My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
Again in this last July‑August 1958 Present Truth there are a few pages on this and related subjects. At the outset it should be kept in mind that neither Star Member ever saw such a Class; neither is there a single Scripture to support it. It is solely a concoction of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. In the May 1952 PT, P. 37, col. 2, par. 1, R. G. Jolly himself admits the “parallels” re the last Saint did not materialize. On the very same premise, he is equally wrong in his attempted construction of his Campers Consecrated. In this he displays the same 'versatility’ as the large and small Popes; they accept what seems to serve their purpose, and ignore what exposes them. The Papacy had its counterfeit Millennium; JFR had his "Jonadabs" and his “millions”; and R. G. Jolly now follows in their steps with his Campers Consecrated – which according to his own admissions, could just as plausibly be designated as Restitutionists Consecrated. We say this because, in the final adjustment, at the end of the Little Season, he will have them receiving not one whit more than the present‑day vilest of the vile who shall acquire restitution without sacrifice under the benign Kingdom reign.
We now quote from E‑6‑400: “...we infer that Anarchy will reach a crisis in 1954, whether in its beginning, progress or end we are yet unable to say, as marking the end of the Epiphany.” (While not specially pertinent to Campers Consecrated, the last part of this quotation is specially significant as respects the Epiphany being still with us. The Epiphany is the time of trouble, says Brother Johnson, the same being a clear Scriptural Epiphany truth. Thus, the Epiphany ends when the time of trouble ends, regardless of what that date may be. It needs no argument at this time that that date could not possibly have been 1954; and any conclusions reached now that are based upon such assumption for 1954, are simply some more Levitical nonsense.)
In E‑6‑437: “The reward of the...Ancient Worthies will begin after approximately Nov., 1956.”
In E‑6‑506: “Satan will continue until he is put into the bottomless pit after Jacob's trouble, 1956.
In E‑10‑103 (middle): “The nominal‑church foolish virgins coming into the Truth during 1954‑56.”
E‑10‑114: “The last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956.”
In the face of the foregoing, and the devastation which time itself has provided, R. G. Jolly proceeded to plan his great program, the Attestatorial Service in 1954; and now his Campers Consecrated. Self‑evidently, it is impossible for him to present harmony in such confusion, which proves him a “blind leader of the blind.” Brother Russell saw his own mistakes re 1914 before he reached 1914; and Brother Johnson certainly would have seen his own mistakes re 1954 had he remained with us. However, R. G. Jolly, being in Azazel's hands, could not, and did not, see these mistakes – even though some of them were pointed out to him before 1954. Instead, he plunged headlong and recklessly into the Attestatorial Service in 1954; and the result is just what we should expect – chagrin and failure. (We might ask here, too, What has became of his $5 Correspondence Course?)
A comparison of the 1914 Attestatorial Service will make this clear: In 1914‑16, the tremendous success of that service “attested” the cleansed and fully faithful condition of the participants who persevered in it to a completion – demonstrated they were what they claimed to be – Saints of the Most High God. The 1954‑56 effort with its almost total failure, “attested” the uncleansed and unfaithful condition of the participants who persevered in it to a completion (they are viewed as very unfaithful while in the hands of Azazel – See E‑15, pp. 519 and 520) – just as we should expect of it. The Attestatorial Service of both groups “attested” their condition. It should be borne in mind, too, that the Great Company at 1954 very greatly outnumbered the Little Flock at 1914; so the bedraggled spectacle of 1954‑56 becomes all the more pronounced in ratio of those involved. Also, the 1914‑16 service won all the Little Flock into the Truth before its end; whereas, the 1954‑56 effort not only did not even approach such success, it probably had fewer Great Company members in it at its end than it had at the beginning. R. G. Jolly is certainly a good one to explain “spiritual discernment” and for whom is due Truth when we consider his own incapacity for “spiritual discernment” in connection with 1954‑56.
Having experienced the disastrous results of his Attestatorial Service, he yet proceeds on the same pattern and method with his Campers Consecrated – a pattern and method proven so decidedly unadaptable to the actual outworkings at 1954. Certainly no sane person would contend Anarchy had even arrived – much less “reached a crisis” in 1954; and it was THE EVENT and not the date that prompted Brother Johnson's statement. The Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same, says Brother Johnson – therefore, if the Time of Trouble is still with us, the Epiphany in its full sense is also still with us. We cannot eliminate one and retain the other, as R. G. Jolly now tries to do. Here again he shows his tragic incapacity “rightly to divide the word of Truth” – although he still “follows boldness with more boldness” by claiming he is the teacher of “advancing Truth.” In this confused condition, it is only reasonable that he reads things without understanding them “God will send them an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood”, 2 Thes. 2:11 – Dia. Being determined to pursue his own course, based upon the conclusions he had erroneously reached in the spring of 1954, but seizing upon Brother Johnson's statement that “Tentative Justification continues until restitution”, he then produces his Campers Consecrated. As we have said previously, he has read Brother Johnson's statement without understanding what he has read – just as J. W. Krewson seems to have done, too. Brother Johnson gave us good Scriptural proof that at least one of those now tentatively justified will continue to live right on up to the start of Restitution (which may be yet some 30 years future); but this statement carries not the slightest hint that new ones will continue to receive tentative justification for thirty years yet. If his argument had any substance to it, we could follow the same reasoning and contend that, since New Creatures will continue as long as the Gospel Age continues (See E‑4‑20) – and we even yet have many of them with as – that new ones could receive vitalized justification (became New Creatures) at the present time. There's as much sense to one argument as to the other. In 1914 there was a tremendous physical attestation that Cod had “ordained Brother Russell a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5); but there was just nothing of that nature in 1954. R. G. Jolly's “Epiphany parallels of Brother Russell” were such a vagary at 1954 that even he has not had the crassness to even mention the “parallel.” Yet R. G. Jolly proceeds just as though there were – the same R. G. Jolly who is “glad to admit and correct his mistakes.” In 1914 the door to the Holy was sealed from the outside, but continued to swing out to eject the “large crowd” – R. G. Jolly being one ejected since that date. But the Holy was the only place to receive vitalized justification and the anointing. As various ones lost their anointing, they also lost their standing in the Christ Company. So also with the Court: Any ejected from it would lose their Class standing; but the Tabernacle picture shows only one place to receive Tentative Justification – the Court.
In E‑11‑473 Brother Johnson writes this: “We may go even further and say that at their consecration to righteousness, as distinct from consecration to sacrifice, these two features of Jesus' executory work extend to the faith‑justified as Gospel-Age Levites to serve matters pertaining to the antitypical Tabernacle Court and its appurtenances. Hence we understand that Jesus' pertinent work as Executive for the antitypical Tabernacle and its appurtenances will continue with the Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthies until they respectively finish their courses, but will cease with the faith‑Justified when their faith justification lapses, which seemingly will occur in every case by Oct., 1954, according to Rev. 22:11.”
On P. 59, col. 2 (bottom) of this July‑August paper R. G. Jolly says “Rev. 22:11 came into fulfillment in its fullness (E‑Vol. 10, p. 114).” – in 1954. Suppose we refer to p. 114: There Brother Johnson says, “..after 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively Justified state.” We wonder if R. G. Jolly read this statement, or if he thinks his readers are too much asleep to read it, or if he is so befuddled by Azazel that he fails to grasp its implications. Let us continue: “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);.and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be righteous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still. Certainly when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent) for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”
Another point to be considered here is that Brother Johnson clearly taught that when Rev. 22:11 “came to a fulfillment in its fullness” (as R. G. Jolly claims it did in 1954), there would still be Priests here to proclaim its fulfillment. Here again R. G. Jolly takes the part that pleases him, but revolutionizes against the part that restrains him. “A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.”
When R. G. Jolly tries to have the foregoing interpretation of Rev. 22:11 work both ways., it simply “attests” his uncleansed condition, as he finds himself enmeshed in “an energy of delusion.” So that all may know our position, we contend Brother Johnson's interpretation is right, but his time setting is wrong. If R. G. Jolly accepts that interpretation “in its fullness”, as he states, how can he possibly preach Tentative Justification and Campers Consecrated at the same time! He says we are treading the steps of JFR, but this applies to him; he is saying once more “My Lord delayeth”, just as did JFR with his “Millions Now Living Will never Die.”
Furthermore, if R. G. Jolly had a clear understanding of Tabernacle interpretation he would then know that a place always types a condition in that picture. Thus, the Court always types the Justified condition of those in the antitype. If we should assume that he could possibly be correct in his present contention that the Camp also types justification (along with the Court), yet he, according to his own admissions, has the Camp now typing at least two conditions at the same time – that of his Campers Consecrated, and that of the Court rejects. The vagary of this should be immediately apparent to any who have just ordinary knowledge of the sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on the Tabernacle types. Be also has “a narrow way” in the Court and in the Camp, which is another Levitical monstrosity. It should be observed that the Court for Epiphany purposes has an outstanding exclusive peculiarity: It contains three classes of justified – the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies, and the unconsecrated Tentatively Justified. At no other period, past or future, can this condition ever occur again.
R. G. Jolly repeatedly quotes Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that “consecration is always in order”; yet Brother Johnson states in the above quotation, “it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” Take, for instance, Cornelius: Was consecration always in order for him? If so, what standing did he have before the 70th week expired? Even though his heart may have been “perfect” toward God, he still could not enter the High Calling until the “due time.” Certainly, it's always in order for a human being to want to do right; but, once the time arrives when there can be no more entry into the Household of Faith during the reign of sin, then such well‑meaning people could only wait for a new way (the Highway of Holiness) to be opened up – just as Cornelius, in a consecratable condition, had to wait for the “Narrow Way” to be opened for the Gentiles. None of the Gentiles could then consecrate, and have their consecration accepted by God until the “way” was opened for them. And so it is with Restitutionists now – the way (Highway) has not been opened for them yet. “Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson; and bungling in its extreme is to be witnessed in this Campers Consecrated jumble. It should be kept in mind that consecration is a bilateral arrangement – the presentation by the individual, and the acceptance by God. During the Faith Dispensation consecrations have been accepted for entrance into the Household of Faith. Are these Campers now a part of the Household of Faith “for Gospel‑Age purposes”; or are they a part of the works dispensation for Millennial‑Age purposes? And, if they are now “sacrificing”, to what end and for what purpose are they doing so, since their ultimate end – according to R. G. Jolly himself cannot be other than general restitution? Furthermore, it is elemental that none can come to a consecration acceptable to God without first washing in the laver; so we repeat a former question: Has R. G. Jolly now moved the laver “for Gospel‑Age purposes” into the Epiphany Camp? Or does he now have a laver in the Court and one in the Camp? Or do his Campers Consecrated not need a laver? Everything else about this “doctrine” is distinctly a novelty of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome; and, to make it complete, maybe he now eliminates the preparation for consecration and the daily necessity for subsequent cleansing of his Campers Consecrated at any laver anywhere.
On page 113 of the 1927 Present Truth, Brother Johnson says faith‑justification ceases to operate after the Gospel Age. R. G. Jolly now contends no new faith-justified ones enter into the Court “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Brother Johnson says there won't be any faith‑justified anywhere after the Gospel Age purposes are fulfilled. Half truths are more misleading than whole errors; and here again R. G. Jolly is offering a half truth – just as he has repeatedly done on the parallels with respect to 1954‑56. It goes without question that Brother Johnson based his conclusions re 1954‑56 exclusively on the parallels; and none of this has materialized – although his teaching will certainly be correct at the “due time”, at a date still future. But Brother Johnson mentioned no date in his 1927 statement quoted herein, so it allows of no variation in conclusion. Either the Gospel‑Age in its full Epiphany sense is still with us, or tentative justification is no longer available to newcomers. R. G. Jolly is insisting on having it both ways, so it's little wonder he is in the bog of confusion.
Here is something more on this same point from E‑10‑672: “There will be a large (Epiphany) work: (1) whereby oar non‑Truth Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and others of them afterward.” Here is another teaching of the Star Member that R. G. Jolly now tosses away because it interferes with his own “energy of delusion.” Note further this from E‑4‑406 (middle): “They (the Youthful Worthies) 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.”
It should be kept in mind that God's Justice does not require sacrifice of any one; but His Justice also rewards those who do sacrifice. Also, “There shall be one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country.” (Zev. 24:22) The “stranger” in this text types the Youthful Worthies who are under the same law of sacrifice as the very Elect (although not tried so severely, for several different reasons). If we understand R. G. Jolly aright, he now has his Campers Consecrated also under “one manner of law” with the Elect – “a narrow way”, he says. And he “invites” them to do this! As Restitutionists, they will be commanded, not invited, to consecrate – the command then being only to do right, with no opportunity to sacrifice. Yet, in the final analysis – after the Little Season – his Campers Consecrated now on “a narrow way” will find themselves on an exact Par with others who gain restitution on the “Highway.” “The narrow way” and “a narrow way” are “for Gospel-Age purposes” – and nothing else; therefore, if his Campers Consecrated are on any “narrow way”, it could be none other than “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Again we repeat, it cannot be both ways; it must be one or the other – the Gospel Age for Gospel‑Age purposes is still here, or there is no longer any offer of tentative justification available for any purpose whatever. Tentative justification and vitalized Justification are “for Gospel-Age purposes” only; and, as Brother Johnson has clearly taught, when the “Gospel‑Age purposes” no longer exist, tentative and vitalized justification will no longer prevail for any other purpose. Faith Justification is for the Faith Ages only (the Gospel Age being the last of these). Once the Faith Ages cease to exist, then Faith‑Justification must simultaneously cease to operate, as Brother Johnson so clearly and repeatedly emphasizes. The Jolly-Krewson twosome now revolutionizes against this clear teaching by the Star Member.
Brother Johnson emphatically taught that God never reveals a new doctrine through a Great Company member; but this doesn't bother R. G. Jolly either. We all know, too, that many of them have attempted it – the most vivid in our time being That Evil Servant with his “Jonadabs” (a non‑existent class, Brother Johnson tells us), his “Millions” and his “Great Multitude” doctrine and his perversions on the Tabernacle which eventually forced him to reject completely Tabernacle Shadows. We wonder if R. G. Jolly will follow in his steps to a complete rejection of Tabernacle types. He has made a strong start with his Campers Consecrated; and his attempts to present a new doctrine – contrary to Divine arrangement (“contemned the counsel of the Most High” – Psa. 107:11) – has resulted in just the kind of jumble we are now witnessing.
However, assuming the foregoing might possibly be incorrect, then at least such new doctrine must per se be in harmony with doctrines already expounded by the Star Members. But this Campers Consecrated sets aside Brother Johnson's explanation of the type shown in the position of the twelve tribes, in which he contended the 9½ tribes between Jordan and the sea type the Restitutionists, ten being the number of human perfection with the half tribe of Manasseh taken as the whole. R. G. Jolly now grossly revolutionizes against this clear Epiphany teaching by attempting to move this half tribe of Manasseh in the antitype into position to join with the other half tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan to have his Campers an the same “narrow way” as the Youthful Worthies. Odd indeed it is that with all Brother Johnson wrote about the quasi‑elect, that he could not see this type as the Jolly‑Krewson twosome now sees it – a view which perverts the Star Members' teaching to accommodate it to this non‑existent Campers Consecrated Class, just as JFR perverted the clear interpretation of the Seventh Principal Man on Zech. 13:8 to accommodate it to his “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” And all of us are witness to the debacle that resulted from that tampering with the Star Member's clear teaching. Let those go their way who are bent upon making a “twin” to that mistake; as for this writer and his house, we will have none of it.
In this last paper he also offers the lame excuse he does not wish to use too much space for refuting. Note also the contrast here with Brother Johnson's attitude: “Question: Why does Brother Johnson devote so much space to criticism? Answer: How could we as an under‑shepherd in God's flock be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren, if we remained silent while Satan through various leaders among Truth people is seeking to undermine the Truth and the Divinelygiven methods for its service, to the injury of God's sheep?” (See July 1941 PT, p. 112). Here again R. G. Jolly does despite to the wholesome and faithful course of the last Star Member and other Star Members such as Martin Luther, who also didn't fail to refute error energetically and persistently. He makes a lame apology about not having “space” to devote to the ‘sifters’; but Brother Johnson never offered such flimsy ‘excuse.’ Of course, Brother Johnson put out a Present Truth every month, too; and this afforded him plenty of space for all necessary purposes. And Brother Johnson always clearly identified the sifters and errorists he was exposing, so that his readers knew conclusively whereof and of whom he spoke. This he felt impelled to do to “be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren”; but R. G. Jolly apparently feels no such obligation for himself – although he is ready enough to claim he “now controls the LHMM even as Brother Johnson controlled it.” Clearly enough, his motive to “control” is decidedly different than was Brother Johnson's motive. In 1951, when R. G. Jolly first told us he was going to increase the Standard from six issues to twelve issues annually and reduce the Present Truth from twelve issues to six issues annually, we firmly but lovingly told him his first obligation – according to the Scriptures (Acts 20:28) – was to “feed my sheep”, to nurture those who had been committed to his trust. But, true to all Gospel‑Age performance of his soulmates (the crown‑lost leaders as typed in Saul up to Armageddon, R. G. Jolly himself being among the chiefest of these in the Epiphany's close), he was determined to “do great works, win great numbers”; and these eight years are a testimonial to his errant bungling. “Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson.
In all of this we say, let each be fully persuaded in his own mind; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Questions of General Interest
Question: – On p. 18 of this July‑August paper No. 22 by Brother Krewson he makes a number of charges against Brother Alger. Can you tell us if these charges are true?
ANSWER: – It is not within our province to proclaim any individual now living a Priest; but we can be certain those are not Priests who have grossly and persistently revolutionized against Parousia or Epiphany teachings) or arrangements – as, for instance, is true of R. G. Jolly and others. This is the clear rule repeatedly emphasized by Brother Johnson. If J. W. Krewson wants to use any other rule, that is his concern. However, when he says Brother Alger “unquestionably demonstrated by his conduct” that he is no Priest, he directly contradicts his own previous contention in his recent papers – and clearly revolutionizes against Epiphany teachings. He has gone to some length to discuss Brother Johnson's statement in E‑4‑133 that character faults are not a true gauge in such cases – and we are in fill harmony with Brother Johnson's teachings as to what manifests one a Great Company. J. W. Krewson tried to build quite a case against us, falsely accusing us of doing the very thing he himself is now doing. If Brother Alger ever revolutionized against Parousia or Epiphany Truth, or arrangements, we do not know about it. Consistency, thou art a Jewel! Inconsistency, thy name is Krewson!
As further evidence of his inconsistency, he correctly states that “error should be supplanted with Truth.” He now offers only his word for quite a few statements he makes in this paper – although we have conclusively proven that his word is worth nothing. In our June 1 Supplement, p. 1, we accused him of lying about our position re E‑4‑133, and we offered the proof for our statement. This matter he is now glad to forget.
He states further that Brother Alger left Brother Johnson “on a flimsy pretext Oct. 21, 1950.” Here again he offers only his own worthless word for his statement. Why doesn't he define the “flimsy pretext”? Brother Alger says he left then because Pennsylvania law does not allow a physician from another State to sign a death certificate in Pennsylvania. We ourselves verified the law on this through the Philadelphia District Attorney's office; so we know Brother Alger's statement is correct. Had Brother Alger waited one more day to call in a local physician, be would have found himself in most delicate circumstances. Brother Alger accepted the Parousia Truth in 1894; he is many years past his allotted “threescore and ten.” He contributed many weeks of his time away from his Detroit practice in free attendance upon Brother Johnson at various times; and we consider J. W. Krewson's present charge against him as most unkind and unchristian. If he can offer nothing better, he would be well advised to say nothing – although this seems to be difficult advice for him to follow.
Letters of General Interest
My dear Bro. Hoefle: Grace & Peace!
First, I want you to know how very much we enjoyed your last article for Aug. 1. That, in my humble opinion should open the eyes of those Levites who have gone into error .... drawing away disciples after themselves, showing plainly that they have lost the Truth and its Spirit ... It took me back to more than 50 years ago ... in 1907.... while I knew from the very first reading of a .... tract picked up from a muddy street, that I had something different ... it was in the spring of 1908 that love for what the Lord was giving me burned like a fire in my heart ... even though Satan has often prodded me with the thought – “Just who do you think you are; there are thousands of noble and fine people the Lord could bless,” etc., etc.... “not many wise or noble are called,” because God can and will show what He can make out of _nothing’... And that very thing should have kept the power‑grasping Levites in their places. Krewson is more inflated than Jolly, with his importance; and he is not even spirit‑begotten. So, naturally, he had to do away with the remaining Priests to make his claims stick... Unless we've missed the sign posts along the way, we'd say, only the Lord can handle their cases now! ....
Sincere Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle – Sister ________.