My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
In this advanced stage of the Epiphany it seems almost unbelievable that much effort should be expended to expound tentative justification for the benefit of those who have basked in the rich Epiphany Truth for so many years; but many of its principles in fact, its very foundation – are now being vitiated by the theory of Consecrated Epiphany Campers. It will be recalled by many of us that Brother Johnson rose to the defense of this doctrine as against the aberrations of That Evil Servant and completely crushed his vagaries. Especially did he rely upon Rom. 4:3‑8, where it is stated that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Inasmuch as the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jesus) had not yet appeared in Abraham's day, it is apparent he could not have had that righteousness that inheres to those during the Gospel Age who came into the Christ Company; but he had the righteousness that cometh of faith.
The faith‑justification which Abraham and those of his class had came from God, of course, but only after due demonstration of their faith in God by their living works that attested that faith, which required a mental effort on their part to cleave to right ways. During this Gospel Age there is a class blessed with tentative justification who do not even exercise a mental effort toward God. They are the immature children of the Church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23) – the Little Flock and the Great Company. This Church, having vitalized justification, must necessarily have their standing in the Court of the Tabernacle, which gives them a holy standing; and children born to such would self‑evidently also be in that holy condition, since they could not be born outside the court to parents who were in the court. In 1 Cor. 7:14 St. Paul states this clearly enough: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; otherwise, indeed, your children were impure, but now they are holy.” This word “holy” is from the Greek hagios, and is the same word used in Heb. 3:1, where St. Paul speaks to “holy brethren, associates of a heavenly calling” (Dia.). This, of course, makes such children only nominal Christians; their standing is due to something entirely beyond their will or desire. To such would also apply Rom. 5:1, who “being justified by faith, have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Such believers who have reached the age of accountability, have been intellectually persuaded to consider Christ as their Savior, have received a reckoned or tentative justification, have “peace with God”; but they are still only nominal Christians. To such “brethren” St. Paul extends the invitation of Rom. 12:1 to present themselves to God, which, if they do, will then give them the “peace of God” – which passeth understanding.
But Jesus has clearly stated that peace with God and the peace of God can come only through Him. In John 10:9 He says, “I am the Door of the sheep”; and in 10:1 there is this: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” In his recent defense of the Epiphany R. G. Jolly most emphatically declared that the Epiphany is still with us – and with this we fully agree. But, if that is true, then the Epiphany Tabernacle must also be with us; and the only place for tentative justification must be in the court, and not in the camp. Any time any one leaves the court to go into the camp he loses his justification, as Brother Johnson so clearly states it in E‑10‑209:
“The Gospel‑Age Camp Is the condition of the unjustified people of God, while the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.”
Since the Epiphany is not yet finished, neither is the Epiphany Camp a finished picture; and any attempt to make it such directly disputes Brother Johnson's clear writings as quoted above. Thus, it should be seen that any attempt at the present time to offer justification to those in the camp is really a denial of the Ransom, “climbing up some other way” than through the gate of the Court. We do not say those who presently preach consecrated Epiphany campers intentionally make such denial; neither do the vast multitudes who believe in human immortality intentionally deny the Ransom – but the fact remains just the same that they do so; and any who see this matter properly, then continue to preach it, must certainly then became guilty of intentional denial of the Ransom. Note Brother Johnson's description of the Epiphany Tabernacle:
“For the Epiphany the most holy represents the condition of the Divine beings; the holy in the finished picture represents the condition of the crown‑retaining New Creatures; the court in the finished picture represents the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; the camp in the finished picture the formerly faith‑justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practice righteousness, and converted Israel.”
When Brother Johnson says as above that the “formerly faith‑Justified ones” are to be found in the camp in the finished picture, this is certainly clear enough that such have lost their tentative justification. And, by the same token, any new ones who might join such could have no better standing than they do. They, too, must be without any kind of justification – regardless of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome to the contrary. Note some more from Brother Johnson in E‑6‑195:
“During the Gospel Age they (in the camp) have been those professed Christians that have not heartily repented toward God and heartily exercised faith toward Jesus, or those who have not remained in these conditions of heart and mind, though desiring some fellowship with God, i. e., those who have not even been tentatively Justified, or those who did not retain tentative justification, though loud in their professions.”
And more from the same book on page 199: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior, inasmuch as the Court curtain represents things connected with faith – the outside of it a “wall of unbelief” in Christ's righteousness to those outside.”
And from the same book more on page 168:
“To deny this doctrine of Tentative Justification would be to deny and to become confused on many Scriptures and to repudiate important features of Tabernacle Shadows. How could any one appreciate the Brazen Altar, wash himself at the Laver and be tied at the door of the Tabernacle in consecration, and have his justification vitalized, without first being in the Court, the place of Tentative Justification (T 19, 20)? Surely, the Brazen Altar and the Laver were not taken into the Camp in order that those not tentatively justified might use them preparatory to making a consecration!... To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But what consolation that the Very Elect shall be manifested as not being deceived!”
AND WHO WROTE THE ABOVE? WHY, R. G. JOLLY HIMSELF – THE SAME R. G. JOLLY WHO NOW REPUDIATES THE VERY TRUTHS HE SO CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD WHILE HE WAS UNDER THE RESTRAINING HAND OF THE STAR MEMBER – AT A TIME HE STILL BELIEVED HE WAS OF THE VERY ELECT, AND HAD NOT YET BEEN ABANDONED TO AZAZEL! Here we have a crystal‑clear illustration of what is meant by one falling into the hands of Azazel and then receiving the punishment of 2 Thes. 2:10,11 – that “energy of delusion” which “God sends them” – by removing the restraints that formerly held them in the way of Truth and righteousness. Has R. G. Jolly now found a way to move the Laver into the Camp – in direct contradiction of his statement quoted above – “preparatory to making a consecration”? When we witness the repudiation of Truth once so clearly discerned, can any who are “established in the present truth” have the slightest doubt that he was abandoned to Azazel in October, 1950? On page 31, col. 1 of this last March 1958 PT he hurls the words of Brother Johnson at J. W. Krewson (E‑5‑32): “Advancing Truth must agree with the past Truth. It does not repudiate the formerly received Truth... That which leaves part of the former foundations, tears down other parts of them and builds on other and contrary‑running foundations, cannot be a part of the former house. It must be a part of another house.... must be deviating error, not advancing Truth.”
And again on page 32, col. 1 he quotes from Brother Johnson (E‑6‑309): “But to the wicked (Matt. 24:48) God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant into thy mouth (richly given him by That Servant) and castest my words behind thee (by inventing new views whereby he casts away formerly‑held truths)?”
Surely, the words of Jesus (Luke 19:32) are here most pertinent: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.” And to refresh the minds of our readers, we suggest they read R. G. Jolly's Question & Answer an Page 30, col. 1, of the March 1955 PT, where he says:
“We believe that persevering faith‑justified ones will remain in, and additional ones will enter into, the tentatively justified condition for Epiphany Camp purposes, i.e., as a step toward becoming Consecrated Epiphany Campers.”
In this connection, he has correctly quoted Brother Johnson that “Tentative Justification will continue until Restitution”; but here again – like J. W. Krewson – he has read something which he apparently does not understand, and is trying to build on his false interpretation of Brother Johnson's statement. As Brother Johnson has so aptly put it – Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company.
In no way can R. G. Jolly reconcile his 1955 statement quoted above with either Star Member's teachings – he can reconcile it only with errorist Krewson's teachings from whom he originally received it – the same errorist be now so vehemently castigates. And be it noted that the “Advancing Truth” he presents above is a direct contradiction of past truth he once clearly expounded in refuting That Evil Servant; and he now has a camp view very closely akin to that very renegade he so expertly refuted while he was still under the benign influence of our Beloved Brother Johnson. It should be noted that the camp in the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle and in the Epiphany Tabernacle is assigned to the UNJUSTIFIED by both Star Members; and, while JFR revolutionized against only one of them, R. G. Jolly now revolutionizes against both of them. And this is the self‑admitted leader of the Good Levites, in whom Brother Johnson placed his confidence; and we call upon him once more to comply with this trust, to retrace his steps and return to the sound Parousia and Epiphany Truth “while it is called today”. Once the truth on the Tabernacle is lost, then irreparable harm is done, as it is basic for Parousia and Epiphany teachings and for all advancing Truth.
It should be noted that both Star Members describe the levites as a type of the Household of Faith – with their standing in the Court. Once they lose that standing, they cease to be antitypical Levites, and are forced into the Camp. Note Brother Johnson's comments in E‑4‑322 (this is only one of many such statements by him):
“During the transitional period (the Epiphany) those Levites) the tentatively justified, who will not consecrate lose their tentative Justification, i. e. cease to be Levites and are put out of the Court; while those who do consecrate, the Youthful Worthies, retain their tentative justification and remain in the Court ... throughout the Transitional period.”
But B. G. Jolly now puts his consecrated Campers into the Camp – with his newly‑invented type of Tentative Justification. Certainly, at least a few of those with tentative justification at 1954 have since lost that standing, thus being forced from the Court into the Camp, commingling now with those in the Camp who are consecrated – making a conglomeration of strange and peculiar vintage. Certainly, if his “new doctrine” is the Truth, he should be able to explain this clearly to the satisfaction of all.
It should be emphasized that Brother Russell stated there might be another elect class after the High Calling closed but before this Age had came to its full end. That Evil Servant immediately set that teaching aside, which he was forced to do because of his deflection on Tentative Justification. Brother Johnson annihilated his position, and clearly upheld from the Scriptures the Tentative Justification doctrine in the Court. Brother Johnson also clearly defined the four elect classes In the Divine Plan, finding nothing whatever to include a fifth class; but the Jolly‑Krewson twosome quickly invented a fifth class – in an accommodated reverse order from That Evil Servant's perversion, to do which they must “arrange” a pseudo Tentative Justification in the Camp – a Camp which is open on all sides with no specific entrance, the same being a direct contradiction to Jesus' words, “I am the door” to justification. Neither Star Member ever gave the slightest intimation of such an oddity.
In the January 1958 PT, p. 7, it is stated the quasi‑elect consecrated cannot be Scripturally explained – and with this we agree. But we add also that the consecrated Epiphany Campers cannot be Scripturally explained either – that this “new doctrine” revolutionizes against the clear teachings of both Star Members, and especially so as respects the Epiphany Tabernacle. On page 8 of the same paper he says JWK presents another monument to his inability to serve as special teacher – and we would say his presentations on John's Beheading, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels, the Pyramid, and the quasi‑elect consecrated prove the same thing – probably the worst of all these perversions being the “mix‑uptery” found in commingling the Court rejects with the Campers “Justified”. Yet R. G. Jolly gladly received all these errors as “Advancing Truth” from J. W. Krewson until he awoke to the sad realization that “his own familiar friend” in whom he trusted was in reality blowing his own horn in concocting all these perversions – whereupon JWK immediately became the “errorist”, with R. G. Jolly still cleaving to those errors because he had allowed himself to become as enmeshed as a cat on fly paper – too sticky to handle and too “stuck” to let go. And what more shall we say about this? Well, suppose we allow Brother Johnson to say it (E‑7‑426):
“What the PBI editors need in this matter is reformation from hypocrisy and folly, and the possession of real knowledge and meekness; for had they been meek the Lord would have guided them; but, following their own wilfulness, the Lord gave them over to Azazel.“
For need we add anything more than to pray the Lord's richest blessing upon all who call upon Him with a “good and honest heart.”
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Questions of General Interest
Question: – We have heard Brother Jolly, Brother Krewson and one of the Pilgrims praise the work of Evangelist Billy Graham – because they say the Lord is using him to bring new ones to Tentative Justification. Do you agree with their thought on this?
Answer: – Although it may be possible that some of Billy Graham's proselytes have received Tentative Justification, just as there are probably many tentatively justified in Big and Little Babylon – yet it seems to us preposterous that any who claim to be in Present Truth should not be able to see him in proper portrait, Namely – An antitypical Midianite. His own statements on eternal torment clearly confirm this – just as they also mark him as a member of antitypical Balaam (See Berean Comments an 2 Pet. 2:15,16 and Rev. 2:14).
The effort put forth by various brethren at the Graham meetings in New York last year was indeed commendable; and we rejoice that there is still sufficient light in R. G. Jolly that he had them use the Star Members’ “timeworn and threadbare tracts” (the way he described those tracts at a Chicago Convention a few years back). Also, we note with satisfaction that some of the other sects in Little Babylon give considerable prominence to these same tracts, too – although we have heard none of them give these tracts the slurring “timeworn and threadbare” description with which R. G. Jolly besmirched them. Perhaps the Faithful in those groups are instrumental in continuing the pursuit of antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna, as it is an Epiphany work, and will continue to a completion. We hope and pray that those in the LHMM who have been blessed with a clear understanding of this type by Brother Johnson will continue to honor his memory and persevere in this “good fight.”
We observe that Brother Johnson each fall honored the memory of That Servant with a Special Effort using those “timeworn and threadbare” tracts; and, inasmuch as Brother Johnson died at almost the same date as Brother Russell, there should now be a double reason for this special effort. Instead, immediately upon Brother Johnson's death this Epiphany arrangement was set aside and ignored completely. Why?
Question: – Are you in agreement with Brother Krewson's observations in his February‑March 1958 paper regarding the Epiphany Messenger's Pilgrim appointments?
Answer: – No, we certainly are not! If J. W. Krewson were right, then no one would now have the privilege to address the General Church except those whom he approves. R. G. Jolly also – the same as did That Evil Servant – arrogated to himself the power “to save and to destroy” – just as J. W. Krewson is now attempting to do. R. G. Jolly has made it very clear he disapproves any of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims who do not “bow the knee to Baal” – meaning approval of his revolutionistic course for “the Lord's arrangements” (the same as did JFR). Brother Johnson says, “They claim that those of the pilgrims who were appointed through That Servant, and who are not laboring under its auspices have no right to be General Elders, i. e., teachers of the General Church.”
Sad to say, J. W. Krewson resorts readily and easily to falsehood when the truth will not serve his purpose. At the bottom of page 15 he says, “He (JJH) inferred.. that his appointment was something Brother Johnson told him personally.” He himself proposed the “inference”, then proceeded to build upon the figment of his own perverted imagination when we parried his insolent inference with a question of our own – which question did not affirm his own inference (evil surmising). As Brother Johnson has so well put it, “Evil surmisers usually _feel certain.’ But they feel more certain then they know.” It would be most interesting to know if J. W. Krewson has requested written credentials of any of the other Pilgrims; especially so did he require such from R. G. Jolly while he was submitting his Present Truth articles to him in the years immediately following Brother Johnson's death. And did he request Brother Gavin's written credentials before that New England meeting in 1955? If not, then what reason does he now have for singling out JJH? There is more here – very much more – than meets the eye!
In our March 1958 issue we quoted briefly from Brother Johnson's letter to us at the time he sent our Pilgrim Certificate, and we now offer some more from that same letter:
“As an Auxiliary Pilgrim (emphasis ours) the work has been particularly toward the brethren, e.g., serving them on pilgrim trips, delivering discourses at conventions, etc. An Auxiliary Pilgrim's field of service is in any locality within a country or nation, except in some few cases where they go into a nearby country; whereas a Pilgrim's sphere of service is larger and not so limited, e.g., Pilgrim trips are usually longer, over a wider area, etc. I pray the Lord to bless you and make you a blessing in this good work.”
From the foregoing it seems clear enough that Brother Johnson himself was convinced that he knew what he was doing, as he clearly differentiates between the auxiliary and the full pilgrim office. And this same J. W. Krewson who now accuses us of being “officious” also has the impudence to insult Brother Johnson's memory by telling us that Brother Johnson did not know what he was doing! Well, let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind. And here is some more from Brother Johnson that seems to fit in here pretty well (E‑5‑516):
“Most of those who presume by printed page to address the general church have no right to do so, not having been appointed by the lord through His special Servant to the office of general elder in the church, without which office no one has the right to address the general church. The fact that so many of the pilgrims have gone into error should have deterred these lesser lights from usurping so dangerous a position; but lacking humility they judge themselves fit for an office to which the Lord never called them, and for which He evidently would not call them. To the fallen heart, to be a somebody is so enchanting a thing that it will impel to almost any course to attain its ambition.”
It should be noted that since 1955 J. W. Krewson never once – orally or in writing – even hinted to us that we were using the Pilgrim addition to our name improperly. His first objection to this came when we began to hit the errors of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. Note, too, that he stated, without the slightest qualification, that “Pilgrims” were in attendance at his New England meeting in 1955. It is our understanding there was one pilgrim at that meeting, the same being another of Brother Johnson's _pseudo’ appointments (according to J. W. Krewson's recent teachings); yet, when it serves his purpose, J. W. Krewson gives even that one a plural inclusion in his claims. That pilgrim then present at the Krewson meeting should certainly have known Brother Johnson's teachings concerning Evangelists, such as the one he there encouraged to foist his program upon the general church. R. G. Jolly should long since have known it, too; but he has never once referred to the quotations we now present – and this for reasons which he himself knows only too well.
Brother Johnson spent much time and effort defining the Arrangements of the Lord. During the Parousia the order of ministry was maintained through the use of General Elders, who had a ministry toward, but not over, the Vitalizedly Justified and the Tentatively Justified – the only one over the Household being the Seventh Principal Man. During the Epiphany this arrangement continued through the Eighth Principal Man – with the ministry of the General Elders of the Epiphany Movement being toward, but not over, the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Tentatively Justified – the latter including the Youthfuls and the unconsecrated. Brother Johnson had a ministry toward the Very Elect, but not over them – but he held a position superior to the other General Elders as respects the Great Company and the Tentatively Justified. His appointment of General Elders was for the General Church, including all members of it. All of them instructed all four classes during the Epiphany under Brother Johnson's ministry – and they still have that privilege so long as they adhere to the Truth and its Arrangements.
Such General Elders could revolutionize, before or after Brother Johnson's demise even as did Brother Russell's appointees – notable among them being J. F. Rutherford and R. G. Jolly. Nevertheless, JFR was a General Elder, and was thus privileged to Present Truth to the General Church, after Brother Russell's demise, as Brother Johnson freely admitted. Therefore, the first place to look for a Truth teacher would be among God's duly appointed general elders – either of Brother Russell's appointment or of Brother Johnson's appointment – and not to the Tom, Dick and Harry variety, as Brother Johnson described them. Had J. W. Krewson been properly disposed after Brother Johnson's death, he would have been properly guided by the lord into whatever work within his limitations the Lord had for him. Instead, he immediately put his stamp of approval upon R. G. Jolly as “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallel”, thereby empowering him with some of That Servant's authority (?); and R. G. Jolly very soon returned the compliment by putting his stamp of approval upon J. W. Krewson as “Mrs. Russell's Epiphany Parallel” and this R. G. Jolly did despite the fact that J. W. Krewson never occupied a position in the General Church under Brother Johnson, the last Star Member, that even remotely approached the unique position originally held by Mrs. Russell whom she faithfully served under Star Member Brother Russell. It should be noted we have never questioned R. G. Jolly's right to address the General Church with Truth – but we certainly do resist his efforts toward the General Church “to rebel against the words of God, and contemn the counsel of the Most High” – Psa. 107:11. As R. G. Jolly himself admits, he lost his status as General Elder in the Church which is His Body; but Brother Johnson appointed him as General Elder for Epiphany purposes (and be himself contends – correctly so – that the Epiphany is still with us); therefore, he still has the privilege of using that office in harmony with the Truth and its Arrangements. The same would apply to other Pilgrims of Brother Johnson's appointment – according to their opportunities of service and ability, of course.
No instance has ever come to our notice that any of Brother Russell's Pilgrims were called upon, after his death, to produce verbal or written endorsement for their Pilgrim status; and we are painfully reminded of St. Paul's prediction of “perilous times” in the extreme and of this Age when the Adversary is driven to the straits revealed by J. W. Krewson in this instance. We are humbly thankful for the Lord's overruling goodness that we do have our written “credentials” as a bulwark from the Lord against J. W. Krewson's extremity to besmirch our influence and good name before the brethren because of our efforts to “be faithful to the lord, the Truth and the Brethren.” Whether R. G. Jolly or the others have their written Pilgrim Certificate as we have ours, we do not know – nor does it seem important to us. Certainly, we are not putting out any “Do‑You‑Knows” regarding such; nor are we requiring written proof now for what we accepted without question during Brother Johnson's ministry. At the outset, R. G. Jolly should have pointed out these Epiphany Arrangements to J. W. Krewson and to the entire Household – but he failed to do this because of self‑evident expedience. Of course, having tacitly ignored these basic Epiphany arrangements when be “laid hands hastily” upon J. W. Krewson immediately after Brother Johnson's demise, and became enmeshed with his errors, it is not particularly “strange” he then manifested a second failing in not using the lord's best weapon against him for the occasion in 1955. His skirts were still sullied with the errors J. W. Krewson bad “sold” to him, which be had willingly foisted upon the lord's people; so it is little wander be refuted error with error – “J.W.Krewson was Mrs. Russell's parallel”, and he is now receiving Fit‑Man experiences for his revolutionism against the lord's Epiphany Arrangements, where he once more did despite to Brother Johnson's judgment. And we may expect more of such experiences to come to him if be remains in the Household – the Household that is in the Court, and not in the Jolly-Krewson Epiphany Camp.
Letter of General Interest
Bear Brother Hoefle:
Grace and peace through our dear lord Jesus! .... I know that you will be pleased to hear we had a blessed time during our participation of our Lord's Memorial Supper... I am anxiously waiting to see the May 1st writing. May the dear Lord bless your endeavors to serve His Faithful people. I notice that RGJ's March‑April is heavily refuting the Sifters – while at the same time refuting himself. I wonder if his followers understand him...
Please accept my warm Christian love for yourself and dear Sister Hoefle, with all the other dear ones with you. Sister ‑‑‑‑ and Sister ‑‑‑‑ also join with me. The Lord bless and keep you under His protection. Yours by His Grace, Sister......... Jamaica
No. 36 (Supplement)
My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
Our June 1 article was already prepared for mailing when we received J. W. Krewson's April-May 59 pages. Thus, we now offer a brief answer to a few items therein with more to follow in due course.
On page 51, par. 3, he "suggests that no attention whatever be paid to our presentations" until we clearly and decisively answer his "seven composite questions" of August 1957 re the Last Saint. Well, we think we gave a clear and honest answer to those questions in our May paper; so we now make the suggestion that the brethren appraise this erstwhile Evangelist to see if he can present a clear and conclusive "refutation" to the direct Scriptures and forceful explanations of the Star Members that we have offered on this subject of the last Priest. And we specifically mention Psa. 46 as set forth an page 6 (bottom) of our May writing – 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10 as presented on page 1 of our March 1958 and Nov. 15, 1957 articles. This is now the third time we are pressing for these answers. We well realize J. W. Krewson has no right to present his views to the General Church, but we believe his attempt to "refute" these clear Scriptures may be of some help to the brethren – and possibly be the means of sobering him somewhat. Until he offers clear and direct analysis to prove his contention, without his usual multitudinous evasions, then we would suggest to the brethren who desire to "continue in His word'' that ''no attention whatever be paid to J. W. Krewson's presentations" henceforth. We make this suggestion in harmony with the Scriptural teaching in 1 Tim. 4:7: "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." Also, 1 Tim. 4:1-2: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." (See Berean Comments)
Also, on page 57 (bottom) he lists some 44 of our "errors") and offers the sophistical remark that he has "not in all instances" refuted our writings, so he won't offer references. Why hasn't he given the references of those he did refute? Here again he shows his close "cousin" relationship to R. G. Jolly, who employs the same technique. And we note specifically his No. 7 at top of p. 58 – "in effect taught that character faults determine Leviteship." This is simply a raw falsehood, for we have never at any time taught that character faults in themselves alone manifest New Creatures as Levites – although these character faults are glaringly apparent after their gross revolutionism has manifested they are no longer of the Body of Christ. At no time did we ever teach – or even hint – such a thought. He himself was the first to present the error in his Do-You-Know, No. 3, P. 38 of his October-November 1957 paper as follows: "Do You Know we may be opposed to ones, like we are to R.G.J., if it is based solely upon Truth deviations, but not on character faults (E. Vol. 4:132, 133)." We annihilated his position on this error in our December 1957 writing, p. 5; and again on p. 5 of our March 1958 article. As we have said on previous occasions, whatever may be the limitations of these two "cousins", there seems to be no limit to their bold-faced effrontery! J. W. Krewson himself presented the error on this question, because he had read something in E-4-133 that he did not understand. And it seems he does not yet understand it; so he yells "error" at JJH in a desperate attempt to cover up for himself. It will be interesting to see how far his ''nucleus" will develop (especially in "grace and knowledge") with that sort of chicanery. He strafes R. G. Jolly's "house of deceit" while attempting to build one of his own, which will do nothing other than encourage R. G. Jolly to continue in his uncleansed condition, as he has probably had enough experience with J. W. Krewson when he was working "in harmony" with him to see through his trickery at this time. The "confidence" of which J. W. Krewson speaks was never established by Brother Johnson on deceitful falsehood.
It should be food for thought now that J. W. Krewson has made full confession of his sins, as well as of the sins of those who collaborated with him, in his attempt to upset his friend and former ally, R. G. Jolly. We believe the situation is pretty well Epiphanized – for it is indeed revealing of "persons, principles and things"! J. W. Krewson, as well as R. G. Jolly, fulfill the prophecy – "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." We spoke of R. G. Jolly's name-calling (column by column – without one time clearly identifying the culprit) in his March-April 1958 Present Truth as a spectacle, and we think this "spectacle" presented by J. W. Krewson is an equal – if not surpassing that spectacle. We say it is even more of a "spectacle" because it reveals not only the traitorous acts of J. W. Krewson, but also of others – Namely, R. G. Jolly's still-respected Pilgrim (and we refer to Pilgrim Daniel Gavin). Apparently, if we had not come out when we did with the exposure of these brethren in their sins together, we doubt very much if Pilgrim Daniel Gavin would have been standing up at that 1955 Philadelphia Convention addressing R. G. Jolly as "dear antitypical Baanah", etc. We well remember that our Beloved Brother Johnson was hesitant to announce R. G. Jolly as a revolutionist when he first made the attempt to usurp control of Brother Johnson; and we think it is marvelous in our sight that the Lord overruled that R. G. Jolly not be exposed by himself in his gross sins of teaching and practice after Brother Johnson's demise.
We shall have further comment to offer in due course, but we close these remarks with the observation that neither of these two "cousins" has been able to couple JJH with the other – although we have joined them together with their same errors on numerous occasions. Let J. W. Krewson go back to 1917-21 and show where any one charged Brother Johnson with such a travesty in his teachings and practices, as we have been able to do with these two erring "teachers", and fit it together with his bungling types if he can do so.
With this we close our supplement to our June 1 article with the prayer that all God's faithful Israel everywhere seek to be faithful to "the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them."
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Question of General Interest
QUESTION: – Brother Krewson contends he is completing Brother Johnson's work, on the theory –What one does through another he does himself." Will you please give your thought an this?
ANSWER: – Certainly, the statement of Brother Johnson, "What one does through another he does himself", is 100% correct. But the way it has been handled by J. W. Krewson, and lamely refuted by R. G. Jolly, is a striking illustration of another of Brother Johnson's statements – "Half-truths are more misleading than whole errors." Apparently, neither of these "cousins" is able to discern the "first principles of the oracles of God", or of civil law in connection with this question.
An analysis of the "Law of Agency", as applied by American courts, will make this very clear, we think. If A sends B to sell a certain property to C, A is bound by B's acts only if B acts within the limits of his agency. Thus, if B should sell the property next door to C, A would in no sense be bound by that deal; the whole responsibility would lie between B and C. And, if B were personally irresponsible, C would be left "holding the bag", with no chance whatever of recourse against A, who had never authorized any part of the transaction.
The American and English courts have clearly defined the law of "Caveat Emptor", which is a Latin expression meaning, "let the buyer beware" – that is, let the purchaser examine the article he is buying. And this rule would pointedly apply to J. W. Krewson's claims that he is completing Brother Johnson's work. "Let the brethren beware" – that is, let them examine what he is offering them as Brother Johnson's "agent". Let them ask J. W. Krewson for his proof that Brother Johnson ever authorized him, either verbally or in writing, to carry on in his stead after his departure. In the A-B-C case, described above, B would be guilty of fraud, and could be sent to prison for perpetrating a hoax upon C. and J. W. Krewson would be just as guilty of fraud upon the brethren if he is attempting to sell them something which Brother Johnson never authorized him to do while in the flesh.
The present claim of J. W. Krewson is akin to the contention of JFR that he was publishing the "posthumous work of Brother Russell"; but those who did just a little thinking then soon realized that Brother Russell was making so many more mistakes and displaying so many more "dis"-graces with his immortal body than he did in his weak human body that they quickly concluded those claims were simply a hoax. And a comparison now of J. W. Krewson with Brother Johnson when he was still with us presents such a cavernous gap that it would force us to feel sorry for Brother Johnson in his glorified condition should we give credence to such a travesty. Brother Johnson was never forced to resort to falsehood in any degree, much less having to resort to one falsehood after another to maintain his position while here; and we do well to heed the words of Jesus that those who do resort to falsehood are motivated by the Father of lies, and not by the Lord. "When any one speaks a falsehood, he speaks from his own, because his father also is a liar"—John 8:44 (Dia.). It should not require the ability of a Star Member to understand this elemental Truth. When R. G. Jolly says he has "thoroughly refuted" our contentions on the 1,000-year reign of the Christ, and other items, he, too, makes clearly manifest in whose hands he is. It is never necessary for the Truth to resort to falsehood to prove it is the Truth'
On p. 83 of the Sept. 1955 Present Truth, R. G. Jolly offers a lamentably weak and inappropriate disputation of J. W. Krewson's claims when he facetiously says: "Thus if a Pilgrim would send his wife to the classes to serve in his stead, the classes are to accept her as in his office, for 'What one does through another, he does himself!'" Such foolish repartee simply affirms once more that R. G. Jolly is woefully befuddled by Azazel. Certainly, if a Pilgrim sent his wife to "serve a class in his stead" he would be directly responsible for any disservice she might render them, as she would be his agent and would be fully authorized to do his work within the limitation of an agent – which would be fulfilling the oft-repeated "What one does through another he does himself." In such a case, however, the Class could and should refuse to receive her as a teacher in the Pilgrim's stead. Just because he revolutionized would be no excuse for the Class to do likewise by agreeing with him. But the fact still remains that if a man gave even verbal instructions to his wife to perform some act for him, he would be bound by what she did – if his verbal instructions could be proven – just as he is legally bound to pay any debts she may amass, even though he did not authorize the purchases she made. (The only reason any agreements are reduced to writing is to prevent the parties from lying about the terms later on.) If a man sent his adult son or servant to do something for him, he would be fully bound by their acts – so long as they acted within the scope of his instructions. R. G. Jolly's answer here is just another instance where he attempts to refute error with error – as he did on the "Discernment of due Truth", and other items.
R. G. Jolly says further: "We might say that since Jesus, the Chief Reaper of the Jewish-Age Harvest, did not live on earth until the end of the 40 years some one else had to function for Him in His office as the 'Chief Reaper' after His glorification." Certainly, Jesus made an indisputable delegation of His earthly powers – and He did this in the presence of trustworthy witnesses when He said to Peter, Matt. 16:19 (Dia.): "I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be bound in the Heavens", etc. And again in Matt. 10:40: "He who receives you, receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." No one ever made a more ironclad appointment of agents than did Jesus in these words to the Apostles; and R. G. Jolly's comments here simply reveal again how unclear and confused is his thinking on spiritual matters. If Brother Johnson had given J. W. Krewson such a clear directive, then J. W. Krewson would indeed have whereof to boast; but we all know that Brother Johnson never manifested such foolishness toward him or toward any one else. And we recommend that the brethren go back to this Sept. PT, p. 83, and refresh their memory on R. G. Jolly's "refutations" in order to better inform themselves of his unclean condition. We well realize this is exactly opposite to R. G. Jolly's advice to his readers; he advises them NOT to read what JJH has to say, because, he says, it is poison. This is just another instance of his using the tactics of JFR instead of taking his leading from Brother Johnson. Brother Johnson says of JFR: "There is a reason why he commands his followers not to listen to what he knows are unanswerable refutations of his position: If they study these refutations in the light of the Bible, reason and facts, they will forsake him.."
It should be recalled that J. W. Krewson was ready enough to heap ridicule upon us when he thought our pilgrim appointment had come to us only verbally from Brother Johnson. Such a stickler for formality should be only too willing to substantiate his own claims with clear and tangible proof. Was he ever authorized even to do Pilgrim work under Brother Johnson? Does he now claim that Brother Johnson was so shortsighted while in the flesh that he couldn't properly appraise a brother with whom he had been in close personal contact for years – one right at his own doorstep? This same J. W. Krewson must have had some of the potentialities he now claims for himself during those years under Brother Johnson's ministry – but it seems now that Brother Johnson was either very shortsighted or self-willed when he failed – or refused – to recognize in him the qualities that would fit him for the Pilgrim office, if we are to accept J. W. Krewson's claims for himself now. We realize that many of Brother Russell's Pilgrims went astray, but we also know that one of those Pilgrims was faithful in his office and eventually became the Epiphany Messenger. R. G. Jolly certainly must have understood the lord's arrangements in regard to General Elders – but when he "laid hands hastily" upon J. W. Krewson because of personal friendship and self-aggrandizement, these Truths forsook him because of his unfaithfulness at the outset. And it has proved a sore and grievous boomerang against him.
J. W. Krewson says, "JJH should no longer sign himself pilgrim". Has he notified R. G. Jolly and Company of the same thing? He charges R. G. Jolly with revolutionism, so the "teacher" should certainly let them know where they stand – and whether they will receive their pilgrim office again when they accept him as their teacher. Of course, no one need decide about J. W. Krewson's pilgrim status, because he has never had such office – although he is now offering "pilgrim" service to the brethren. This is another instance of his "power-grasping" and gross revolutionism. Brother Johnson himself received his Pilgrim appointment from the Star Member under whom he served, and it is indeed strange that Brother Johnson's own personal "representative" should not receive such a reasonable honor and office from him while he was with as in the flesh.