to be such.

Then the interpretation many on the harvest work leads to a sectarian view of who is and who is not a Christian, and/or who is and who is not a true Bible Student. Those who 'claim' to adhere strictly to Russell will sometimes claim that any who do not agree with them is not a true "Bible Student," while on the other extreme, many Bible Students who refuse to accept Russell in that light may claim that those claim to adhere to Russell are actually "Russell Students," or "Volume Students," rather than true "Bible Students." I have met some who said that one cannot be truly consecrated (or, one cannot make his calling and election sure) unless he adheres strictly to what Russell taught.

How saddened Paul must have felt at the divisiveness of church in his day, and yet he knew that such would be. Most of the things that many would use to draw disciples (students) after themselves are not what the Bible actually says, but rather a theory or theories that are being placed over certain scriptures. It is not necessarily "wrong" to suggest applications of this or that related to scripture, but when it leads to sectarianism, that sectarianism is certainly wrong. There are some of these applications that placed upon certain scriptures wherein the application itself advocates some kind of sectarianism.

I personally believe that Brother Russell erred in allowing the congregations far and wide to appoint him as their "Pastor". Such did indeed lead to a kind of sectarianism, although Russell did not seem to realize that. He certainly did not foresee that his actions were laying the groundwork for the "organization" doctrine that Rutherford began to openly advocate within a few weeks after Russell died.

http://tinyurl.com/rl-sectarianism

http://tinyurl.com/rl-fws

http://tinyurl.com/rl-carnaldivisions

http://ctr.reslight.net/2009/11/12/abs.html

Christian love,
Ronald

Thank you very much for the link

[freyd]

I personally believe that Brother Russell erred in allowing the congregations far and wide to appoint him as their "Pastor".

What about making him their "elder?"

[freyd]

The way I see it, present day Bible Students are authoritarian and sectarian just like their JW cousins. (My own opinion and observation)

There is nothing comparable between the two; jw's have no sectarianism, at least that's spoken of openly. It's black and white, either you believe everything handed down from on high or you're gone. That's beyond authoritarian, it's tyrannical.
 

[111]

The way I see it, present day Bible Students are authoritarian and sectarian just like their JW cousins. (My own opinion and observation)

There is nothing comparable between the two; jw's have no sectarianism, at least that's spoken of openly. It's black and white, either you believe everything handed down from on high or you're gone. That's beyond authoritarian, it's tyrannical.
 

What more can I add with that?

[sage41]

The problem with Br Russell and the Bible Students, as I see it, is that Br Russell wrote so eloquently and was so right about so much, that to disagree on a minor point makes one seem almost like a full blown heretic. And so there seems to be an unwritten eleventh commandment amongst the conservatives that thou dasn't say anything contrary to Br Russell. The net result is study groups tend to wind up studying Br Russell's eloquence rather than appreciating it for what it did to unlock the understanding of Scripture, and where Scripture isn't even mentioned.  It's almost like being in an English Literature class studying Shakespeare's writing style rather than what he was actually writing about. And thus you wind up with a kind of political correctness - which is authoritarian where certain ones either self appointed or otherwise, act as enforcers and personalities dominate. Then you can go the other extreme where there is no mention of Br Russell at all and you wind up sounding very churchy or just plain ridiculous, where philosophy, personalities and error dominate.
The only answer I have is 1Cor 11:18-19.

The issue is, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater, ie, do you throw Jesus out because there were disagreements amongst his disciples?

The "unwritten eleventh commandment?"  "In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.  No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval."  1Cor. 11:18-19 (NIV)  Bro. Freyd, by placing this 1Cor. 11:18 and 19 as the answer to the problem's you 'see' happening (I am assuming this is with your recent return to the online studies, with those whom are innocent of your thoughts on this forum, and only know you as a brother..?) with the labeled "conservatives" BS's as opposed to what..? the liberated?  I remember, coming out of the chemical dependency system, their thought was, we label jars, not people; and it would seem that Paul's words would agree in 1Cor. 11:18-19, since he unites a "church" - and identifies what the differences/divisions would accomplish.  BUT, and that is an important factor, I believe, brother freyd, the 'but', because our dear Apostle Paul identifies a "Church."  - a body of members (remember, we label jars, not people), not an authoritarian or sectarian system - but brethren - Christ's brethren.  So, maybe, the problem remains, with finding your brethren..?  And, with that question, brother freyd, where did you come to learn the Truth of God's Divine Plan?  The Ransom Sacrifice?  The Tabernacle?  The Pyramid?  Christ's Presence, And of great importance, but lastly, the 7th Messenger. . ?  Brother freyd, who are you? 
In Christ,
sage41

[freyd]

 you cannot stop people from believing they are no different from JW organization with the way they operate.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

"The ________ has launched a vicious new assault on _________ and members of the _______community in the form of a new report that equates skepticism and distrust of government with “a toxic atmosphere of rage,” which is threatening to boil over in the form of violence.

The tone of the _____hit piece basically implies that _______ and his ilk are such a threat to the establishment that they should be removed from society, which ironically is exactly how Hitler dealt with his political enemies.

The true significance of this gargantuan hit piece on _________ and the movement is the fact that the establishment has firmly moved away from ignorance and ridicule and is now directly targeting us for elimination – an effective purge of the undesirables – by implying we want to commit violence and should therfore be neutralized.

The fact that we have constantly urged unity and discouraged division, while promoting a peaceful message of non-violence, has infuriated the increasingly incensed establishment because as their credibility has collapsed, ours has grown in leaps and bounds – and as a result their agenda is beginning to stall.

For the first time, _______ and their cohorts are acknowledging that the grass roots has the power to stop their agenda for ____________ in its tracks. This represents a massive sea change and proves that we are having an important impact, but it also serves as a warning because it’s glaringly obvious that the establishment is now committed to taking us down, either by means of character assassination, set-up, or worse."

http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,170.msg1006.html#msg1006

"Opiates change brain function!The alterations in neurological functioning may be permanent...."
http://www.chemicaldependencyservices.net/FAQ.html

I remember, coming out of the chemical dependency system.....

And then there is "prescription chemical dependency," and all their unpredictable side effects for things like seizures, clinical depression, psychotic episodes, etc.