"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" 1 Cor. 15: 22

Rom. 5: 12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

The L.H.M.M. tract says: "That man was created perfect, . . . and that through sin he fell"

The new B.S.M. tract says: "That the human race was created perfect . . . and that through sin they fell"

Question – Which statement is correct? Why the change?

Answer­ - The whole plan of redemption revealed in the Bible is pivoted upon two things: man's condemnation to the curse in Adam by Divine justice for Adam's sin, and man's ransom from that curse-condemnation by Christ through His righteousness unto death as Adam's and our ransom in Adam. There is nothing in the facts of the curse but is in harmony with the thought that the curse came upon all through one common ancestor; for it is evident that the curse is by heredity transmitted from generation to generation, and hence must have come from the first generation of mankind as its guilty recipient; otherwise some of the race, the descendants of non-sinning ancestors, would have escaped it. Whether one will dispute this or not, it is evidently the Biblical teaching (Rom. 5: 12-19; 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22), and certainly is in harmony with the fact that the curse is hereditary, which all observation and experience certainly prove to be a fact. The Bible proposition is that Adam for indulgence in sin had to pay its price, enslavement unto death under the curse, exacted by God, the Creditor, who required the debtor to pay the price for his sin-indulgence, for the reason that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6: 23). E12, 232-233

Consecration as Related to Present-Day Conditions

From WT, March 1914, (R5410): AS TO THOSE CONSECRATING SINCE EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-ONE

"Some have been concerned as to what evidence, if any, a person consecrating himself since 1881 would have that his consecration had been accepted of God. We would say regarding that that something would depend on how recently the person had made the consecration. If very recently, he would have no sure means of determining. If a year or two had passed, and he hat not in the meantime received any evidences of the holy Spirit's begetting--if he had not received increased ability to understand and appreciate the truth; if he had not experienced a love for the truth and a desire to serve it; if he had not found some opportunity for serving the truth, and some experiences of trial--in such case he would have reason to doubt the divine acceptance of his consecration..."

"The evidences seem to be that there are still quite a number of vacancies in the elect number, because there are people coming into present truth and consecrating who have come directly from the world. This would seem to indicate that there are not at present a sufficient number fully consecrated to complete the 144,000. If there were, these would be given the preference over those not consecrated."

This reference from Bro. Russell considers those individuals consecrating since 1881, not 1878.

Questions for the ET

Dear Bro. R.M. Herzig, Executive Trustee, L.H.M.M:

Why do you continue to emphasize that the arrangements have been violated? Why do you fail to answer any questions when truth references are presented to you that deny your contention that the Youthful Worthies began as individuals in 1878 and began as a class in 1881?

You have to admit that there were no issues prior to 2004. In fact, issues started when you took the Executive Trustee (ET) position in 2004. There is nothing wrong with using truth writings to present the truth. But, when you begin altering the truth writings deliberately to change the intent, by inserting 1878 for example, and adding and expressing ones own unfounded thoughts is wrong!

General questions to blog readers:

Why did the current ET, who is a non-spirit begotten consecrated individual, change the intent of an article entitled “Quasi Elect” PT 1978, p. 50 as written by our beloved Bro. Jolly, a spirit begotten individual and spiritual leader.

• He deletes the following statements in bold: we take pleasure in republishing it here with "a number of important additions.” and here adds in italics: “few changes to reflect our present view.” Were the former servants wrong? Why the change? Was the former view wrong?

• Why do you suppose that he (ET) deleted this statement in bold? “ ( c ) the antitypical Court of the Epiphany Tabernacle and Temple "in the finished picture--- have as a class been in the process of development (see E-4, The Epiphany's Elect;”)
• He follows this by adding in italics: “The Great Company has finished its course and has now received the spirit nature (Rev. 7: 1-14). The Youthful Worthies, as the last elect class, has been in the process of development since their inception in 1878 (see E 4, The Epiphany's Elect, pp. 372-376; PT No. 519).”  

THIS WASN'T BRO. JOLLY'S THOUGHT CONCERNING THE YOUTHFUL WORTHIES! HE NEVER IN ANY OF HIS WRITINGS CLAIMED 1878 AS THE INCEPTION DATE FOR THE YOUTHFUL WORTHIES. HE CONSISTENTLY WROTE AND SPOKE 1881 AS INDIVIDUALS AND 1914 AS A CLASS.

 

AS A SPIRIT BEGOTTEN GREAT COMPANY MEMBER, WOULDN'T YOU THINK HE WOULD KNOW THE CORRECT DATES?  OR, ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT (ET'S) DEFINITION, WAS HE A SIFTER TOO?

Prior to 2004, our former servants placed their thoughts in italics and in brackets when making changes. This is something that the current ET has not done.

In addition to making changes to the Quasi Elect article, their have been other PT articles that he has changed, including Bro. Johnson's 1913 discourse. Does he feel that this is what Bro. Johnson should have said? When does a lower class have the right to change the intent of the writings of a higher class? Bro. Jolly always taught relating to the YWs the dates of 1881 as the beginning and 1914 as becoming a class. He also taught that the YWs could not be a known as a separate and distinct class while the Little Flock were still being reaped.

Are we going to ignore this? How do we harmonize this?

Summer 2006 PT:

The Article is Deceptive: What is the correct date for the beginning of the Youthful Worthy call? Why are there differing views on it? 1878 or 1881? The Youthful Worthy call was a forty year period ending on September 16th, 1954. The writer later in the article takes the attention away from his original premise, the word "Call" and modifies the word "Class". This tactic throws the reader off from the root meaning of the question. What is the correct date for the Youthful Worthy Call?

If you are an Epiphany Bible Student, ask yourself this question: How long was the Youthful Worthy Call? If the Youthful Worthy call began in 1881 as the current ET wishes us to believe, then we have to rewrite the Epiphany Truth and add 33 years to the 40 year call to make this error work.

Example: Notice below the subtle topic change from "Call" to "Class" by the current ET. Notice the change of thought moving this Epiphany (1914) Class to the Parousia (1881).

Summer 2006 PT on page 21-C2 the article so states “Please note, that this above insert is describing classes, not individuals, who are separate from group affiliation, and it emphasizes the fact that the Youthful Worthies are developed as a class from 1881 onward, which supports our contention that they were first recognized as coming into existence as individuals from 1878 and later as a class in 1881, not in 1914.”

Additional thoughts addressing the word "Class"

The example above does not harmonize with other truth references, such as Bro. Jolly's discourse at the 1970 Chicago Convention entitled “Jehovah The Keeper of Israel”. “The Youthful Worthies were developing as a class, a distinct class, that consecrated after spirit begettal ended in 1914 and from 1914 for the next forty years until 1954. Here we have the Great Company developing as a class and the Youthful Worthies developing as a separate class also.” Sr. Carla Olson has the tape.

Concerned Epiphany Bible Student  

Continued - See comments for additional information.

New Class in God's Plan Developing

PT February 1919, Page 34--"Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons that we call the "Youthful Worthies" did not exist as individuals of a class; but since that time [the date given, 1881] they [plural, these persons or individuals] have been [in existence] and now [when written, in the Epiphany] are coming as such [a class] into existence, and are showing some evidence of existence as such [a class]. Yea, we expect them to become shortly very marked as a class, separate and distinct from the Little Flock and the Great Company. The reason for their coming into existence as a class, though undiscerned hitherto as such, is that, since the General Call ceased, more people have consecrated to the Lord than can be provided with crowns from among those that wait as aspirants; and therefore the surplus consecrators were not begotten of the Spirit."

The title of this blog entry is the subtitle for the above text in the original PT reference. It indicates a NEW class (not an old one) in development during the Epiphany. Also, covered in a previous blog entry, please note the proper meaning of “individuals of a class” in the dependent clause (in blue, within brackets). “As such” is not a substitute for “therefore.” Rather, “such” must refer to an antecedent noun or noun phrase in order for “as such” to make grammatical sense. As a test, ask yourself “as what?”

Cornelius

Acts 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee

The call of Cornelius ended the exclusive favor to natural Israel; and the call that went out in Oct. 1881 ended the exclusive favor to spiritual Israel, which was brought about by the call of people outside of the churches as well as in the churches. Let no one, from this statement, understand us to mean that nobody was any longer called to Bride-ship with Christ after 1881; for such a special call was extended to individuals in and out of the churches until the full number of the Elect in Sept. 1914 was fixedly complete, even as the call of Cornelius and other Gentiles in Oct. 36 did not exclude individual Jews from the call thereafter, though it ended Israel's exclusive favor. But we do mean that as the fulness of the Gentiles probationarily came in by the Spring of 1878 (Rom. 11: 25), and as some of them fell away from their steadfastness by Oct. 1881, only such a number of subsequent respondents to the invitation to consecrate could be Spirit-begotten as were needed to take the crowns lost by those who fell away from their steadfastness. But hundreds of thousands consecrated, while only a few thousand crowns were available, and thus there were more consecrators than available crowns. For the surplus consecrators the Lord has provided Youthful Worthiship. Therefore ever since 1881 those surplus consecrators have been forming a new class in God's Plan. And as since just after mid-September 1914 the fulness of Gentiles fixedly came in, i.e., since the full number of those who would prove faithful came in by that time, it follows that all consecrators since that time are probationarily Youthful Worthies. For a few years yet this class will be forming and developing. E16, p. 127

Some Comments on Ruth

From PT August, 1940, Page 121. Blog comments are posted in blue, within brackets.

Ruth 1: PT '33 p. 82
1 There was a famine—Scarcity of new Truth from 1844 to 1874.
A certain man—Crown-lost leaders.
Bethlehem—Sphere of Bible Truth as due.
Country of Moab—Nominal church.
His wife—Crown-lost ledlings.
Two sons—The more and the less faithful justified leaders.
2 Elimelech—(Powerful king) Crown-lost leaders who partook in the Miller movement, and who went back to the nominal church.
Naomi—(Pleasantness) Crown-lost ledlings.
Mahlon—(Sickly) The more faithful tentatively–justified leaders.
Chilion—(Pining) The less faithful tentatively-justified leaders.
3 Elimelech died—Swallowed up in worldly conditions, their New Creatures died.
4 Two sons took wives . . . of Moab—The justified leaders gathered leadable justified ones to themselves in the nominal church.
Orpah—(Stubborn) Less faithful justified ledlings.
Ruth—(Friendship) More faithful justified ledlings.
Abode ten years—Fullness of time to remain in the nominal church.
5 Mahlon and Chilion died—Swallowed up in worldly conditions, their justification lapsed.
6 The Lord had visited His people—God had renewed His favor.
Giving them bread—Giving the Parousia Truth.
7 She went forth . . . daughters-in-law—Became interested in the Truth then due, which separated their hearts and minds from the nominal church.
Return unto . . . Judah—Away from the nominal church and into the Truth movement again.
8 Return each to her mother's house—Crown-lost new creatures' acts gave these the thought that they should leave them and settle down to a comfortable life in the nominal church.
9 They . . . wept—Sorrow at prospect of parting.
10 We will return with thee—The two justified classes determined to advance toward the Truth. [Both Ruth and Orpah are referred to as classes. See also E4, page 371]
11 Why will ye go with me?—Antitypical Naomi's course raised in the minds of antitypical Orpah and Ruth the question, Why should we cease to work for, and to attend nominal-church meetings and do the opposite?
13 The hand of the Lord is gone out against me—This thought was in the antitype concluded from the crown-lost ledlings' unfruitful efforts with nominal-church people.
14 Orpah kissed her—Failure to meet the test and to advance indicated their desire to leave them. [Orpah advanced only so far on the journey, then returned.]
Ruth clave unto her—Overcame in the test and remained with the consecrated. [Ruth remained with the consecrated. She was not yet consecrated, since the comment makes a distinction between Ruth and Naomi.]
16 Whither thou goest, I will go—Types consecration of the faithful justified class following the crown-lost new creatures and leaving the nominal church. Youthful Worthies are not Spirit-begotten. [Ruth class is now consecrated. She could not have been before verse 16, as we would then have to conclude Orpah class was also consecrated during the earlier part of the journey.]
19 They two . . . came to Bethlehem—Persevered, advancing in the Truth and its Spirit. City was moved—The left-overs of the cleansed sanctuary class, as well as the Parousia class rejoiced.
Is this Naomi?—A class that went out and returned. [Naomi also noted as a class.]
20 Call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me—Convinced the Lord had striped them for leaving God's cleansed people to return to Babylon.
21 I went out full . . . home again empty—Recognized loss of spirituality and spiritual privileges and associates.
22 Beginning of barley harvest—From 1878 to 1881.

Ruth 2:
1 Boaz—Our Lord.
3 Gleaned in the field . . . belonging unto Boaz—Zealous Youthful Worthies, not Spirit-begotten, from 1881 onward were given opportunities to serve in the Harvest under the Chief Reaper. [Since Youthful Worthies did not exist from 1878-81, logically none were available to be given opportunities to serve in the Harvest prior to 1881.]
4 Boaz came from Bethlehem—Our Lord coming from His activities of dispensing the Truth to the Church.
The Lord be with you—Blessed the reapers in their service of others.
5 Whose damsel is this?—Our Lord raised in Bro. Russell's mind the question as to who the unbegotten consecrators were; for the consecrated were more numerous than the available crowns. [Crowns were only available after the General Call ceased, from 1881 onward.]
6 Came back with Naomi out of . . . Moab—That Servant in Towers from 1881 onward pointed out an unbegotten class among the returning crown-lost new creatures. [Youthful Worthies existed from 1881 onward. If the word "class" is your tripping point, please be aware of its use above for Naomi, Ruth and Orpah. As structured here, the original comments beautifully show the correct view.]