NO. 42: THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER P.T. REVIEWED

No. 42

My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In accordance with previous promise, we now offer some comments regarding “A Refutation” that appears on pages 73–79 of the Present Truth cited above. R. G. Jolly accuses us (without mentioning our name, as is his custom – contrary to both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson in such cases – although he shouts quite loudly his “in harmony” with them). He says we “club Brother Russell and Brother Johnson over his head”; but this is simply some more of his own subterfuge in a desperate effort to cover up for himself. As we have so often stated, the exact date at which John’s Baptism was no longer efficacious is only an unimportant date in ancient history – insofar as our present observance of the ritual is concerned. It is decidedly non–essential to our correct understanding and practice of Baptism now; and R. G. Jolly himself concurred in this conclusion back in 1954 when he attempted to berate us with his “whispering campaign” that JJH is ‘’out of harmony” on the doctrine of Baptism. Some of our brethren then – knowing JJH quite well, and not so gullible as R. G. Jolly had hoped – asked him pointedly how we were “out of harmony.” His answer was: “It’s not fundamental.” This indeed was the truth – and still is the Truth – his reason for now trying to make it appear “fundamental” is our crushing refutations of his own perversions on “The Faithful & Measurably Faithful”; on Hab. 3:17,18; for whom is “due Truth”; Restitution accomplished by 2874; ”Epiphany Campers Consecrated, Tentative Justification moved to the Camp”, etc.

We have never been out of harmony with the Star Members on any fundamental doctrine, and this includes Baptism – although R. G. Jolly himself is admittedly out of har­mony on a number of fundamental doctrines. Our only difference with them is a matter of opinion on the 12 men of Ephesus in Acts 19:1–6, which R. G. Jolly now attempts to magnify out of all proportion to its truth worth. We accept Brother Johnson’s position regarding That Servant: He always accepted his opinion unless time or clear Scripture disproved his opinions. Such is our attitude now. Had R. G. Jolly adhered to this principle with respect to Epiphany arrangements (had not “contemned the counsel of the most High”, Psa. 107:11), he would not now be engulfed in the quagmire of confusion on so many fundamental doctrines. But, just as we have completely silenced him on so many other subjects, we shall now proceed to silence him on this present difference; and to prove that the “oil in his lamp has gone out” (Matt. 25:8) – that he cannot even read the clear and direct English of the Star Members, and understand what he has read after he reads it.

After indulging in his usual “profusion of words” by way of introduction, he pro­ceeds to comment on the “gifts of the spirit” in the early Church; then proceeds to say the “early Church applies to the entire time in which the Apostles practiced the lay­ing on of hands.” So far as we know, the Apostle John was the last Apostle to leave this world – about 100 A.D. But for quite a few of his last years John was a prison­er on Patmos. This doesn’t seem to bother R. G. Jolly one bit; but we now ask him: During John’s imprisonment how did newcomers into the Christ Company obtain this “lay­ing on of hands”?

Of course, in this matter, as in his “refutation” of J. W. Krewson on “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he gives again a half truth; and half truths are more mis­leading than whole errors. He cites 1 Cor. 12:7 – “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal,” and he stresses the word “every.” Here is where he should have offered some explanation to teach his readers clearly, and enable them “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” Of course, being in the bog of confusion himself, we should not expect this of him since he was abandoned to Azazel in October 1950 – although he is crass enough to accuse JJH of being befuddled. Well, after com­paring his dissertation with this writing, our readers will have no problem to deter­mine who is “befuddled”, who is in Azazel’s hands.

Had R. G. Jolly been clear himself on this subject, he would have explained that St. Paul’s statement quoted above, “The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man”, is just as applicable now as it was when he wrote it. But it has a limitation now that it did not have then, because there are two kinds of gifts of the Spirit – ­the acquired and the miraculous. The acquired gifts are the fruits or graces developed over a lifetime by “every man” possessing the Holy Spirit. The miraculous gifts were an instantaneous matter – the gifts of healing, tongues, etc.– and were much more readily discernible to the natural man than the acquired gifts. Brother Russell offers the sound opinion (but it is just an opinion – no direct Scripture to prove it) that all those present at Pentecost received one or more of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. The same was probably true an the outpouring upon Cornelius. However, aside from these two instances, none could receive the miraculous gifts except hands were laid on them by an Apostle; and none of such recipients had the power to pass those gifts on to others. This explains why those gifts died out at substantially the same time as did the Apostles.

As we reflect upon the foregoing, we must conclude either that not nearly all in the Church after Pentecost received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, or that none came into the Body unless an Apostle were present to lay hands on them. Let R. G. Jolly offer a clean comment on this premise – if he can: Of course, this premise passed clear over his head, although we hinted at it without offering details. We pur­posely withheld the details to determine, if possible, just how befuddled Azazel has made him. Here is another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here – if he tries to offer one – will be to yell loudly, “Sifter, Errorist, Sophist!”

Another still more pointed instance that we called to his attention along this line is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26–39. Any one in R. G. Jolly’s deli­cate and difficult position would have grasped the plain implications here; but the real point apparently completely escaped him – another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here also will be to yell loudly, “Sifter–Errorist”, etc. It is very clear from verse 7 in this chapter that Philip (the Deacon) had the miraculous gifts of the spirit – “cast out unclean spirits: and many paralytic and lame persons were cured” (Dia.). Verse 12 says Philip baptized them (the Samaritans) – ­certainly not with John’s Baptism, any more than he gave the Eunuch John’s Baptism. But verse 16 says the Spirit “was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Then v. 17: “They (Peter and John, the Apostles) laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit”– undoubtedly received the miraculous gifts, which Philip was unable to bestow upon them. And, if Philip could not bestow those Gifts of the Spirit upon the Samaritans, no more could he do so for the Eunuch; so we have in this Eunuch a case of at least one “in Apostolic times” who came into the Christ Company without receiving the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Whether he ever later on came into contact with an Apostle and received those gifts by the laying on of hands we do not know; and we shall not attempt to be wise above that which is written. But the Eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”, although certain it is he did not receive the miraculous gifts of the spirit that day, nor likely for many days thereafter – if at all – , because he returned to “Candace, Queen of the Ethi­opians.” Do you think R. G. Jolly will ever attempt to harmonize this incident with his contentions? We may be sure he’ll do nothing more them yell, “Sifter”, etc.

In connection with the foregoing, R. G. Jolly makes this observation: “Since the Eunuch’s case is a very peculiar one, nothing conclusive in this connection can be drawn from what was said or not said at his baptism.” No, we shouldn’t expect any clear con­clusions to be drawn here – or anywhere else – by one abandoned to Azazel, and to wham Cod is sending “an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood.” (i2 Thes. 2:11––Dia.) When there is nothing to say, the Bible says nothing – quite the reverse of R. G. Jolly. With him, when there is nothing to say, he’ll find plenty of words with which to say it. It’s as clear as the noonday sun: Philip had not the power to bestow the miraculous gifts; the Bible makes this very clear in vs– 7, 15–17, as we pointed out aforegoing. Any one not befuddled by Azazel would see this without diffi­culty—especially so, since the Star Members have taught that only the Apostles were able to confer the miraculous gifts. Therefore, why should the record say unnecessarily that the Eunuch did not receive those gifts at Philip’s hands, when we are already clear­ly informed it was not within Philip’s power to bestow them?

It goes without saying that very shortly after Pentecost the “early church” con­sisted of Little Flock and Great Company members. Therefore, if the foregoing were not enough to prove him “foolish”, we cite the case of the one in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, who had been disfellowshiped. Even before the Ecclesia had cast him out, would R. G. Jolly now con­tend that that member of the early Church was blessed with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit?

R. G. Jolly then proceeds to say “this errorist (meaning JJH) gives no proof” that the two Baptisms never operated at the same time after Cornelius. No, of course not! The burden of proof here is on R. G. Jolly, because he is the one contending that two Baptisms did operate at the same time. We have repeatedly asked him for just and in­stance in the Bible to prove his position; but he hasn’t done so because he can’t. He may have nothing to say, but he’s always certain to find plenty of word to describe it! In this he shows again the close relationship to his “cousin” J. W. Krewson, who also demands “proof” that his erroneous dreams are not directly disputed by the Bible. These two “cousins” are able to crowd more words into fewer ideas than any one we know!

And in much the same fashion as just mentioned he says we offer no proof from Acts 18 that Apollos did not preach to the Gentiles. The burden of proof here again rests upon R. G. Jolly, since he is so loudly contending there were Gentiles in that group at Ephesus. His contention in several instances that JJH does not offer proof is akin to the argument of the moron who insists the moon is made of green cheese because there’s no place in the Bible that disputes the idea. Of course, as is common with his kind, he insists we contend those men of Acts 19 were Jews. Our readers know this is just a falsehood on his part, induced undoubtedly by his desperation to talk when he has nothing to say. We repeat again – We don’t know what they were; R. G. Jolly insists they were Gentiles, so we ask for his proof – nothing more or leas than just that. And, even if he could prove his point – which he has not done – it still would not change our present view of Baptism. But the Bible clearly states that Apollos was living with Jews who had been won to Christianity. If R. G. Jolly wants to include Gentiles in that arrangement, let him produce his proof for it; the burden is on him.

He next attempts something on 1 Pet. 3:21. He says we “give no proof” that the Apostle was there not discussing John’s Baptism. Certainly he is treating of water immersion; and it was water immersion by John the Baptist, plus repentance by the re­cipient, that wrought forgiveness for the Jews – cleansed them of their sins against the law of Moses. As we have said, most of the Apostles needed no water immersion of any kind. The text itself offers all the proof necessary to any one not befuddled by Azazel. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both considered this Scripture as treat­ing ONIY of Christian Baptism – with not the slightest hint in any of their writings that “proof” was needed to show it was not John’s Baptism. In fact, when R. G. Jolly published a summary of our Grand Rapids discourse on 1 Pet. 3:21 in the 1953 P.T. he himself then needed no “excuse” that it treated exclusively of Christian Baptism. But with him, if he accepted our position then, that’s no reason why he should do it now—although our position was then, and still is, in full “harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” on this Christian baptism text.

We have previously stated that 1 Pet. 1:1 and the Berean Comment show this Epistle was written to the Jews. R. G. Jolly now offers the moronic objection that “Peter was addressing consecrated Christians, so the premise of this errorist falls to the ground.” Too bad Brother Russell didn’t think of that when he allowed the Berean Comment to be circulated! As Brother Johnson has so ably stated, when these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and the nonsense in this instance by R. G. Jolly is pathetic in the extreme. Without leaning on Brother Russell here (who says they were Jews), we’ll go back to Acts 18:2, where Paul was associated with a “Jew named – Aquila.” Would even the veriest novice in the Truth want to contend from this that Aquila was not also a Christian? Certainly not! And it’s clear enough from 1 Pet. 1:3,4 and 5:4 that those Jews whom Peter was addressing were already in the Body of Christ: “hath begotten us again to a lively hope... an inheritance incorruptible.” There­fore, those Jews (by birth), having already come into the Christ Company, were included in the “us” class (the Saints, as Brother Russell so often stressed). Then, they needed no further water immersion of any kind; and by no stretch of a foolish imagination could they possibly need John’s Baptism. For one who sat at the feet of the brilliant Star Members for over forty years to offer such nonsense now would be unbelievable were we not witness to it.

But the question is properly in order here: Thy, then, did St. Peter write them as he did? He did so because they had never seen Jesus in person; had probably never seen John the Baptist. Thus, their understanding of Baptism and other doctrines might well require some inspired instruction; and that’s what Peter gave them. We do not know whether Peter was ever immersed; but, if he ever was immersed, it would of necessity have had to be John’s Baptism. Yet he states to those Jews to whom he is writing: “Im­mersion, a representation of this, now saves us.” He is saying that Noah in the ark completely surrounded by water is a type of entrance into the antitypical Ark, Christ; and that this would be the only reason for them at that late date in the Jewish Harvest to teach and perform any Baptism. If this were not true, then the inspired Apostles would certainly have clarified the subject further to those converted Jews to whom he was writing. If R. G. Jolly’s contention is now correct, those Jews needed no Baptism of any kind if John’s Baptism were still to be practiced – unless they were conscious of sin against the Law, which Baptism would have been administered to them prior to their entrance into the Christ Company, while Christian Baptism is always after full consecration. Rather odd, isn’t it, that St. Peter would write them about something that concerned them not in the least, and would fail to mention the very fact that would be vital to Jews then (if R. G. Jolly is now right)? As a clear and inspired teacher, St. Peter would certainly have told those Jews which Baptism to offer to newcomers if two were in vogue. Certainly, it should not require argument that Peter is describing Christian Baptism – the same Baptism we understand and practice now. Those Jewish con­verts whom St. Peter was addressing would most likely contact their Jewish brethren and friends in an effort to win them for Christ. If John’s Baptism was the one they should have used for those Jews, again we ask – Isn’t it most strange that the inspired Apostle would explain the Baptism they should not use but ignore completely the Baptism they should use? It should be kept in mind that up to the time of Cornelius Christian Bap­tism meant no more to the Jews than John’s Baptism meant to the Gentiles. Neither was applicable to the other class of people. Of course, prior to Cornelius, Jesus was the only One to receive Christian Baptism.

A number of times in the past R. G. Jolly has lifted certain statements from Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson without using quotation marks; and he now makes quite some ado because we criticized those statements. This in itself is perverse enough, and demon­strates clearly his stature; but quite often when he lifts a sentence or two in that manner he actually perverts the general thought of the Star Members. Azazel means Perverted; and we have often proven him to be a most guilty perverter. But perhaps the prize piece of nonsense is to be found at the bottom of P. 77, col. 2, where he presents a revolting perversion of Brother Johnson’s statement, “Baptism signifies our induc­tion into the Church of the Firstborn”, and proceeds to say Brother Johnson often used the word “our” as referring only to the Priests; and R. G. Jolly now follows his example by meaning only the Great Company when he says ‘our.” If we go back to P.T. ‘57, P–34, we’ll find R. G. Jolly also uses the words “all of us.” Let him show where Brother John­son ever did that in addressing the General Church, while he referred only to the Saints.

But this is a small part only of our objection to his lame excuse here. In his jumble on the item, ‘’For whom is Due Truth”, he did the same thing with the word “all”; then contended any one should know he didn’t mean “all” when he said “all”, that he actually meant only less than one percent. Here he does the same thing: When he says “all of us” he means only the Great Company among his readers. How cheap can he get? As we have said, we should think the man would be ashamed, but it seems there is no shame in him, He read here a statement by Brother Johnson without understanding what he read – another cogent proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” Brother John­son has Biblical prerogative and precedent for using words “our”. “US”, etc., when re­ferring only to the Saints, because the Bible itself does just that. A classic example of this is our quotation in this paper of 1 Pet. 1:3,4, where the Apostle uses the word “US”, thus including those Jewish converts right in with himself as a part of the “us” the Christ Company. In fact, his Epistle, along with all the other Epistles, was pri­marily written only for the ‘Is” class. However, right here we should keep clearly in mind Brother Russell’s statement: “If they lose the spirit of sonship, they cease to be sons, cease to be under this law of liberty,” Here’s another point that has passed right over R. G. Jolly’s head—proving once again, if we need any more proof – that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” The Great Company is no longer under the law of liberty because their sacrifice becomes one of constraint, a forced termination to their consecration. But R. G. Jolly would like to forget this—and have his sectarian supporters forget it, too – as he attempts to seize Little Flock prerogatives for himself. Thus, he labors under many “strong delusions.”

Now, let R. G. Jolly show any such precedent for the Great Company. He has re­peatedly tried to take Little Flock, and even Star Member, prerogatives and fit himself into them, which proves he often reads without understanding what he has read. A po­tent illustration was his contention that the great Company is in the wilderness condi­tion just as the Little Flock had its Wilderness experience. We say this was his con­tention until we showed how ridiculous was his position; and we have since heard no more of it – just as we’ll probably hear no more from him now on this subject of Bap­tism. But we invite him to try again if he is inclined, as we have by no means ex­hausted the refutations that could have been presented herein, our absti­nence being due to the length already of this writing.

The Great Company is indeed a part of the Gospel–Age Firstborn, the reason being that they are among the first–begotten. Thus, all the first-begotten of the Gospel Age must eventuate into the firstborn, or go into the Second Death. But, as we recently wrote a Brother, God never calls any one to be unfaithful; hence there is no call to the great Company (no call to any Measurably Faithful class) – their final position is just an act of mercy by God to save them from eternal extinction. Therefore, this Class is accorded only secondary notice in the Scriptures; and it is only an act of Azazelian impudence when any of them try to fit themselves into the “us” Class. It is indisputably testimony to their uncleansed condition, and that they are in the hands of Azazel and cannot think clearly while in that condition. And for one of them to set himself forth as a teacher of “advancing truth”, while attempting such a course, as R. G. Jolly now does, is a clear warning to all that his claims should be viewed with acute suspicion.

It should be kept in mind that all the Great Company had entered the Gospel–Age Church of the Firstborn more than 44 years ago – that they then entered as a part of the “us” Class – and we know of a certainty that many of them have never had water immersion. Yet R. G. Jolly states in the preceding sentence – addressing all the Great Company, according to his own present contention – that “baptism signifies our consecra­tion.” Is he there telling those of his Great Company brethren that have had nothing more than a sprinkling in infancy – that were never immersed that that sprink­ling (their only water baptism) signified their consecration and induction into the Church of the Firstborn? Another loose statement akin to this is to be found on P. 75, col. 1, bottom: “Many Jews...late in the Jewish Harvest ... were baptized with John’s Baptism, just as in the case of those at Pentecost.” A Sister wrote to ask us if he is saying here that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that day was John’s Baptism; so we pass the question right on to him. Certainly there were two distinct and different baptisms that day, one performed by God, and one by men. When he says “those at Pentecost” is he in­cluding both groups in his statement? If not, why didn’t he say which group he meant if this Baptism matter is so clear to him as he would have his readers think?

In due course we hope to explain a certain type having to do with this situation; but for now we commend the foregoing to all for careful comparison with his presenta­tion – just the reverse of his advice to his readers. And may the “blessing that maketh rich, and addeth no sorrow therewith”, Abide with all who read in a “good and hon­est heart.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

...........................................................................

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – Can you show by the signs of the times that the salt has left the earth?

ANSWER: – The foregoing is the gist of a question some one whom we do not know put in at this last 1958 Chicago Convention. R. G. Jolly, after his usual “profu­sion of words” said the “salt of the earth” as applied to the Little Flock is gone, but that the “salt” would still be here in the persons of the Great Company, the Youth­ful Worthies and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers. Jesus clearly stated, “Ye are the salt of the earth”, and it was a clear designation ONLY of the Little Flock the “us”, the ‘’we’’, the “our” class of the New Testament. Note the Berean Comments on Matt. 5:13: “Salt of the earth ... In proportion as you have given heed to the Lord’s Word and culti­vated its spirit. God’s people have had a preservative influence for quite a consider­able space around them.” And in Z 106–75: “Before very long we expect that all of the overcoming members of the body of Christ will be changed, glorified, and the body completed on the other side the veil will be without members on this side. The nights will have gone and the darkness will hold fuller away than ever; the salt will be gone and the corruption will take hold swiftly, and the result will be the great time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation.” Berean Comments on Matt. 5:14: “Ye are the light ... phos, the same word applied to our Lord.”

Thus, R. G. Jolly’s answer is a gross revolutionism of Parousia Truth (with which he claims to be “in full harmony”); and he is forced to this error by his other error that the true salt (the Saints) have all left the earth. Here is another illustration of Brother Johnson’s clear Epiphany teaching that the embracing of one error always forces those errorists to embrace other errors in a desperate effort to uphold their first error. Just as he tried to transfer the Measurably Faithful into the “Faithful”, and the “wilderness condition” of the Great Company (their abandonment to Azazel ­a condition where all brotherly fellow­ship and favor of the World’s High Priest has been removed!) into the “wilderness experience” of the little Flock (the “ye” class ­the more than overcomers who needed no enforced condition to destroy their fleshly minds), he now seeks to pervert the clear Scriptural teachings on the “Salt” Class to include the Great Company and other classes.

If his Campers “Consecrated” are a part of the “salt” – and the “earth” will not be dissolved until the “salt” (the preserving influence) is removed—then we need not expect dissolution of the present earth at all, as some of his Campers “Consecrated” will continue with us right up to the beginning of Restitution, according to R. G. Jolly’s own contention. It is worthy of note that neither the ‘signs of the times” nor the chronology point out October 1950 as the passing of the Last Saint; whereas, both of the important indicators do verify every other feature of God’s Plan, many of them of much lesser import than the passing of the “salt of the earth” (the last mem­ber of the “ye” Class, the Saints).

...........................................................................

QUESTION: – We are informed that Brother Jolly stated at the 1955 Philadelphia Convention that the ‘sifters’ could them­selves be sifted out of the L.H.M.M. before another year had passed – and would not be seen there anymore. Do you know anything about that?

ANSWER: – Yes, your information is substantially correct; he was his usual positive self about it, too. And during that same time J. W. Krewson also gave us assurance in like positive manner that Pilgrim Gavin and other prominent brethren would publicly take their stand for him before 1955 had expired. But just the re­verse has occurred with the prophecies of both these ‘Pastors and Teachers.’ Now we can only wonder whether they then thought they were students of prophecy, and based their predictions upon some “strong delusion” that they had special illumination to ex­pound some biblical type or prophecy. Regardless of what they thought in 1955, time has clearly proven that their predictions were prompted solely by the wishes of their fleshly minds, at the instigation of the Adversary. And we can expect to see much more of this as certain developments unfold more fully.

...........................................................................

QUESTION: – Do we understand you to accept Brother Jolly’s teachings on the Epiphany Campers Consecrated, except that the time is not yet; that this doctrine will be proper enough in the “Finished Picture” of the Epiphany?

ANSWER: – Certainly not! There never was, is not now, and never will be such a Class. As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, any interpretation must be in harmony with God’s character attributes; and this Campers Consecrated is decid­edly contrary to Cod’s Justice. This in itself should brand it for what it is – a Le­vitical vagary. As we have said, there is no Scripture anywhere to support it; and the Star Members never taught it. So there are at least two things to stamp it as error. During the Gospel Age all were called “in the one hope of their calling” – all who were faithful in “the narrow way” received the reward of that way – Immortality. Also, now, those who walk ‘a narrow way” will receive the same reward as all who con­tinue faithful in that way, Worthyship – just as those of the Great Company who even­tually receive the “palm” will all have the same reward of that way which they traverse. The only difference amongst any of the Classes will be one of honor – “star differeth from star” – ; but each will receive the nature pertinent to his Class.

Faith justification is only for the Faith Dispensation, in which we still are. And there is only one place that pictures such justification, and that is the Court. There is not the slightest hint in any Scripture, type or prophecy of a “narrow way” in the Camp. In the finished Epiphany picture those who have not improved their faith justification will have “received the Grace of God in vain” – be remanded to the Camp for another opportunity during the works justification under the New Covenant.

At present there is an embargo on the Ransom merit until all the faith–justified finish their course – as parts of the Bride, the Bridesmaids or the Worthies; and it cannot possibly be available for any other Class until that embargo is lifted. Of course, there are Epiphany Campers now, just as there have been such all during the Epiphany; but, not having come through that “one way”, the Gate (Christ), they do not now have faith justification any more than they did twenty years ago – nor will they ever have faith justification so long as they remain in the camp. And in the finished pic­ture those forced out of the Court into the Camp will actually lose the justification they had while in the Court.

J. F. Rutherford revolutionized against Parousia teachings only in his newly found doctrine, but R. G. Jolly revolutionizes against both Parousia and Epiphany teachings in his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated.’’ When Brother Johnson gave us the Epiphany teachings on the Epiphany Tabernacle it was harmonious with the Parousia teachings and with Tabernacle Shadows. Any honest–hearted parousia–enlightened brethren who had opportunity to look into Epiphany Teachings readily accepted Advanc­ing Truth as a part of the whole, because it did no violence to any Parousia funda­mental doctrine. This cannot be said about R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” – because it does violence to both Parousia and Epiphany teachings: It is a sin against greater light.

 Brother Johnson has this to say in E–4–406: “The Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial Household of Faith (2 Tim. 2:20).” No room here for R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Con­secrated” (his ‘Household of Faith’) that he now says are walking “a narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And further: “The Priests and Levites dwell­ing about the Tabernacle type this Household of Faith (Num. 1;3:4). 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, 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, hazing 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. The reason why they are of the Household of Faith is that they are a faith class; for all that are of the faith of Abraham are of the Household of Faith.” And those of the “faith of Abraham” are certainly pictured forth in the Court and not in the Camp – whether the Jewish Camp, the large Gospel–Age Camp, or the Epiphany Camp. Yet, R. G. Jolly claims his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” are of the Household of Faith!’

...........................................................................

Letters of General Interest

Dear Bro. & Sr. Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I just received your October letter, and enjoyed reading every bit of it, and to tell you the truth I was going over the same subject in my meditations this morning. In most particulars I had arrived at the same conclusions you had, and I can’t for the life of me see how any Truth person can do any different. I can well remember when I first heard Bro. Jolly’s lecture on the “Queen of Sheba” class I couldn’t quite agree with him, as I thought it was too premature, and also could not see much advantage for any one to consecrate now for such a purpose, in view of the final rewards offered... You sure gave Bro. Jolly something to think about in your last letter; as you say, he, like J.F.R., will have to deny Tabernacle Shadows.

I do not think much of Bro. Krewson’s blast at Bro. Alger’s character. He shows his kinship to his twin Jolly...

The Lord will richly bless you, Bro. Hoefle, as you defend the Truth. You have done too much for the Truth to back down now. You greatly helped Bro. Johnson during the depression, when the rest of us were not able to do much; and you have one friend in the Truth that hasn’t forgotten it, but, – sad to say, there are many that have.

This last blast of Bro. Jolly in the Sept–Oct. P.T. about disfellowshiped members not being welcome was about the last straw. Any one with any intelligence ought to know his purpose ... You have him on the run, in my opinion ... The present movement will never get anywhere until they are cleansed, and I’m beginning to lose hope they ever will be cleansed. I look forward to your letters.. With much Christian love. Your Brother .....