Robert Henry Boll's interest in apocalyptic eschatology led his opponents to associate him with the sectarian fringe among the apocalypticists, especially Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. While Boll, like many of his contemporaries, may have shown an early interest in Russell since they shared common religious and cultural interests, there is no indication whatsoever that Boll was ever sympathetic to Russell's apocalyptic solutions. Gideon W. Riggs reports in a chronologically somewhat ambiguous passage, that the old German friend from Nashville Bible School days may have read Russell's writings early on with interest. He writes in a memorial article:

I had been in school with Brother Boll and admired him as a Christian and a preacher of the gospel. His "premillennial theory" was developing at that time. He was reading C.T. Russell's books, and they were mighty smooth he thought.

It is because of our great ignorance of things prophetical that often simple Christians (and, strange to say, Christians as often as or oftener than any sect or denomination) are fascinated and taken in by Mormons, Adventists, Russellites, and other isms that make great stock of prophecy. It is to many, when they first begin to see into those teachings, as if they were entering a new world. The prophecies which had lain there for years in their Bibles as a meaningless dead letter, now become alive and instinct with glorious meaning. If only the meaning were never perverted for them! But bewildered and enthused by the discovery of things they had never before dreamed, they fall easy prey to the false teacher, who uses not so much the word of God as the victim's ignorance of it to foist upon him a human theory.⁽²⁾

Boll's early acquaintance with Russell was well before the Russell and White debate, when Russell lectured in Louisville. In an autobiographical reflection of 1912 in the article "The Blindness of Russell's Followers," (Gospel Advocate 55/14[4 April 1912], 419), Boll recounts that first personal exposure and evalutes it thoroughly negatively. He writes:
 

A few years ago Mr. Russell delivered in Macauley's Theater, in Louisville, Ky., his famous lecture "To Hell and Back" (Imagine Paul or Christ lecturing on such a topic!). The house was full, for the lecture had been long and loudly advertised, and Mr. Russell was as yet practically unknown in Louisville. But after Mr. Russell had spoken about fifteen minutes an increasing stream of people began to go out. As he neared the close of his speech the audience was distressingly reduced; and to what its size was when he closed even I cannot testify, for I felt, like the many, that my time was being wasted and left before the end. It was the first time I had seen Mr. Russell and heard him, and I was thoroughly disenchanted of whatever good estimate I had ignorantly placed on him as a man of at least some power and sincerity. I saw and heard him again at the Russell-White debate, where my estimate of him was not in any wise restored, but, if possible, got another backset.

The debate of Russell with Charles L. White in Cincinnati led Robert Welch, the editor of Faith and Facts, to the conclusion:

Kurfees thought that White had upheld the truth in great fashion and had stripped Russell of his armor. Boll came away enamored of Russell's style and ready to proclaim boldly the doctrine of premillennialism: not Russell's model, but one of his own.⁽³⁾

Nothing could be farther from the truth than the assertion that Boll was a sympathizer of Russell, as others have alleged. Boll, from his earliest engagement with Russell, objected from a non-creedal Restorationist standpoint to Russell's apocalyptic system and theory-building. At the same time, however, he defended the legitimacy of including the prophetic writings and their interpretation into the mandate of studying the entire Scripture. More specifically, he saw in the neglect of prophecy and eschatological imminence sadly missed pastoral opportunities for spiritual formation and mission. There are numerous articles by Boll in the Gospel Advocate and in Word and Work that take issue with Russell and his organization, Millennial Dawn, the later Jehovah's Witnesses. In all of his writings, there is no indication that C.T. Russell was a factor in the formation of Boll's own premillennial thought. Boll's own eschatology seems to have been shaped much more by the indigenous Church of Christ millennialism of Boll's teachers at the Nashville Bible School, especially James A. Harding, David Lipscomb, and T.W. Brents as well as the dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield, including William E. Blackstone's religious bestseller Jesus is Coming (1878).

In what follows I reprint from the Gospel Advocate two articles of Boll about the Russell-White debate. The first one is Boll's announcement of the debate, the second a critical estimate of the debate itself, including Russell's debating style and views.

Editor
 

On the evening of February 23, 1908, there will begin in Cincinnati, O., one of the most important debates ever held in the history of the brotherhood. It is between L.S. White, now of Dallas, Texas, well known among the brotherhood as an able and powerful champion of the cause of the simple gospel, and Charles T. Russell, of Allegheny, Pa., the chief exponent of that particular form of Restorationism which is set forth in the Millennial Dawn, of which he is the author. In almost every place, by means of freely scattered literature, indefatigable efforts of the Millennial Dawn people, and also on account of the fascination and comfortableness of the doctrine itself, the teaching of Russell has taken root. That no less a man than Russell himself has agreed to discuss his doctrine, and that with one of our people (who, if any, are able to meet him), is extremely fortunate, and we may hope that this may be one of the great decisive encounters between truth and error, and may have far-reaching effects. Brother White's past work in the line of debates has proved him one of those who are worthy to be intrusted with such a grave task as this. His past successes have been due to the clearness and readiness with which he presents the word of God. He can be depended on to be always kind and gentlemanly toward his opponent, and to conduct the debate upon a high plane, so that no dishonor may come to the cause we love before the many strangers who will attend the debate. The following are the propositions to be discussed:

(1) "The Scriptures teach that all hope of salvation to-day is dependent upon accepting the gospel of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and that such acceptance is confined to this present life." White affirms; Russell denies.

(2) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the dead are unconscious between death and the resurrection -- at the second coming of Christ." Russell affirms; White denies.

(3) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the punishment of the (finally incorrigible) wicked will consist of conscious, painful suffering, eternal in duration." White affirms; Russell denies.

(4) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the first resurrection will occur at the second coming of Christ, and that 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." Russell affirms; White denies.

(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, or in order to, the remission of sins." White affirms; Russell denies.

(6) "The Scriptures clearly teach that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium, and the effect of both the second coming and the millennium is the blessing of all the families of the earth." Russell affirms; White denies.

The debate will continue five nights. Brother F.L. Rowe, 422 Elm Street, Cincinnati, O., will furnish further particulars.
 

Those who came expecting a sharply fought contest were largely disappointed. Mr. Russell did not debate much. His opponent's arguments and questions did not trouble him. He swept on serenely in his own chosen path, like the stars in their courses far above this little mean world and its strife. Only on a few occasions he stooped to actual encounter, on one of which he took up L.S. White's arguments pretty thoroughly, especially the point on the rich man and Lazarus; but that was in his (Russell's) final negative, when White had no chance for rebuttal. But the rebuttal was brought in the next night. It is due Mr. Russell, however, to state that, barring the fact that he did not consider his opponent's arguments (which is an unfairness in debate) and that he availed himself of the final negative as mentioned above about twice, he was otherwise fair, kind, respectful, and courteous throughout the entire debate. The old Latin motto, "Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" ("Gentle in manner, strong in action"), was about equally divided between the two gentlemen. The "suaviter in modo" was mostly Russell's distinction; the "fortiter in re" was White's.

Russell did not debate, but White did. He made up for what Russell lacked. He presented one definite, clear-cut point after another. He asked questions which, if Russell had answered them, would have decided the issue to many minds. He read passages and passages; took up what Russell said and made provision for what he might have said, or could, should, or would say. He was always aggressive and interesting, making by far the stronger impression, both by his manner and his voice, which was stronger and clearer than Russell's, and could be heard in every part of the big building, and carrying the audience by his quickness and wit and a good-humored swagger. While Brother White spoke offhand a good part of the time, Russell read nearly all he said. This fact also went to make Brother White's speeches more impressive.

In regard to the subjects discussed, it is to be regretted that some of the more peculiar and repulsive features of Russell's, teaching could not be brought to light, and that in the matters actually under discussion Mr. Russell would not attempt to explain some of the difficulties of his view which were urged by the other side. In the discussion of the design of baptism, for example, Brother White put special stress on Acts 2:38. But instead of showing cause why this passage should not be taken at its plain meaning, the imperturbable gentleman waived the examination of it entirely and proceeded to unfold his theory on the meaning and purpose of baptism as it pleased him.

Nevertheless, it is fortunate that Russell could be induced to debate at all, and such things as were brought out will be helpful to all Christians who have to fight the Millennial Dawn doctrine. The debate was carefully, completely, and accurately reported, and will be ready for sale about March 25.

All the brethren expressed their satisfaction with Brother White's defense [sic] of the truth. He is now in a meeting with "the few" in Cincinnati.

1. G.W. Riggs, "History of the Sichel Street Church," Firm Foundation 52(19 October 1935), 12. I'm grateful to Denise Inglis, ACU, for furnishing this item.

2. R.H. Boll, "The Study of the Prophecies," Gospel Advocate 51(21 October 1909), 1314.I am grateful to Erma Jean Lovelande and the library of ACU for the loan of relevant microfilm copies of the Gospel Advocate.

3. Robert C. Welch, "R.H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary," Faith and Facts 9(/2(April 1981), 21. I am grateful to Terry Gardner for a copy of this article.

4. See Russell-White Debate (Cincinnati: F.L. Rowe, 1925 [unchanged reprint of the 1908 edition]), unpaginated "Publisher's Announcement": "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 Street Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas."