I. Denying the Deity of Christ (p. 11).
Rutherford says in his book The Harp of God (1921) :
"Some have earnestly believed that Jesus was God Himself. But such a conclusion is not warranted by the Scriptures."—Page 99. "Some insist that Jesus when on earth was both God and man in complete-new. This theory is wrong."—Page tot. "The incarnation of Jesus is scripturally erroneous."—Page tot. "The Logos (meaning Jesus) was the first and only direct creation of Jehovah; and thereafter God's creation was performed through his Logos."—Page 98.
In his book Reconciliation (1928), he maintains:
"The Son is a god. The name god is applied to mighty ones, even to angels and to magistrates. The name god is therefore properly applied to the Son because he is a mighty one. The names Jehovah, Almighty God, and Most High God are never in the Scriptures applied to Jesus?'—Page 106. "Jesus was not God the Son."—Page 113.
2. Denying atonement of Jesus (p. 21).
Russell declares in his book Studies in the Scriptures:
"One Redeemer was quite sufficient in the plan which God adopted, because only one had sinned, and only one had been 'condemned. . . . One unforfeited life could redeem one forfeited life, but no more. If we should suppose the total number of human beings since Adam to be one hundred billions, and that only one-half of these had sinned, it would require all of the fifty billions of obedient, perfect men to die in order to give a ransom for all the fifty billions of transgressors."—Vol. x, p. 133.
(Mr. Russell does not clarify himself when making the statement above, but Strauss says he understands it to be Russell's belief.) He states further:
"The 'ransom for all' given by the man Christ Jesus does not give or guarantee everlasting life or blessing to any man; but it does guarantee to every man another opportunity or trial for life everlasting.' —Vol. I, p. 15o. "It was his flesh, his life as a man, his humanity, that was sacrificed for our redemption."---Vol. 2, p. 129. "Jesus' suffering would not pay the debt of sin."—Vol. 5, p. 127.
3. Denying the Trinity (p. 37).
With regard to the Trinity, Rutherford says in his book Reconciliation (page ioi) :
"If Jesus was one part of the Trinity, then it would be impossible for the Trinity or any part of it to have furnished the redemptive price for a perfect man, because there could be no exact correspondency." "It (the Trinity) could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan, the Devil."
On the same page he calls the doctrine of the Holy Trinity' senseless, God-dishonoring, deceptive."
L. C. K.
*Loizeux Brothers, to West 21st Street, New York, N.Y., fifteen cents.
