A Public Discussion between Pastor Charles T. Russell (Millennial Dawn) of Allegheny, Pa., and L. S. White (Christian) of Dallas, Tex.
Held at Music Hall, Cincinnati, Ohio, six nights, beginning February 23 and closing February 28, 1908
CHAS. T. RUSSELL [HG168] [blank] [HG169]
This debate was brought about after a correspondence covering nearly eight months of time between Mr. Russell and myself. In June, 1907, Mr. Russell wrote to me that if I would find a "fair, honorable, straightforward servant of truth," and a representative man and properly indorsed, he would meet him in public debate.
I immediately took the matter up with M. C. Kurfees and R. H. Boll, of Louisville, Ky., and they made selection of L. S. White, of the Pearl and Bryan Streets Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas. In October, Mr. White was presented to Mr. Russell, by correspondence, as the one selected to meet him. The two then entered into correspondence, and after two months decided on the propositions discussed in this book.
Mr. White wanted a much longer time given to each proposition. He also requested that the disputants be governed by the rules laid down in "Hedge's Logic," and that each debater be confined to the proposition discussed. To both of these propositions, Mr. Russell declined to agree.
Mr. White came with the indorsements of the best brethren throughout the South and South-west. He has spent fifteen years in the evangelistic field. He has been the champion of seventeen debates, extending from Tennessee to California.
While only forty years of age, and in appearance on the platform young enough to be Mr. Russell's own son, he nevertheless bandied his part of the program in a manner that proved him to be a master of the occasion.
It is also important to state that Mr. D. A. Brown, an expert stenographer of national reputation, was employed by me to take the full debate. Mr. Brown is not a member of either church, and his report can be regarded as the only full and impartial report published.
It has been a pronounced conviction with me for years, that the method of debate is one of the most powerful and successful methods of eliciting truth and exposing error, that has ever been employed since the establishment of the Church of God on earth. It was adopted and frequently used by the Master himself, as demonstrated from the very beginning of His public ministry to the last "clash of arms" which marked its tragic close. He came in contact with all the conflicting and warring parties of Pharisees, Sadducees, Lawyers and Doctors of His time, and their hypocrisies and inconsistencies drew forth His most powerful shafts of criticism. Even when a boy, twelve years of age, He was "in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions." He was not only the great Teacher and Reasoner of His age, but the greatest the world has ever seen. Whether in the temple, on the public highway, by the seaside, or by the vine-clad hills of His native country, His speeches were masterpieces of invincible logic, going straight to the hearts of men, whether delivered in quietness or amid the storm of controversy. Once when presenting the principles of His kingdom with the facts of His own divine origin, He was openly attacked by the Jews in a fruitless effort to defend their system against His claims, but He promptly joined issue with them, and the sharp debate which followed was unique in the fact that, being unable to meet His logic, they broke up the discussion by taking up stones to east at Him.
Turning now from the life of the Master to that of Paul, we find an almost unbroken series of sharp contentions with the enemies of the truth. With the grace and polish of a trained dialectician, he was at home in debate, whether reasoning in the school of Tyrannus, answering the proud philosophers of Athens, combating the devotees of Diana in Ephesus, or contending with the chief of the Jews in Rome; and his speeches are models of systematic argumentation and impassioned appeal.
It may be added that truth in all ages has flourished in the soil of controversy. It never fears defeat, but courts fair, manly, dignified, and courteous investigation; and when its advocates raise the flag of truce in the presence of the enemy, it will not be long till the enemy is master of the field. It is, therefore, [HG170] a matter for genuine congratulation among all lovers of the truth that in this age of religious compromise and latitudinarian tendencies, religious debates are still in order. It is error, and not truth, that suffers from investigation, and the Cincinnati debate will be found to be no exception to the rule. Religious controversy, indeed, is the search-light which reveals both truth and error in vivid outline. It is the torch which lights the path of progress, and by it, reformers in every age have led the people out of the wilderness of error.
Concerning the debate which constitutes the present volume, it would be out of place here to pre-judge the case and thus attempt to bias its readers touching the success or failure with which the two disputants defended their respective positions, but it can not be improper to save. them from disappointment, if not chagrin, by apprising them of the fact, in advance, that they will not find the discussion conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations which, with almost universal consent, should govern in religious debates, and in all other debates, for that matter.
It is not only customary in religious discussions to have moderators, but also for the disputants to agree to be governed in the conduct of the discussion, by some such rules of controversy as those laid down in Hedge's Logic, but Mr. Russell peremptorily refused to have either, demanding simply a chairman to preside over each session of the debate, and to have a different chairman at each session; and, as to rules of controversy, he would agree to nothing except that "each speaker be allowed full liberty to order his subject according to his best judgment, and that it shall be in order for him to present his argument as may please him best." This arrangement was accepted by Mr. White as the only condition on which the debate could materialize. Accordingly, in some instances, Mr. Russell paid no attention to his opponent's line of argument, but proceeded to present his own as if nothing had been said on the other side; and a part of the time he had his negative speech prepared and written out before hearing the speech to which it was to be given as a reply. Then, after listening to the affirmant's speech, he would read his written negative as if nothing had been said on the affirmative side. To many of the audience, this appeared to be a singular way to debate, and the reader's knowledge of it in advance will pave the way for a better appreciation of the merits of each side.
It should also be noted here that a universally recognized rule of controversy is that the issue shall be so clearly understood and defined that everything else is excluded, save the single point in dispute. It was unfortunate that this rule, as well as some others, should not have governed throughout the debate, but especially in discussing the proposition relating to the future punishment of the wicked. Mr. Russell has a conception of it which he puts forth as the popular or common view, but which is neither deducible from the proposition affirmed by his opponent, nor is it taught, so far as I know, by any religious body on earth. Under the baleful influence of mediaeval theology and an over-wrought imagination, he paints the revolting picture of a cruel and revengeful God who actually takes delight in punishing, through all eternity, his helpless creatures. His favorite representation is, to use his own words, that this God tyrannically and arbitrarily consigns his disobedient children to "fire-proof devils," created and employed for the special work of torturing them through eternity. He appeals to human fathers to know if they would be guilty of such horrible cruelty to their children, and, of course, every father, not wicked or insane, will say no.
But, whether the awful doctrine of endless punishment for the wicked is or is not taught in the Holy Scriptures, this hideous bugbear in Mr. Russell's thoughts in no way correctly represents the commonly accepted view which holds that there is a necessary connection between sin and its punishment after death. This view represents sin as an awful reality which may require eternity itself, with a gleam from the "unapproachable light" which envelops the Lord, to enable us to see it in all its terrible and hideous deformity, and to comprehend, in any just measure, its ruinous effects upon the moral government of the universe. According to this view, poor, finite, and shortsighted mortals, should close their lips in reverential silence and not presume to say what punishment it should have; and that God has not only graciously interposed a way of escape from sin, but He has graciously warned the wicked against its consequences, against the legitimate and inevitable outcome of a sinful life. This view claims to find in Jesus the same solemn conception of it when, with the world's woe weighing upon His great heart, He prayed: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me." It claims that He would fain have escaped the terrible ordeal awaiting Him, provided there was any other possible way to save the world; and that the sequel shows that there was no other way; and that, therefore, nothing remains for those who reject this way but to meet the fearful consequences of sin, since "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Instead of contending that the Lord determines the harvest by tyrannical and arbitrary enactment, this view contends that the sowing determines the reaping, and that in infinite love the Lord gives timely warning by telling men that the Gehenna into which the wicked will go is a place "where their worm dieth [HG171] not, and the fire is not quenched," and that into it they "shall go away into eternal punishment." Moreover, the common view, instead of representing God as cruel and merciless, represents Him as yearning with infinite compassion for the salvation of all men, and it appeals to such passages as declare that He "is long-suffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
This is the commonly accepted view, and whether it or the one held by Mr. Russell was sustained in the discussion, the reader is respectfully left to decide by consulting the arguments on both sides.
I cheerfully commend this discussion to the reading public, believing that a careful perusal of the arguments on both sides will greatly assist the reader in the effort to find the truth. The subjects of discussion include the question concerning a chance of repentance and salvation after death, whether the dead are conscious or unconscious, the punishment of the wicked, the First Resurrection, Baptism for the remission of sins, and the Second Coming of Christ preceding the Millennium.
I am glad this debate has been held, and I believe it will accomplish good in counteracting error and spreading the truth.
The brethren in particular, and the public in general, owe a debt of gratitude to the publisher, Mr. F. L. Rowe, whose deep interest in the debate, coupled with diligent and tireless industry which made the needed preparation to have it stenographically reported, has made it possible to circulate it in printed form. May the Lord lead the reader into the way of truth.
[Church of Christ] Louisville, Ky.
(NOTE: The following preface was added into the second edition of these debates printed in 1933. Although this preface is not included in Harvest Gleanings, it is retained here for historical purposes.)
In the second decade of the Twentieth Century this writer heard Pastor Charles T. Russell lecture on his dispensational theory, the premillennial kingdom, the earthly reign of Christ, etc. He was evidently very thoroughly sold on his theory.
Pastor Charles Russell, as he seemed to like to be called, was an ingenious man. He founded the International Bible Students' Association, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, New York. He was a prolific writer, producing the series of volumes on the Millennial Dawn. Undoubtedly he was a more gifted man than Judge Rutherford who succeeded to the main body of the disciples which Pastor Russell brought into being Pastor Russell was also a more humble man, less egocentric.
Judge Rutherford was filled with gasconade and pretention. He built upon another's foundation, and then sought to rob his predecessor of his honor.
His chief effort in this was to seek to kill off the influence and name even of the devotees and followers whom he captured. He changed the name to Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, there is no difference in doctrine taught by the two men. Pastor Russell taught that Christ would come to the earth, appear to the "little flock," and give them the kingdom in the seventh thousand year period. He taught that the sixth thousand year period or dispensational era, was drawing to a close and that he was ushering in the seventh. Pastor Russell overlooked the fact that when Jesus said: "Fear not little flock, for it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" he was talking to his disciples, and not to the disciples of Pastor Russell, or of Judge Rutherford. He was speaking of an era two thousand years ago almost, and Pastor Russell was talking to another group in these latter days. Pastor Russell thought that the "little flock," meant his followers, and Judge Rutherford thought it meant Jehovah's Witnesses! How mistaken each was! Pastor Russell thought Christ would come to his flock in 1914 and give them his kingdom; Judge Rutherford later said Jesus would come to his flock in 1920! When there was no visible appearing the "Judge" decided that Jesus did come, but secretly!
So set are these people on the earthly kingdom idea that they do not have churches, but kingdom halls.
Pastor was so convinced that he would defend his theory; Judge Rutherford would not. See the correspondence at the close of this book which took place in 1933. Taking note of this correspondence our Sunday Visitor, a national Catholic paper said that Judge Rutherford flatly refused to meet this writer in debate. L. S. White, a well known preacher of the Church of Christ, had the distinction of being the only man who ever got the chance to oppose the false theories of these men in public discussion.
This will certify that the accompanying stenographic report of the debate between Chas. T. Russell and L. S. White, at Music Hall, Cincinnati, O., on six nights beginning February 23 and ending February 28, 1908, as published by F. L. Rowe, is a full transcript of the stenographic notes taken by me at the time; that I have carefully compared the same with the daily report published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, in which report I found many it/ accuracies of omission and otherwise, due to the haste, presumably, in which it was transcribed for publication. I believe the report herewith from my notes to be as full, complete and accurate as possible to make it.
DOUGLAS A. BROWN, CINCINNATI, O., March 10, 1908.
1. The Scriptures clearly teach that all hope of salvation, today, is dependent upon accepting the Gospel of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and that such acceptance is confined to this present life.
2. The Scriptures clearly teach that the dead are unconscious between death and the resurrection'at the second coming of Christ.
3. The Scriptures clearly teach that the punishment of the (finally incorrigible) wicked will consist of conscious, painful suffering, eternal in duration.
4. The Scriptures clearly teach that the first resurrection will occur at the second coming of Christ, and only the saints of this gospel age will share in it; but that in the resurrection of the unjust (Acts 24:15) vast multitudes of them will be saved.
5. The Scriptures clearly teach that immersion in water "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," of a believing penitent is for, in order to, the remission of sin.
6. The Scriptures clearly teach that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium, and the object of both'the Second Coming and the Millennium'is the blessing of all the families of the earth.