WAR IN THE HEAVENS: JOLLY ATTACKS HOEFLE
The 35 Accusations published against JJH
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
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"
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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment