As stated in my previous post, it was in the original layout of Russell's educational program that people would learn the basics of the "divine plan" which he considered had been operative (though not properly understood) for the duration of the Gospel Age, and then through successive reading become acquainted with "new truths" that were due to be understood in the closing years of the Age. Russell next wrote The Battle of Armageddon and The At-one-ment Between God and Man which elaborated on ideas presented in the first volume (namely, that Armageddon would be a great social revolution, and that traditional Christian ideas such as Trinity, immortal soul and hell were actually impediments to understanding the divine plan). But when Russell came to the sixth and what turned out to be the last volume, The New Creation, he was confronted with an error in his logic that threatened to overturn his theology. Intended as a volume of special instruction for those who had availed themselves of the "high calling," The New Creation reviewed the steps that were to be taken on the road to glory. Remember, those steps were justification, spirit-begettal, and finally resurrection. But Russell was now confronted with a dilemma in the very first step - justification.
Justification is an old theological term which means to "make right." Taken from the writings of the apostle Paul, it refers to the sinner's being put in a right relationship with God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Protestant Reformers noticed how Paul at times would use accounting terminology when explaining this matter, so the idea was conceived that human beings, still being sinful and imperfect this side of heaven, are merely reckoned or accounted righteous when they are saved by Jesus Christ. So this Protestant conception of justification (as distinct from the Roman Catholic) was inherited by Russell, but he gave it a peculiar slant.
In the first volume of SS studies, Russell reasoned that this justification made a person reckonedly the equivalent of Adam before the Fall; that is, a perfect human being. So for Russell, justification meant a plane of existence - human perfection. If someone were actually restored to this plane (as the world would be in the Millennium), they would achieve an existence no better than Adam had in Paradise. But those called to the heavenly kingdom had to go higher. So for them, reckoned human perfection was merely a step on the way - a step that would be superceded by the next one, that of spirit-begettal. So Russell had reasoned that, when one accepts Jesus as Savior, one is justified as an ordinary Christian. But later on, one may consecrate oneself to God and become spirit-begotten, thus entering upon the next step to glory.
What was wrong with this thinking, and how did the fallacy become apparent to Russell when he wrote the sixth volume? It meant that there were great numbers of people who had taken the first step - justification - but had never gone further. Not being entitled to heavenly life, these people would end up being restored to human perfection with the rest of mankind. But for this to occur, these ones would have to lose their justification (their reckoned standing as perfect humans) and instead partake of the gradual restoration and justification that was due the world. They had already taken the first step toward the heavenly kingdom, but now they would switch to a different plan. They would have partaken of both salvation plans! Unlike the members of the Great Company, who were already spirit-begotten and could thus receive secondary heavenly positions when they failed to be completely faithful, the (merely) justified believers could not be resurrected to heaven at all.
It was in response to this dilemma that Russell conceived the idea of "tentative justification." In the sixth volume, Russell claimed that those who had never fully consecrated were only "tentatively justified." They were on their way to the heavenly calling, but would lose their "tentative justification" if they did not proceed further within a reasonable time, and would thus be returned to the world with its earthly prospects. Only the fully consecrated were "justified to life," and would occupy the justified and spirit-begotten conditions simultaneously. This latter thought was actually more orthodox, as the two situations have never been juxtaposed within traditional Christianity - being seen as complimentary to each other. But when Russell changed his views, a contradiction and inconsistency was created within the SS series.
In the first volume, Plane N in the Chart of the Ages represented Russell's original view on justification. This was said to be the plane of human perfection, which was actually occupied first by Adam and then by Jesus. It was occupied reckonedly by justified believers during the Gospel Age. (A minor inconsistency was that Abraham was said to be on Plane N, but only as justified to "friendship with God.") This, in turn was said to correspond to the Court in the Tabernacle which was occupied by Levites who were not priests (based on an early work of Russell's, Tabernacle Shadows). But with the publication of Volume VI, any further discussion on the Chart of the Ages would have to designate Plane N as the Plane of Human Perfection, Justification to Friendship, and Tentative Justification - matters which do not consistently hold together. Furthermore, the Court of the Tabernacle would have to be designated as the state or condition of tentative justification only, and the actual justification of the Gospel Church would be left without any symbolic representation in the Tabernacle altogether. Could Russell revise the first volume to teach tentative justification? No, for it was impossible to prove from the Bible that such a state even existed, and such a teaching would destroy the harmony which attracted followers when they first read that volume. Remember, it was the first volume that acted as the doorway to the whole "present truth" scheme. Thus, in 1916, one month prior to his death, when Russell wrote new prefaces to later volumes of the SS indicating changes in his thinking, he did not do so for the first volume, for that would have discouraged newly interested ones from the start.
To be continued . . .