R.E.S.P.E.C.T. - find out what it means

Respect is earned, not given

One response to my writings thus far says: 

"Coming out of the Bible Student’s you missed the inherited respect for Br. Jolly. So any you had evaporated when this present distress came." (referring to the controversy surrounding the office of Executive Trustee and it's holders.)

My answer is YES you are correct!  Red flags invite Scriptural investigation of red words, so to speak.

As Bible Students we are taught by Christ, the Apostles and the two Star Members to ever be diligently on guard against would-be leaders, bosses, pastors, teachers, popes and what have you.  We are ordered from above:

Matthew 24:⁴ And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Roger that.  And then there is this heads up from command!
¹¹ And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Copy that!  I was never in the military. This simply comes from God and we are instructed to follow. I don't really see a choice in the matter.

So yes, coming from a background in the Bible Student movement, I can tell you that I certainly had learned respect for brother Russell, as he earned that respect through his work, not because of who he was or what he claimed for himself... 

Then I began to develop great respect for Brother Johnson through his work also...

I came to respect a number of faithful brethren who have served, such as Barton, Edgar and others of the one and same spirit, holding to the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). I also lost respect for certain brethren who did not prove faithful.  (Jud 1:16)

With a blessed bedrock foundation in Present Truth, certainly I well understood, and in fact:

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.  Acts 10:34

And to: "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1  

THEN, I'm told to accept a man as "Spiritual Leader" a priori

 

See  Present Truth Winter 2015 - "Only God Appoints His People's Leaders"  Click on the link and ask yourself: Does this sound like the spirit of Christ and of the Star Members?

 

a pri·o·ri

  (ä′ prē-ôr′ē, ā′ prī-ôr′ī)

adj.

1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

2.

a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.

b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

---

[Medieval Latin ā priōrī : Latin ā, from + Latin priōrī, ablative of prior, former.]

Questions to the reader:  

1. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY false prophets out there ever since P.T. Barnum, wouldn't you agree?
2. And so it behooves us as wary sheep to lookout for wolves, does it not? 
   
3. We are to investigate claims made by such individuals, no matter who they are, would you not agree? 
4. Or would you simply accept someone's claims, A PRIORI, not even investigating whether or not they truly are of Him? 
5. Or don't you think apples sometimes fall away from trees on occasion?
6. Certainly anyone who claims the mantle of Pastor and Teacher of the Lord's people should be under the most careful scrutiny, should he not?
   
7. And if his conduct be unbecoming or his doctrines in error, then is it not our duty to speak out?
8. Should the brethren be on guard? or left as helpless prey to any power grasper who comes along?
   

Brethren, we can't accept the claims of any man without proper examination in the light of the Bible.  Yet now even today, some are not ashamed to call themselves "spiritual leader of the Lord's people", also claim it should be accepted without question!  To me, this is unthinkable among Truth people.

Just a few things you should know about me and this project: 

1. I believe in one God, Yahweh, and I believe also in His Son Jesus. I pray only to them.
   
2. I am a Bible Student, an elder of my ecclesia.  I am doing my best to follow Christ and I'm very serious about all this.
3. As for men they're all fallible. Only the apostles were inspired. That means I only accept the Bible and what it says and not what man says.
4. Pastors and Teachers were also used by God as special helpers and I accept as two Star Members to the Church of Laodicea Pastor Charles Taze Russell and brother Paul Johnson.
5. I'm an honest Truth person, known as a fair and balanced, impartial moderator and investigator with many years of experience on the Present Truth Forum in examining doctrinal issues. I pass the V.D.M. test. I've been blessed with many opportunities to arbitrate between differing brethren over doctrinal issues as impartially as the Lord has taught us to be.
   
6. I am highly literate and blessed with with the time and ability to read long-winded, complex arguments. I don't have voices in my head. There is no chatterbox TV or radio running while I write or study.
7. I have no interest in personal gain or influence among any in the world or among the brethren.

Stand in my shoes for a moment, minding my own business as a Bible student elder in my ecclesia who was then asked about errors in the Bible Standard and Present Truth magazines. Globally, Bible Students were discussing what I saw as deep-seeded problems with the doctrine of Justification by Faith.  Changes had been made.  Some things didn't add up. That was in March of 2015.

I had to investigate. Rather than start from now and then go backward all the way through history examining Herzig, Hedman and Gohlke, I decided to start at the beginning with Jolly. That is the subject of my work, available HERE:
  

It is my honest hope and prayer that there may be one or two, or perhaps many brethren who may be helped by my studies.  I would only hope that the brethren will be half as honest and sympathetic in their reading and responses as I know I have been in my writing on this.  

Now if my work be offered in an unkind spirit, that would be grounds for complaint. (I Cor. 13)  I present my findings in the spirit of love, all the while knowing that this will likely have some cost attached, the greatest of which would be the loss of the love and fellowship of my brethren.  However duty calls and conscience must be followed.  (Jas. 3:17)

Anyone can address these my findings on this blog site or on the PT forum, or personally by email or phone.

Yours in Truth,

Bro. Regan

Part 2: JJH Routs RGJ on Baptism

WAR IN THE HEAVENS:  JOLLY ATTACKS HOEFLE

The 35 Accusations published against JJH

Read the Prelude:

My Official Withdrawal from the L.H.M.M. Organization

What are the standards for "The Bible Standard" magazine?

part one: RG Jolly Vs. JJ Hoefle: a study of events that shaped the LHMM

Dear friend, 

There were approximately 35 POINTS OF CRITICISM from Raymond G. Jolly made against Bro. John J. Hoefle in the March 1956 PT explaining his removal.

  
My study shows a grave injustice was done.  This an honest attempt to ascertain the Truth regarding what was done with the L.H.M.M. after Bro. Johnson left the scene vs. what was authorized.

Raymond G. Jolly = RGJ, words in brown
John J. Hoefle = JJH, words in black and white
Regan C Balman = RcB, words in purple

Accusation 2. Baptism

 

This is the topic where in RG Jolly's words, "it began"

[2.] *from PT 3/1956... "It began in connection with some correspondence on baptism, in which we tried, though without success, to hold him in harmony with the Truth as given by Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson."


JJH:  "...it was on this Doctrine that R. G. Jolly conducted a vicious and extensive “whispering campaign” against this writer during the years 1953‑54 and 1955 to the effect we were “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on the doctrine of Baptism”


[1.} Answer Re: Baptism:  Our “out of harmony” had to do with the twelve men in Acts 19:1‑6 – were they Jews or Gentiles? Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both inclined to the view that they were Gentiles; where­as, we accept the position that there is no Scripture or group of Scriptures to prove the point either way. We repeatedly presented this contention to R. G. Jolly; and he just as often failed to produce any answer except –  “You are out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson.” Be it distinctly noted that whether or not the writer of this present article is correct, it makes not one whit of difference in our present view of baptism; that it relates only to historical incident, its chief value to us today being its typical application to events at the end of the Age; is not vi­tal to a present harmonious understanding of the ten strings of the Harp of God; and each one in God's Household should have the privilege of his own opinion on it – “in the spirit of meekness”.  Therefore, R. G. Jolly revealed once more his uncleansed and leprous condition when he attempted to murder his brother (1 Jno. 3:12 – See Be­rean Comment) by “whispering” far and wide an inconsequential item – a point he him­self attempted to magnify all out of proportion to its intrinsic worth, with the evil intent of destroying the influence of this writer in the lord's Household.

http://epiphanybiblestudents.com/blog/2015/8/5/no-13-letter-exchange-between-eschrich-and-hoefle?rq=Eschrich

RcB's Findings

I side with JJH on this issue.  It seems obvious that anyone who underwent John's Baptism would have to have been a Jew, not a gentile, yet it does not matter.  THIS cannot be an item that is a test of fellowship or even of being a pilgrim or not.  In the spirit of meekness and Christian liberty and charity it should be allowed that Bro. JJH has a Scriptural and reasonable view of this hardly significant item of study.  And several blatant errors in the PT were noticed by me in this study.  Bottom line, by what right should we disfellowship a brother in Christ over a Scriptural discussion or study point offered on a non-critical minor difference in view?  

RcB

NEW EVIDENCE!

Bro. Hoefle's earliest letters to Bro. Jolly have recently been made available to me.  Here I will post the exact portion addressing the issue of baptism.  Bro. Hoefle makes the strongest case.  You can decide for yourself.

We start with Bro. Jolly's argument in a letter to Bro. Hoefle...

From R.G. Jolly
to J.J. Hoefle
June 25, 2955

(b) You have persistently opposed their teaching that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews after John the Baptist’s death, which teaching you counter with such questions as “Do I understand you to insist that after John’s death, and after the inauguration of Christian baptism, that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews? If so, who would take John’s place in performing it?” – as though only John the Baptist could administer John’s baptism, which was for the washing away of sins against the Law and therefore of avail for Jews only, who were under the Law, hence was administered, not only by John the Baptist, but also by others, e.g., by Ananias to Paul (Acts 22:l6) long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian bap­tism (Tower Reprints 2825, column 2; P ‘21, pp. 131-133).

The Rebuttal...

From Bro. John J. Hoefle
to R.G. Jolly

October 29, 1955

...Now, you come again on Page 2, Item (b) with John’s Baptism! You say it was ad­ministered “long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian Baptism”; but the Tower Reprint, Page 2825, does not confirm your statement, nor have you offered any Scripture to confirm it. Paul was baptized by Ananias before – not after – the inauguration of Christian Baptism, as it has applied all during the Gospel Age; and I wish you would cite me one instance where the Scriptures record one performance, accepted by the Lord, of John’s Baptism after the inauguration of Christian Baptism – that is, after the Baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:48). I am interested only in the Truth on this subject; and I think it is high time for you to contribute something more than you have to it, or now forever hold your peace. The occurrence of Acts 19 was sometime between 50 and 60 AD, according to the best information we have; and Paul’s letter to that same Ecclesia at Ephesus was purportedly written around the year 60. In that let­ter Paul states there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5); so, if you are right in claiming two Baptisms at the time of Acts 19, Paul must have changed his mind in the few interven­ing years. Do you have any idea when and why he changed his mind?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, then I submit to you that St. Peter wrote his first epistle within a few years of the Acts 19 matter. That letter was written expressly to the Jews; and he tells those Jews that Baptism is not for the forgive­ness of sins in 1 Pet. 3:21 (You yourself agreed with this interpretation). There­fore, if John’s Baptism was of avail for the Jews in Acts 19, as you claim, and Peter tells the Jews it was of no avail to them, you are self-evidently advocating the idea that the two leading Apostles of the Jewish Harvest were contradicting each other on the subject of Baptism. What is your answer to this?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, I have something concrete from Brother Johnson to prove beyond any doubt that the men of Acts 19 could not possibly have been Gentiles.

Please understand I have the highest respect for Brother Russell and Brother John­son, but I realize they were not infallible. They both repeatedly told us to prove from the Scriptures everything they wrote; and here is one item with which I cannot do that. And, from everything you have said up to now, you can’t do it either – your only argument being – They said so, which makes it right. I consider your contention about this item to be quite childish, because it affects our present teaching on Bap­tism in not the slightest degree; it is more or less a technicality. It should make very little difference between you and me at the close of the Age; and your continued yelling “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” would seem to be only an excuse to berate me in a “whispering campaign” as you have been doing for some time, and particularly since 1953. You assured them at Winter Park that this was only a technicality, although you there elaborated in your discourse on the brother who is “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism”; then later “emphati­cally stated ‘It is not a fundamental doctrine’“. Just how do you rate their intelli­gence by again profusely making an issue of it and sending them a copy of your letter of June 25 “for their protection”? You pounced on this “not fundamental doctrine” in 1953 as an excuse to shout “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson”; and you continue to do so despite my repeated requests to you to confirm your position from the Scriptures, or at least to disprove my scriptural analysis of it, based upon Acts 18, – neither of which you have been able to do –, although at no time have you been man enough to say so. Again I say, my only interest in this matter is the Truth!

SCORE AFTER ROUND 2

 

RGJ 0

vs.

JJH 2

end of part two

Yours in Truth,

Bro. Regan C. Balman

Pastor Russell RE: Armageddon and Anarchy

 "...in the coming Battle of Armageddon. God's side of that battle will be the people's side; and that very nondescript host, the people, will be pitted at the beginning of the battle. Anarchists, Socialists, and hot-headed radicals of every school of reason and unreason, will be in the forefront of that battle. He who has any knowledge of army life knows that a great army is composed of all classes.

The masses will be restless under their restraints, but will be conscious of their weakness as compared with the kings and princes, financial, social, religious and political, who will then hold sway. 

...The crisis will be reached when the hitherto upholders of the law shall become violators of the law and resisters of the will of the majority as expressed by the ballot. Fear for the future will goad the well-meaning masses to desperation, and anarchy will result when Socialism fails."

Pastor C.T. Russell  Studies in the Scriptures Volume 4 (The Battle of Armageddon - introduction)


Charles Taze Russell is the only Christian Pastor to accurately explain to the world that, rather than seeing a conversion of the world to Christianity, we would instead see rising global conflict and ultimately anarchy before the establishment of the long awaited Kingdom of God on earth.

Today we are indeed well into the Armageddon and Anarchy phases spoken of by Pastor Russell, as taught by the Holy Scriptures.

Perhaps some are not ready to accept that we are in the Anarchy because the religious leadership did not properly inform us what to expect.  Indeed, the above quote is from a book they largely have ignored.

What more evidence should be required that the world need witness? Just three items from the last two days:

• Increasing global terror attacks are now occurring daily.
  
• Masses of refugees are flowing across the now open borders of Europe and the US.
• An organized shooting war against the police last night killed five uniformed officers in Dallas.
• FBI investigators reveal shocking mishandling of government secrets and lying under oath.  The reward for these crimes? the oval office itself.

To my knowledge the main Bible Student publishing groups (The Dawn, The P.B.I. and the L.H.M.M.) are teaching that the Anarchy is yet somewhere off in the future, and that we are waiting for the Armageddon still.  Some believe the Time of Trouble hasn't even begun yet. 

Blindness in Part

The blindness in part seems now to have happened to spiritual Israel, the truth groups, regarding what's going on with natural Israel as well.

Some groups are still waiting for blindness to depart from them (Rom. 11:25), when our Pastor taught us that this was beginning to be fulfilled in 1878. ...

And they teach that before there's any Anarchy we have to wait for Jerusalem to be divided as per Zechariah 14:2 when that already occurred also.  Not only did 1948 see the establishment of the State of Israel, but it also saw the division of Jerusalem that same year.

So what some groups are looking for in the future has an absolute historical marker in our recent past.  See Division between Jordan and Israel (1948–1967) wikipedia

So guess what? It's okay to look for the Anarchy, obviously because we are seeing it now, and have been for some time.

Here's a song I wrote and recorded back in 1994 at the very start of the Anarchy phase called "Shooting Plutonium".  You can listen on youtube here:

https://youtu.be/0WrIkLH8ttU

[Notes: What does "shooting plutonium" mean? Two things: They did it to black servicemen in the 1950's without their knowledge, as an experiment to see what would happen to them, and the story came out in the 90's - just about the time they were shooting plutonium on rocket ships into space, risking an environmental disaster. That teed me off to write this song, recorded with Gary Williams on guitar, and Dave Krusen on drums, who was fresh off recording the first Pearl Jam album, "10". ]

SHOOTING PLUTONIUM (can't believe it) 

Well I seen enough crime, seen enough shame
seen enough worries, see enough pain
see no reason, see enough treason
seen enough steady boats rock 'n roll at sea
seen enough death and dying and I grieve it
Can't believe it

seen enough men smash women in the face
seen the miles of burning tires smoke up the place
seen enough cats and dogs get put to sleep it's a disgrace
seen another mistrial in another murder case
see so much disorder I don't know what to do yeah
Cant' believe it

SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM

seen enough of babies being abused from a to z
seen a purple puppet lie to them on tv
seen enough of gunmen be all they can be
seen it often,100,000 fleeing refugees
seen enough murderers in office sipping tea
woe baby now I can't believe it!

SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM

Well all of your fair weathered friends all leaded you astray
pray to God when is the end? well baby it's today!
Hide in your bedroom your glock standing by
mob of youth rampaging, getting drunk and high
chewing on the leaves of the trees that deceived it
You know I can't believe it well I

Seen enough killings, seen enough rape
seen enough clear cuttings, see no land escape
seen enough rednecks, seen enough religious sects
seen enough of losers saying our gang is best
seen enough of flat out pride that's flat out wicked
woe baby now I can't believe it well I

seen enough lost teens, seen enough fat cream
seen enough of dumb games they glory in their shame
seen enough homeless, seen enough handguns
see enough politicians wash his hands, say he's done
seen enough of history being hid for the racist
woe baby now I can't believe it!

SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM
SHOOTING PLUTONIUM

seen enough, seen enough yea yea yea....
seen enough, seen enough, seen enough...see them!

SHOOTING PLUTONIUM...

are they shooting plutonium?

 ...................

Remember to look up for your redemption draweth nigh!  [Luke 21:28]  The Kingdom of God is at hand!

RG Jolly Vs. JJ Hoefle: a study of events that shaped the LHMM

Dear friend,  

There were approximately 35 POINTS OF CRITICISM from Raymond G. Jolly made against Bro. John J. Hoefle in the March 1956 PT explaining his removal. 
 

My study shows a grave injustice was done.  This an honest attempt to ascertain the Truth regarding what was done with the L.H.M.M. after Bro. Johnson left the scene vs. what was authorized.

---

PRELUDE

TIMELINE of 10 significant facts, events and acts by R.G. Jolly 

after the passing of Bro. Johnson, October 22, 1950

1. 1950-52...  The PT states:  Hoefle, Krewson, Gohlke, Hedman :  at this time are contributors all in good standing. (Hoefle is mentioned first, and did Johnson's funeral service.)  *FROM THE MARCH 1956 PT COMPLAINT AGAINST HOEFLE*from PT 3/1956 [Raymond G. Jolly = RGJ words in brown]:  "J.J.H. co-operated faithfully with us in the Lord's service; and the Lord favored him, like J.K., with the privilege of bringing forth certain features of advancing Truth (P '52, p. 58). Also, the Sept. 1952 P.T. mentioned him very favorably." 
2. Dec 1950 :  RGJ proclaims the last saint is beyond the veil, the rest of you are proven G.C. members.   (Topic to be discussed later)
3. Jan 1952  "Present Truth" was a monthly publication under Bro. Johnson.  Meanwhile, The Bible Standard AND HERALD OF CHRIST'S EPIPHANY was every other month:  (Jan/Mar/May/July/Sep/Nov).......     Jolly changed The PT to every other month, then Bible Standard was changed to monthly....
4. then Jolly changes the name to Bible Standard AND HERALD OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM. 
   
5. He claims the Epiphany is over in 1954. (Yet Bro. Johnson said it goes on until the close of the Time of Trouble, as they are synonymous. RCB)
   
6. Jolly changes the publishing order of Johnson's remaining books.
7. Jolly keeps back Johnson's Revelation book and others.
8. 1954 : Campers consecrated created by Krewson, who is "Pastor and Teacher"
9. June 25, 1955 Jolly removes JJH as Pilgrim...1955 PT issues publications for each: 
10. Krewson and then Hoefle both Disfellowshipped.
    

This timeline is the backdrop that sets the stage for our study of each point made in the the March 1956 Present Truth and it's attack on John Hoefle by R.G. Jolly.  It really begins with Jolly mentioning a financial matter that is not an attack on Hoefle per se, since no wrong doing is stated outright, however the spirit of the words are an obvious attempt to cast dubious shade upon Hoefle's character. 


Quoting *from PT 3/1956  "...In Nov. 1952 he [JJH] asked us [RGJ] for a loan of a large sum of money apparently to assist him in a business venture, reminding us of how he had during Bro. Johnson's lifetime contributed the property at 1327 Snyder Avenue...]


We are then told how Jolly refused him.  And even though I think this is a shame that Hoefle was refused the loan after having financed the Epiphany work mainly by himself, this item is not on the list of the ten main attacks we will investigate.  But in light of this prelude, it is quite understandable regarding Hoefle's "oppositional attitude" that developed by that time.  Certainly RGJ's conduct was questionable.


*from PT 3/1956 re:J.J.H. "In 1953 J.J.H. began to manifest an oppositional attitude."  ... "But it was not until 1954 that J.J.H. in his letters more openly manifested his opposition"

---

WAR IN THE HEAVENS:  JOLLY ATTACKS HOEFLE

The 35 Accusations published against JJH

Accusation 1. Honesty in Business

[1.]:  The Start:  *from PT 3/1956... ..."in J.J.H.'s case as follows: He claimed that a slander was being circulated far and wide about him, to the effect that he had solicited investments from widows and that he was dishonest in his business dealings. He sought to implicate a number of brethren in the matter, especially Bro. Eschrich and ourself, and, indirectly, Bro. Gavin...."..."in J.J.H.'s case as follows: He claimed that a slander was being circulated far and wide about him, to the effect that he had solicited investments from widows and that he was dishonest.


[RCB] My findings:  NO FRAUD took place, but Jolly did his best to imply in the PT that it had.  It's disgusting when you realize that the entire movement would not have existed without the financial help of one Bro. John J. Hoefle.  The sister who was helped by JJH gossiped inappropriately.  Then bro.s Gavin, Escrich and Jolly were not totally honest about who said what to whom.  These brethren seemed to be protecting Jolly, who had now jumped on this opportunity to impugn the character of the one who had been vocally critical of the odd moves he had made as Executive Trustee.  

Ultimately the sister says there was no fraud.  Gavin says there was none.  Even Jolly says there was none while in a very backhanded way implied there could be...  Bro. Hoefle was despitefully thrown under the bus quite intentionally by RGJ.  It was unjust in my assessment.

SCORE AFTER ROUND 1

RGJ 0

vs.

JJH 1

Addendum:  July 4, 2016

Much more detailed information has come to light since this was written, completely substantiating the above general findings, but with much more which we will post later.  Until then, this is the

end of part one.

Yours in Truth,

Bro. Regan C. Balman