by Jerome
(reprinted)
In Bible Examiner (hereafter
abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, page 6, the editor George Storrs made one
of his periodic pleas for support. While thanking readers for their prayers, he
noted that financial help would also be welcome. His paper, he claimed, was
unique. He argued “shall the only paper in America that speaks out boldly on
this question be compelled to suffer and be crippled for want of funds?” There
is an asterisk by the word America, and the footnote reads: “I except “The
Herald of the Morning,” a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.”
By this date, Charles Taze Russell
(hereafter abbreviated as CTR) was fully supporting Barbour and the Herald.
Since the same issue of BE
has Storrs debating with CTR over the date-setting properties of Three Worlds,
it was obviously not Barbour’s chronological gymnastics that appealed. The
doctrine or “question” that set The Herald apart from all other current
publications in Storrs’ mind was Future Probation.
It is not the purpose of
this article to comment on whom might be nearer the truth on the subject, as we
are writing history not theology. But future probation had been a contentious
issue for Christendom for centuries.
To define the concept –
future probation is the belief that in the future individuals could have a
testing period with the prospect of eternal life ahead of them. So their
everlasting prospects were not just determined by what they did in this life,
but they would benefit from a probationary period in the future after
resurrection. It was usually (although not exclusively) tied in with a literal
Millennial reign by Christ over a literal earth. However, just who might
benefit was a bone of contention amongst those espousing the doctrine – would
it include “the wicked” or just the “ignorant” like the heathen or unbaptised
infants - and if “wicked” how exactly might one define the term?
Orthodoxy in centuries past
came out strongly against such a concept. If individuals did not accept Christ
in this life, then that was it, there was no further chance. One example was in
the official creed of the established Church of England. In 1552 Archbishop
Cranmer produced the “42 Articles of Faith.” Article 42 attacked those who
believed in future opportunities after death with the words: “They also are
worthy of condemnation who endeavour at this time to restore the dangerous
opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when
they have suffered pain for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s
justice.” While attacking a Universalist view, and perhaps a further swipe at
the Roman Church’s purgatory (already attacked in article 22), it also
reaffirmed that the “ungodly” – however defined – had lost out forever at death.
Any other view was “a dangerous opinion.” Since the concept of Future Probation
requires a location for it to happen – such as the earth during the Millennium
– Article 41 of the same document obligingly condemned believers in the
Millennium as heretics. However, it should be noted that ten years later in
1562 these articles ended up on the cutting room floor. The Church of England
of today has to manage with just 39 Articles.
When this view was coupled
with traditional teachings on hell – that all those not accepting Christ in this
life were destined for eternal torment – it was perhaps unsurprising that some
felt uneasy at the prospect of millions being so condemned. This was especially
so if their opportunities to accept Christ in this life had been limited by
geography and circumstance. Putting it in very human terms – was that fair?
Those raising such questions were not accusing God of being unfair, but were
aiming at the theologians who seemed to suggest that the vast majority of
mankind would have been better off not being born at all.
One reaction against
orthodoxy was to swing to the extreme of Universalism – the concept that
eventually all would be saved. Writers such as John Murray in America promoted
Universalism in the 18th century. Universal Salvation might take
some time – it WOULD take some time – but ultimately that was God’s plan. Some
individuals were even sufficiently magnanimous to include the Devil in these
calculations. (A few associated with CTR would eventually leave the Bible
Student movement to become Universalists, including John Paton and his
aptly-titled Larger Hope Publishing Company).
Once interest in the Second
Advent drew various people together in the first half of the nineteenth
century, another dimension was added by the acceptance by many of conditional
immortality. This doctrine taught that immortality was not automatic, but was
conditional. Those who did not gain eternal life would gain eternal sleep. That
dealt effectively with the concept of a burning hell, but also affected the
concept of future probation. If the wicked – whether through intent or
ignorance – were just going to sleep forever, that wasn’t so bad, was it? So
while future probation was debated by the Advent Christians and Age to Come
groups, the majority came out against the concept, or at least had views on
salvation more exclusive than inclusive.
Taking the Advent Christians first, their official histories had some
tart comments to make on the doctrine. Isaac C. Welcome in “History of the
Second Advent Message” (1874), pages 515, 613, laid into George Storrs’ view of
“probation after the Advent” as erratic and radical and “very
detrimental to the progress of truth and sound doctrine.” The doctrine was “nearly
analogous to Universalism.” Albert C. Johnson in “Advent Christian History”
(1918), pages 242-243, described 19th century advocates as a kind of
fifth column – “(they were) finally
distracted and disorganized by the advocates of future probation theories, who
worked their way into the conference quietly until they gained control” – the
conference had “been perverted by the age-to-come teachings.”
As suggested by the last
quote, some in Age to Come fellowships were more sympathetic towards the idea. The
first prerequisite for the unsaved to return for their “chance” was somewhere
for them to return to, and the Age to Come focus was already on human life for
a thousand years. But this was the exception rather than the norm. One must
also remember that the term ‘Age to Come’ covered a wide spectrum of ideas when
it came to the details. With a nice flourish of hyperbole, the Seventh Day
Adventist magazine Review and Herald for May 14, 1889, said: “the doctrines
passing under the general designation of Age to Come Views are about as
numerous as the individuals holding them.” But looking at The Restitution (the
paper we know CTR read), they were happy to publish such articles against the
concept as J.F. Wilcox’s ‘There is a Flaw’ in July 28, 1874. This categorically
pronounced that “the whole...world who have not had God’s revealed word, but
who...sinned without law, shall never be raised from the dead...as natural
brute beasts they utterly perish in their own corruption.” Whereas an article
promoting future probation, ‘The Progressive Age’ by Elder J. Parry, was denied
publication, so Storrs published it instead in his BE for July 1874. By October
3, 1877, Elder John Foore was writing to The Restitution that he would like the
paper “much better if it could be opened for the advanced
views such as the blessing of all nations and all kindreds in the age to come.”
The request apparently fell on deaf ears.
With these other columns
denied him, Storrs believed BE to be the primary voice for this doctrine,
and fended off critics from all sides. When opponents dubbed the position “second
chance” – it was met with the retort that for millions who died in ignorance
this was their first chance. When critics then came back with “better chance” –
it was met with the riposte, how could that be when now the chance was to be
part of the bride of Christ?
Others settled on “fair
chance.” As it happened, Storrs didn’t like that description any more than the
others (BE October 1875, page 5), but it was more correct – you could say, more
fair - in describing his theology.
When opposers accused Future
Probationists of being closet Universalists, Storrs standard response was that while
he did not believe in universal salvation, he did believe in universal
opportunity.
And yet Storrs’ position was
not quite the same as others believing the doctrine. He defined his position as
The Ages to Come. While it sounded like the Age to Come belief in a literal
thousand years for humans on earth (and probation for nations then living),
Storrs embellished it considerably. He spoke of Ages because he did not believe
probation would happen for the dead during the Millennium, but rather after the
Millennium in what he called “a succession of ages” or Ages to Come. (BE
October 1874, editorial ‘The Ages to Come’). He accepted that not everyone
would come back, and had broken with the Life and Advent Union over his belief
that wicked dead would not be resurrected; nonetheless, the number would still
be sufficient to require potential Ages (plural). And some who came back could
still lose out – albeit a minority.
A key scripture for Storrs
was Revelation 20 v.5: “But the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished.” In his article ‘Due Time’ (BE August 1876) Storrs
used this to reason that their resurrection and probation had to take place
after the Millennium. Others might interpret this as referring to beneficiaries
only coming to full life after passing their test at the end of the thousand
years. Those opposed to the concept in its various shapes and forms, might dismiss
the verse as an interpolation.
Storrs was a major influence
on CTR. CTR chose the BE columns for his first known literary efforts, and in
ZWT for May 1,1890, singled out Storrs (along with George Stetson) for special
mention before recounting how his understanding of the ransom and restitution
developed – to encompass far more than he had previously thought. The original
May 1, 1890 issue, page 4, has CTR explaining how “in 1873 I came to examine
the subject of restitution from the standpoint of the ransom price given by our
Lord Jesus for Adam, and consequently for all lost in Adam, it settled the
matter of restitution completely, and gave fullest assurance that ALL must come
forth from Adamic death and be brought to a clear knowledge of the truth and to
fullest opportunity of everlasting life in Christ.”
When CTR reprinted the
article in A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings – a special ZWT of 1894,
he made several revisions to this paragraph (as found on page 96), including
changing the date from 1873 to 1872. All future printings including those from
June 15, 1906 (reprints 3821) stick to this revision.
But this was future
probation. Without going into details, this was Storrs’ basic message in BE.
Storrs had restarted BE in late 1871, after breaking with the Life and Advent
Union. We do not know if CTR received Storrs journal then, because the first
two years of the revived BE are unavailable. It was a weekly newspaper and may
not have survived. But from October 1873 it became a monthly which could be
bound into volumes. These have survived, and the Russells are readers from the start.
However, they obviously would know of Storrs from his previous reputation. The
Russell names are also found in the letters received columns of The Advent
Christian Times and the World’s Crisis in the early 1870s – and the Crisis is
certainly known to have publicised Storrs’ views by vigorously attacking them
at the time.
CTR would claim in ZWT May
1, 1890, page 4, that he brought this concept to Nelson Barbour. “When we first
met, he had much to learn from me on the fullness of restitution based upon the
sufficiency of the ransom given for all.” All this helps to explain
why in October 1877 Storrs would single out “The Herald of the Morning, a paper
published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.” as the only journal he believed to
be supportive.
Barbour had already
submitted an article endorsing future probation to BE, which was published in
September 1876. In ‘The Work of Redemption Progressive: or Ages Employed in
Accomplishing It’ Barbour stated “there is much positive scripture...to prove
that there is to be probation in the world to come, for all who have not been
brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the
unpardonable sin.”
While the article was
sympathetic of Storrs’ views in principle, it was a little short on specifics.
And looking closer at the details, there would be a key difference between
Storrs’ views and those of Barbour and Russell. As noted above, Storrs taught
Ages to Come, and looked beyond the Millennium for future probation to be
worked out. In contrast, both Barbour and Russell would favor a more traditional
view – that the Millennium was the judgment “day” and that a thousand years
would be sufficient.
In Barbour’s Three Worlds
(1877) for example, we read on pages 10 and 66: “There is much positive
Scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the millennial age, or
world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth
in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin...It
follows that probation must end with the thousand years.”
When
CTR began publishing under his own name, he presented the same view. From
Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return (1877), page 26: “In
(their day of trial, when they are on probation for eternal life) their “day of
judgment” (not a 24-hour day, but the millennial or judgment age) they will
fare better than the Jews — have fewer stripes.” He elaborated further in Food
for Thinking Christians (1881), page 95: “It is their judgment day—one thousand
years. During all that time, God’s truth, as a two-edged sword, will be
quietly, but surely as now, doing a separating work...The great mass of mankind
will learn God’s ways, and delight to walk therein. These he calls his
sheep—followers, and during the age they are gradually gathered to his right
hand.”
Looking at CTR’s theology
overall, this was his main message, a legacy from Storrs, in spirit if not in
detail. Yes, the second presence of Christ was a key theme with its chronological
framework. Yes, “putting the hose on hell” with conditional immortality was a
key platform. Yes, there would be issues like clashes with orthodoxy over the
trinity. Nonetheless, in CTR’s mind at the time, future probation – summed up
by his slogan “A Ransom for All” was what he believed to be the key message of
the Bible. And he made sure as many as possible knew it.
With thanks to Jeff for some suggestions and the SDA quote
2 comments:
This is an intriguing article. Thank you Jerome for explaining this so well and for joining up the dots in my limited understanding.
Belief in future probation seems controversial because it appears to be only inferred, and not directly stated, by scripture. However, I love the way that Storrs and Russell trust and exalt God's love, justice and mercy, thinking him incapable of acting in a less loving way than even the best of humans. This reminds me of the question Abraham asked: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
It also reminds me of the way that Hayden Covington was later attracted to the message. He was brought up a Baptist, but later as a lawyer Covington thought it totally unjust that God would punish bad people eternally in a fiery hell for crimes that sometimes took just moments to commit. From his perspective at the time, this made God worse than any human Judge. He had to tackle the same question Abraham asked first, then reevaluate his understanding before his faith could grow.
Fascinating and informative article!
In my experience, a large majority of Bible Students and Witnesses were attracted to the message in part because of Russell's (and later) explanation of the idea of future probation. I would include myself in that number.
Thank you for a well written article and your effort in putting it together.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
Post a Comment