No. 74
My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
On pages 42‑46 of this last May‑June Present Truth R. G. Jolly presents a number of Questions and Answers in another feeble attempt to justify his failures and substantiate his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated. And once again does he make lamentable display of his errant reasoning powers, and confirms Brother Johnson's classification of him as a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser”. (See E‑10‑591) At the outset, be it ever remembered that his Campers Consecrated false doctrine was first fed to him by J. W. Krewson, whom he now repeatedly and emphatically castigates as a “sectarianizing errorist” – doing this in the very same paper in which he supports that “errorist's” errors. This is indeed a new and “strange” performance – sufficient in itself to require no further comment to satisfy those who are “rooted and grounded” in sound doctrine (just as J. W. Krewson's acrobatics on R. G. Jolly's being cleansed when he was with him from 1950 to 1952, which he has changed – now correctly contending that R. G. Jolly's antics at that time were parallel to J. F. Rutherford after Brother Russell's demise, should also be sufficient for those who are “rooted and grounded” in Epiphany Truth). And, in this same observation, let us remember also that the two “cousins” now contradict each other on this doctrine of tentative justification for their Campers Consecrated.
At various times we have quoted Brother Johnson that by September 16, 1914 the Body of Christ was fully gathered – tentatively and individually (“on that day Moses had fully set up the tabernacle”); and on that very same day that Tabernacle picture passed forever out of existence to make way for the Epiphany Tabernacle and its arrangements. So we now ask R. G. Jolly our oft‑presented question: Did the Epiphany Tabernacle pass out of existence in September 1954 to make way for the Basileia Tabernacle? He's always avoided this question, and we opine he will continue to do so, because he doesn't dare to face that issue. And, when September 16, 1914 arrived, there appeared also the full and complete Body of Christ. In R. G. Jolly's “parallel” to that date is he now contending that at 1954 the full and complete Great Company and Youthful Worthies also were finally and irrevocably determined in their respective classes? He should have an answer for these questions. He should give his followers something to substantiate his “offerings” (his “new light”).
On p. 44 he offers his usual “profusion of words” about the “laver,” presenting a confused jumble of Gospel‑Millennial‑Age conditions. Since 1954 are we in the Age of “works,” or are we still in the Age of “faith”? He complains about our handling of the Star Members' writings, apparently realizing that his loud “loquacious, repetitious, foolish effusions” (also Brother Johnson's description of him) will continue to bamboozle those he has browbeaten into his “avoid them” (of JJH and his associates) – a true parallel to That Evil Servant's tactics against Brother Johnson. At top of col. 2, p. 45 he cites Brother Russell's Question Book to prove Tentative Justification in the Millennial Kingdom. Why doesn't he also quote p. 312 of that same Question Book, wherein Brother Russell says: “At the close of this (Gospel) Age there will no longer be a tentative justification”...?
And why doesn't he also comment on Brother Johnson's statement in E‑11:169 (27): “There will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium”? It will be noted that this time he forgets’ Brother Johnson's teaching that “Tentative Justification will continue until Restitution”; so at least he learned from our previous refutation of his “strange fire” not to have the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers contradicting each other on the same page of his paper. And he should also consider the teaching in E‑7:65 (top): “He (Christ) will cause the works justifying process of salvation to operate” – in the Millennium.
Furthermore, in E‑6:708 Brother Johnson says: “We advance from the beginning of tentative justification (the gate of the court).” R. G. Jolly will probably contend that this condition applied before 1954; but again we emphasize that Brother Johnson was discussing the Epiphany Tabernacle. Therefore, once more: Is that Tabernacle still with us?
As to persons gaining some cleansing in the Camp from the Laver, any babe in the Truth should know that. Nor have we ever disputed it! St. Paul speaks of those who are “seeking God, if perhaps they might feel after and find Him” (Acts 17:27 – Dia.), which was the condition of many of us before ever we reached tentative justification just inside the Gate. But his contention here has no bearing on the subject; such cleansing does not in itself place one into justification and consecration. Be it noted that both Messengers gave the first veil of the Tabernacle as the place of consecration. Certainly, if there were the least merit to Campers Consecrated, then some special place shouldä be indicated for their consecration in the Camp. But that doesn't bother R. G. Jolly! Just any place is all right – up a tree, on some rock, anywhere! And this would have to occur right in the midst of a multitude of the unjustified (i.e., worldlings) – quite a great gulf between that arrangement and the true one as performed in the seclusion of the Tabernacle enclosure by the truly justified – among the justified and no others. Yes, quite a difference! “Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson.
We now offer the following from E‑11:383 (29): “The six sets of sifting leaders God .... will put into such controversial disadvantages that amid them to defend his errors he will be continually surrendering formerly held truths that impinge against his new errors, as was done with all six sets of harvest sifters. Thus does God punish such invasions.”
In the case of R. G. Jolly, he at one time fully believed and often quoted Brother Johnson's statement that “tentative Justification will continue until Restitution begins,” and that such justification ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ceases. He fully believed – and emphatically contended – that it was a faith justification for the faith dispensation – in harmony with the last two Principal Men. Now he is “surrendering formerly held truth that impinges against his new error” – the error of Campers Consecrated that he imbibed from the “errorist” (J. W. Krewson) whom he denounces in the very same paper in which he defends this “strange fire.”
In this connection, he also wants to quote Brother Johnson's explanation of Rev. 19:1‑10. Why does he not also quote his comments on Rev. 22:10, 11 in E‑lO:ll4? Here is some of it: “1954 is the date that .... no more persons will enter the tentatively‑justified state. Hence the exhortation – “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified and not consecrate).” Is R. G. Jolly following out this part of his 1954‑56 parallel – or is he yet encouraging the tentatively justified to consecrated as Consecrated Campers? Here is another instance where we can be reasonably sure we shall receive nothing but silence from him, because he has no answer. In this respect it means, of course, that the Tentatively Justified who do not consecrate while in the Court can remain as such in character (although it is not possible for them to progress any further in their class standing...). Their tentative justification has lapsed and they are remanded to the Camp.
Furthermore, why doesn't R. G. Jolly explain Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6:195 where he says the Camp in the finished picture contains those LESS than Tentatively Justified? And why doesn't he quote from E‑4:322 where Brother Johnson tells us they cease to be Levites and cease to have tentative justification? They are put out of the Court.
And, continuing we now quote from E‑4:405 (1):
“QUESTION: Are the Youthful Worthies of the Household of Faith?”
We quote part of Brother Johnson's answer on p. 406: “The Youthful Worthies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having _the faith of Abraham’ (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are among the believers referred to under (2). They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith” (cease altogether – and lose their opportunity to become of the Household of Faith FOREVER – JJH), having used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel‑Age Household of Faith who persist into and during the Epiphany.”
R. G. Jolly teaches that his Epiphany Campers Consecrated are of the Household of Faith and are walking a _narrow’ way in the camp! Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both teach the solid Truth on Tentative Justification – they taught that tentative justification ceases with the Gospel‑Age! So when any of the Lord's people become confused and bewildered on the subject of Tentative Justification, then they are that much ready to imbibe the false doctrines of the various Revolutionistic Great Company Leaders.
For the sake of clarity, we again emphasize that Tentative Justification cannot be attained any place but in the Court. R. G. Jolly's sole purpose in his question on Tentative Justification is a cover‑up for his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated – yet he does not mention CONSECRATED Campers! He treats solely of Tentative Justification. But the zenith of his hypocrisy isä on p. 45, par. 2, col. 2, where he says: “Thus we see that Brother Johnson did not deny or teach against the Ransom when he taught that the Camp would after 1954 picture the condition of certain tentatively justified ones...” Of course, Brother Johnson never denied the Ransomä in any of his teachings – and most assuredly he did not deny the Ransom in his teaching on tentative justification! He taught that tentative justification was attained IN THE COURT! Why didn't R. G. Jolly mention this? The reason he didn't is that such a faithful Truth teaching would set aside his efforts to obtain “newcomers” into his Epiphany Camp!
In par. 1, col. 1, p. 43 he speaks of the 1950 work of the “Good Levite section after their cleansing had begun.” Is he now finally agreeing with us that the Good Levites were not cleansed at Brother Johnson's death?
THE THOUSAND‑YEAR REIGN AGAIN
Further, in par. 2, he states JJH “has been unwilling to face squarely pertinent Scripture, e.g. Rev. 20:1‑7.” August Gohlke made that same false claim at the last Philadelphia Convention; and we exposed his lack of veracity in our October paper, No. 65, quoting from our No. 27 of November 1957. Thus, R. G. Jolly's statement here cannot be an unwitting slip; it must be classified for what it is – just brazen falsehood. And yet this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (quotation from Brother Johnson) is so unprincipled that he shouts “bold and outright falsehood” at us! We offered the only correct and reasonable interpretation – namely, that the binding and the loosening of Satan are “the thousand years,” and not the binding and the reigning. Of course, we are not surprised that R. G. Jolly cannot see this, since uncleansed Great Company members not only do not receive due Truth, but reject itä as they revolutionize against formerly accepted truths while completely abandoned to Azazel (all brotherly help and fellowship having been removed by the Faithful) – just as he is also now doing with “faith” justification.
We now offer the following from Z Reprints 2739‑40 (pp. 367‑71), relating to this subject:
“QUESTION: – I understand from Rev. 20:4‑6, that Christ will reign one thousand years, and from verses 2 and 7 that Satan will be bound during that period. If Christ began to reign in 1878, and Satan will not be bound until 1915, the two periods do not seem to synchronize; and furthermore, both extend beyond the seventh‑thousand year period which, according to our Bible chronology, began in the Autumn of 1872. How is this? Can you assist me?
“ANSWER: – The Lord has evidently arranged for the gradual closing of the Gospel Age and opening of the Millennial Age, in such a manner that the one laps upon the other, with some particular purpose in view; but just what His purposes are He has not been pleased to inform us; and since this extends into the future we may reasonably suppose that it is not now 'meat in due season for the Household of Faith?’ When the end has been reached and accomplished, we have no doubt whatever that it will be manifested to all of the Lord's people that His Word has been accurately fulfilled. Until then a certain amount of faith is required and expected from those who have so many evidences of the Lord's wisdom and exactness in the features of His Plan already accomplished. “We can trust Him where we cannot trace Him.” Apparently this matter of when the thousand‑year period should be reckoned as fully beginning and fully ending will be an open question until the close of the Millennial Age. It is our expectation, from Rev. 20:8,9, that the obscurity of this question will have something to do with the final test of loyalty and obediene to God............
“The Scripture declaration respecting the saints, the _overcomers’ is, 'They lived and reigned a thousand years.’ The reign of the saints cannot be properly said to begin before all the _jewels’ have been gathered, nor before _the times of the Gentiles’ end, in 1914. Nor isä it said that their reign will be no longer than a thousand years. After the thousand years' reign Satan shall be loosed and the above trial shall ensue; but the _reign of Christ and the Church’ will evidently continue long enough after the thousand years to destroy all found unworthy in that final test, and to thus complete the work for which this reign is instituted; – for, as expressed by the Apostle, 'He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet’.... And when all things shall be subdued unto him (some by conversion and some by destruction), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (the Father).”
The “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” repeatedly shouts “teacher of sophistry” at JJH. Let him now give a clear “Yea” or “Nay” as to whether he is in harmony with That Servant's Scriptural presentation as set out above!
On p. 44, col. 2, par. 1, he once more repeats, repeats, repeats his error re “Due truth for all the consecrated.” And he does this despite the crystal‑clear statement of Brother Johnson in E‑4:129: “Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the Priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose .... the Lord gave all the Faithful consecrators for whom no crowns were available an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative understanding of the operation of the Spirit of Begettal in the heart.”
It will be noted from the foregoing that uncleansed Great Company members receive a marked avoidance; and that even the fully faithful Youthful Worthies would not understand fully all features of due Truth. This reference in E‑4:129 has been offered by us repeatedly; with this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” ignoring it each time. WHY?
In this connection, we now cite E‑16:122‑25 (which is R.G. Jolly's own publication) with respect to the abandonment process: “These revolutionisms (of the Great Company) were resisted by the Faithful .... corresponds to Aaron leading the goat to the gate of the court preparatory to delivering it to the fit man..... Amid these experiences they act so out of harmony with truth and righteousness as to necessitate the Priesthood's withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from them” – that is, they are disfellowshiped.
E‑16 was copyrighted in 1953 “by Raymond G. Jolly” for use in the 1954 “Attestatorial Service”; and it did indeed “attest” a woeful indictment against him. Did he believe the above quotation when he published it? We inquire further: Did he understand the “due Truth” contained therein when he approved its publication? If he understood –and if he believes it – let him declare when the Priesthood disfellowshiped him by withdrawing all brotherly help from him. Did this happen while Brother Johnson was with us? R. G, Jolly himself says that Brother Johnson did not withdraw brother help and fellowship from him at any time (as distinct from priestly fellowship), which we know to be true. He's been very emphatic that he was cleansed at 1950. Let him now produce the proof, or forever hold his peace! Did he ever once as much as mention this “due Truth” to any congregation in lecture or in study, and offer the proper understanding of it? Surely, a teaching so vitalä to him should have received his very profound and extensive consideration and discussion in public and privately. Be it noted, too, that Brother Johnson clearly teaches that none of the Great Company can be cleansed without being first fully abandoned to Azazel (the World's High Priest withdrawing all brotherly help by disfellowshiping them). “God Himself temporarily abandons them” while they are in that condition. (See E‑15:525).
“Now consider this, ye that forget God (by revolutionizing against the Truth as given through those Faithful Stars that "He holdeth in His right hand’), lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth Me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright (in harmony with the Truth) will I show the salvation of God.” Psa. 50:22‑23
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑---------------------
QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST
QUESTION: – There seems to be no more comment about our money crisis. Has the United States Government now fully settled this matter?
ANSWER: – By no means; it is just another of those items on which they are “sitting on the safety valve.” In 1960 the world consumption of silver was over a hundred million ounces more than all the operating silver mines produced; and that situation will probably be more severe for 1961. We have it from private sources that are usually very accurately informed, that our Government is losing from one‑half to one million ounces of silver per day at present (written May 26), and that the silver reserves are reaching a depletion of critical proportions. This is being kept scrupulously quiet; but it would seem its eruption will be all the more violent when it eventually is publicly revealed. When that occurs, the gold situation will also explode, and the same may be true of certain base metals.
We should not be lulled to sleep by the surface calm that now exists. One world‑renowned economist gave a survey of this matter to a carefully selected group just recently; and an intimate business acquaintance informed us that he told them the United States Treasury had had a “financial heart attack” last fall – that another could be expected soon, probably even before 1961 is over – and that the second one would almost certainly prove “fatal.”
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian love and greetings in our Redeemer's Name!
It is with much thanks to God that I am still spared to participate in our Lord's Memorial this year. I had such a serious attack that I thought my last moment had come. But, as you have said, the Lord has a work for all of us, whether for others or in ourselves. I have received many blessings from yours and Brother Russell's comments on same.
We thank the Lord for using you to defend the Parousia and Epiphany Truth in this time when the Adversary and his agents are trying to put it out. But God's Word will stand forever and accomplish the things wherein He sends it – and prosper therein.
I notice your trying experiences with brethren who claim to be holding up the two Star Members' writings – and at the same time discarding and putting them into error. I read sometime ago in Vol. 2 – “The Parousia Messenger”, where Brother Johnson said God would smite them with blindness – that the Truth might appear to them as error and error as Truth. As for Brother ------'s letters, I am much surprised over his action. He is quoting the Apostle Paul and he seems to forget how much Brother Paul stood for principle. He has invited you to his mountain top – the one where Satan wanted our Lord to go with him! But we are thankful that you will not go there with him, for the Bible shows that you will be faithful in carrying out the work that the Lord has given you to do. We believe the time will come when the Lord will magnify you. See Joshua 4:14.
My sympathy goes out to you, my dear Brother! But these experiences are evidences of your faithfulness. All the faithful have to pass through similar experiences.
With this comes my love for you, Sister Hoefle, Sister Dunnagan and all the dear ones with you.
Yours by His Grace, Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ JAMAICA
.............................................................
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in His dear Name!
In reading your last paper – No. 70 – and Bro. ------'s letters, there seems to be a wrong spirit in the letter (A commandeering spirit and an unwarranted attack on you before he knew both sides of the story). In Prov. 18:13 – “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him.” Brother Russell says we must not jump to conclusions without facts (See Par. Vol. 1, p. 46). We must not condemn until we have weighed all evidence in the case or course. All must be squared by the rule of Justice – the Golden Rule.
Brother Johnson says we are to resort to controversy when opponents fight the Truth with error (E‑8:671) and throw stones (truths) at them (E‑11:378‑79). We must give them warning. That's what I believe you are doing, Brother Hoefle. The Truth shall be thy shield and buckler.... Psalms 91:4
May the Lord continue to bless you in His service.
...................................................................
BEREAVEMENT NOTICE: On June 6 occurred the death of Brother C. H. Wells of Winston‑Salem, N.C. He was widely known as a beloved brother and a skillful artisan in the dental profession. He was a true nobleman from the human viewpoint, possessed of a hearty generosity and gracious humility which endeared him to his fellows. We mourn with those who mourn his loss, and rest in the hope that he will be one of God's “princes” in the Kingdom now being established.