THE STORY IS IN THE DETAILS
Hi Bruce,Just a couple of questions about your amazing book. Page 129, paragraph 2, reports that Barbour and Russell differed "in their understanding of the Trinity, salvation, and in the nature of God's purpose for mankind." What exactly were the differences?Page 130 adds that "Barbour finally rejected an invisible parousia of any sort." Do we know when that was and why?Thank you for your time.Best,Jim
Jim, I'm a bit sick and don't have time to find the exact date when Barbour rejected an invisible parousia. Sometime in 1881.The differences we mentioned apply to the entire group. Paton was trinitarian, Russell was not. If you can be patient, most of this will show up in book two, assuming I can finish it. Paton (until 1881) and Russell believed God's purpose was to restore repentant mankind to his favor. Barbour saw God's purpose as more expemplary. He eventually returned to standard Adventist belief in individual judgment. Russell and Paton emphasized judgment on institutions. This seems a subtle difference, but it proved to be a huge one. Their differences over the ranson did not suddenly arrise in 1878. They simply hadn't explored the issue, and since they used the same biblical terms, Russell presumed they meant the same things by them. Barbour's veiw of substitutional atonement was not new, and it was one shared by other Second Adventists. We make that point in the book. Notice the article we quote from Watchman's Cry.
Thank you Bruce,I hope you feel better soon!That was a good point made in your book about substitutional atonement. "Notice the article we quote from Watchman's Cry." That was a very interesting quote.After reading Barbour's defense of an invisible parousia in your book, I would very much like to know why he rejected it. This is amazing stuff. In the mean time, take care of yourself.
Jim,They expected many things for 1881. Barbour expected to be raised to hevenly glory that year. The disappointment was two much and he returned to standard Adventist positions. Rejecting an invisible parousia also allowed him to define Russell and his associates as Spiritualists and the anti-christ.
Post a Comment