Who We Are

August 19, 2014

An open letter to Don Frost concerning his incorrect prophetic applications and twisted historical premises:

Brother Don,

I understand that after you interacted with Brother Duane Dewey and his wife via telephone, that you made a commitment to contact me. Previously, you told Brother Michael Chapman that you were reviewing my public materials, and when finished, I should expect a call from you. When Michael had brought to my attention the conversations you and he have had, I expressed my doubt in ever hearing from you. There have been numerous times when men have stated that they intend to contact me and converse upon that which they perceive to be my erroneous ideas, but they never, ever do. I found it unfortunate that Duane had put you in a position where you felt compelled to finally contact me; for by the time that you had emailed me asking to set up some future interaction between us, things had changed. Some changes, I am sure, perhaps even Duane will not understand the significance of.

“The publications sent forth from our printing houses are to prepare a people to meet God. Throughout the world they are to do the same work that was done by John the Baptist for the Jewish nation. By startling messages of warning, God’s prophet awakened men from worldly dreaming. Through him God called backsliding Israel to repentance. By his presentation of truth he exposed popular delusions. In contrast with the false theories of his time, truth in his teaching stood forth as an eternal certainty. ‘Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ was John’s message. This same message, through the publications from our printing houses, is to be given to the world today. The prophecy that John’s mission fulfilled outlines our work,—‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.’ Matthew 3:2, 3. As John prepared the way for the first, so we are to prepare the way for the second, advent of the Savior.”  Counsels to Writers and Editors, 178.

Public statements are identified with the exposing of “popular delusions” and “false theories” as seen in the work John the Baptist. This is the justification for much that has been written in the past year and a half in the Future for America newsletters, and now in this open letter. Prior to your recent email stating your desire to interact with me (shortly after your phone interaction with Duane), Bill Campbell had already begun his mass promotion of your false teachings. Now that your false teachings are public, they require a public (not private) rebuke. (I am aware that beforehand you had been teaching these foolish ideas, but Bill succeeded in flooding the market and thus, has forced a response.)

So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him. Isaiah 59:19.

If my input was of any worth to your understanding, it should have been obtained prior to the mass dissemination of your faulty ideas. I am not saying this because I believe people need to speak to me before they preach and teach their convictions, but simply because you had raised the idea several times to others that you would indeed interact with me over these things.

Over a year ago, a meeting took place at Randy Moeller’s where Emiliano Richards introduced a false historical premise that has been (at least partially) adopted by you, Leo Ortiz, and probably others. I have no way of knowing whether Emiliano’s false historical premise was actually co-opted by you and Leo, or if you all arrived at this false premise independently of one another—but, it matters not. That false historical premise is that I have been typified by William Miller, and (according to Emiliano and Leo) that Miller rejected the Midnight Cry message that was presented by Samuel Snow. You may not have stood upon the idea that Miller rejected the Midnight Cry as Emiliano and Leo do, but instead have reasoned that Miller was the last to receive it, and therefore I would be the last to receive your new light. Accompanying this idea is the assertion—separately claimed by you and Emiliano (both inferring it about yourselves), and Leo (directly teaching it about himself)—that you (or they) are currently fulfilling the role of Samuel Snow in presenting the modern fulfillment of the Midnight Cry.

(Some time after Emiliano inserted this teaching into the public arena, I spoke with him face-to-face about it; initially, he denied teaching it. Thereafter, I informed him that the only reason I even knew this claim existed was because those who had watched it on the internet after Randy posted it had called and emailed me about it. I also notified Emiliano of the fact that after I asked Randy if he heard Emiliano teach these things, Randy admitted it was true—though he claimed he was uncertain of what exactly Emiliano was implying in the presentation. After those two points were shared with Emiliano, he then claimed that he had not meant it that way. So, perhaps Emiliano did nothing more than publically introduce, and then privately retract, a false idea. I do not know where he stands on this teaching today.)

Miller never rejected the Midnight Cry prior to October 22, 1844. On October 22, 1844, the door closed to the Holy Place, and the door in the parable of the ten virgins was closed for the Millerites. In December of 1844, Miller reverted to his original understanding of the Midnight Cry that predated Snow’s presentation of the Midnight Cry by more than a decade. For anyone to claim or infer that I (typified by Miller) am destined to reject their so-called Midnight Cry message before our door of probation closes at the Sunday Law is evidence that they do not understand the history which they are trying to use to support their misguided premises. Miller may have been the last to accept Snow’s presentation of the Midnight Cry, but he did accept it.

Though I believe that you understand the previous paragraph, it is apparent to me that your understanding of Millerite history includes other erroneous ideas. For example: Samuel Snow derived his understanding of the Midnight Cry from an article that William Miller penned in May of 1843. Can you show how your Midnight Cry message has been derived from anything I have ever taught? You certainly cannot, for your teaching is based upon a totally different prophetic model than I have employed—a model that I have opposed for years. There is no connection between your Midnight Cry message and the previous teachings of the one you are identifying as being typified by Miller. Couple that with the fact that when Miller finally accepted Snow’s presentation of the Midnight Cry, he (Miller) wrote a letter to Joshua Himes and publically thanked Snow for his work.

“On the Seventh Month

“‘Behold the Bridegroom cometh.’

“Dear Brother Himes:—I see a glory in the seventh month which I never saw before. Although the Lord had shown me the typical bearing of the seventh month, one year and a half ago, yet I did not realize the force of the types. Now, blessed be the name of the Lord, I see a beauty, a harmony, and an agreement in the Scriptures, for which I have long prayed, but did not see until today.—Thank the Lord, O my soul. Let Brother Snow, Brother Storrs and others, be blessed for their instrumentality in opening my eyes.

“William Miller. Low Hampton, October 6, 1844.” Joshua Himes, Advent Herald Reporter, October 16, 1844.

It appears now that you have been pressured into speaking with me, but this does not negate the fact that prior to this recent decision you had informed more than a few people that you would not interact with me because you believed that since I have been typified by Miller I would be the very last to accept your misguided teachings. Yet, the history that you have employed to form your argument shows that Miller and Snow expressed mutual confidence in each other throughout the development of the message of the Midnight Cry. Let us not be likened to that religious sect on planet Earth that has obtained the reputation of misrepresenting history in order to uphold their false views.

In this discussion, it is not I—but you, Leo, and Emiliano who have either inferred or directly claimed that I have been typified by Miller. I do reject your message, Leo’s message, and Emiliano’s; not because I was typified by William Miller, but rather because all three of you employ faulty historical analyses and incorrect prophetic applications. I will address this further in this open letter, but want to finalize a point before then.

If I have been typified by William Miller, then according to the sacred history of the Millerite movement, my rejection of the true Midnight Cry of the modern Samuel Snow (whether it be you, Emiliano, or Leo) will take place after the door closes for Adventism at the Sunday law and not before. Also, if I have been typified by William Miller, then according to the sacred history of the Millerite movement, your Midnight Cry message would be based upon work that I have done in the past, plus we would have a mutual confidence in each other. We neither hold a mutual confidence, nor is your message built upon a foundational approach that I have employed or endorsed, but rather something completely different.

Your biblical application is not new. It is a repeat of an old controversy in Adventism. James White and Uriah Smith maintained a controversy over biblical application from the time when Uriah Smith first introduced his false idea until the death of James White. Recently, a modern author (Donald E. Mansell, Adventist and Armageddon) has written about the terrible aftermath of Smith’s approach to biblical application. His analysis is not only essentially correct, but also a validation of James White’s criticism of Uriah Smith’s faulty biblical analysis. In the past, Louis Were also wrote several books, tracts, and articles identifying the faulty prophetic application of Uriah Smith.

The two-fold problem of Uriah Smith (which James White repeatedly addressed) is the same two-fold problem found in your teachings. We have been forewarned that in the time of the latter rain, “old controversies” would be revived. Quite frankly, your message is the echo of Uriah Smith’s foolishness.

“We are standing upon the threshold of great and solemn events. The whole earth is to be lightened with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the channels of the great deep. Prophecies are being fulfilled, and stormy times are before us. Old controversies which have apparently been hushed for a long time will be revived, and new controversies will spring up; new and old will commingle, and this will take place right early. The angels are holding the four winds, that they shall not blow, until the specified work of warning is given to the world; but the storm is gathering, the clouds are loading, ready to burst upon the world, and to many it will be as a thief in the night.” An Appeal to our Ministers and Conference Committees, 1892, 38.

James White repeatedly identified that the erroneous application of Uriah Smith was accomplished when Smith used history to interpret prophecy, as opposed to allowing prophecy to interpret history. The prop that Smith employed to uphold this faulty application disregarded the fact that prophetic passages are to be understood and established figuratively—not literally. The problem between Smith and White began when Uriah Smith introduced that the king of the north was Turkey, not the papacy. The old controversy of Uriah Smith is the new controversy of you, Don Frost. Perhaps you can find some solace in the fact that the recent book by Mansell, details that Smith’s false concepts tragically found a large reception within Adventism. So you may very well expect to have a good reception of your teachings, but they are still as erroneous as Smith’s was.

You, Leo, Emiliano, and other current public figures in this message have wrested both Miller’s rules and the Spirit of Prophecy to uphold your various prophetic conclusions. I say “various” because I know of not one of you that fully agree with each other. However, where all of you do manifest agreement is in the fact that each of you pass over and set aside clear historical and prophetic principles with the purpose of promoting fallacious teachings.

It has been shared with me that you question why I follow Louis Were’s teaching on the biblical rule of “before and after the cross” regarding prophetic application. It is true that I refer to Were’s books on this rule, but not because he is the point of reference. I came to understand that prophecy was to be applied figuratively long before I knew of Louis Were. In the public ministry that I have been in for almost twenty years, there was a period of time (at least three years running) that I was continuously in controversy with the “futurists” of Adventism. I was regularly being confronted by those who attempt to reapply the time prophecies at the end of the world in a day-for-a-day fashion—the Larry Wilson followers, the Dr. Robert Hauser followers, the Robert Wheeling followers, the Marvin Moore followers, and on and on. Before that period of time, I had no idea what a “futurist” was, or that the application of futuristic prophecy had been purposely invented by the Jesuits of Rome. But since that time, I have figured the Lord had a reason for me to learn that history. Perhaps your current teachings are part of that reason?

Since I was providentially in an ongoing controversy with Adventism’s futurists, it became easy to refer people to the writings of Louis Were in hopes that they could become educated on this subject. It was far easier to refer someone to a book that was already available than to re-write one. So, due to my reference to the writings of Louis Were being a matter of public record, I can understand why you may think that I derived my understanding of figurative biblical application from Louis Were—but this is not a correct assumption.

I do not actually know when or how I recognized and accepted the principle that prophecies are to be applied figuratively, but I assumed that I learned it from the Holy Spirit. That being said, the first public presentation that I ever gave began with a passage from Ellen White, and I have since employed numerous times through the years. Anytime I present this, I have always informed my audience that this is my baseline. The reason being, that I determined for them to internalize the definition of prophecy. The passage reads as follows:

“Historical events, showing the direct fulfillment of prophecy, were set before the people, and the prophecy was seen to be a figurative delineation of events leading down to the close of this earth’s history.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101–102.

It was always vitally important for me to layout and assist in understanding the definition of prophecy before we began to study it. Next, I covered the definition of “figurative” from the 1828 Webster’s dictionary.

FIGURATIVE: 1. Representing something else; representing by resemblance; typical. 2. Representing by resemblance; not literal or direct. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

Ellen White, not only Louis Were, informs us that prophecy is “a figurative delineation of events.” Sometime after my confrontation with the time setters of Adventism, I began to realize that literal applications of prophecy were the work of the Jesuits. They purposely invented a prophetic application in an attempt to destroy the ability to identify the pope of Rome as the antichrist. When I began to digest that history, I came to understand that before William Miller was even born, Protestantism had so fully recognized the false Jesuit prophetic application that includes futurism’s literal application in place of the Protestant figurative application; that the Protestants had actually written books exposing and ridiculing this Jesuit application. I also found that the Protestant world never came close to fully accepting this foolish Jesuit application of prophecy until the introduction of the Scofield study Bible at the beginning of the twentieth century. That Bible incorporated a biblical commentary based upon the Jesuit ideas. From that point on, little by little, the Jesuit futuristic ideas swept over the Protestant world. When I came into public ministry, I found that those faulty ideas had also taken root within Adventism.

I find it ironic that with all the lamenting that Bill Campbell has exhibited concerning the tragic affairs of the Newport church, one of the antagonists he laments the most over is Steve Wohlberg. Isn’t it ironic that Bill can point to Wohlberg’s negative role in the Newport crisis and simultaneously disregard the fact that Wohlberg’s influence within Adventism has (at least in part) been accomplished because of his expertise on the subject of Jesuit futurism entering into the Protestant world through the Scofield study Bible? Why or how would Wohlberg or anyone that is sympathetic with his work on the Jesuit prophetic application give any credence to messengers of 9/11 that now employ those very techniques?

Sister White stated:

“Historical events, showing the direct fulfillment of prophecy, were set before the people, and the prophecy was seen to be a figurative delineation of events leading down to the close of this earth’s history.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101–102.

This is exactly what William Miller’s rules uphold. But you, Leo, Emiliano, and others misrepresent Miller’s rules to endorse your preconceptions and misconceptions. There is only one of Miller’s fourteen rules that identify how God reveals things to come—that rule is Rule VI.

It is unfortunate that Randy Moeller (who is also a sympathetic promoter of your teachings) would simply not ask his wife to grammatically analyze Miller’s rules. I say this because his wife is a professional expert in grammar. She is employed to write technical manuals for various business enterprises. On one hand, she must protect the companies that she is writing the manuals for from liability in case something claimed in the manual is incorrect, while on the other hand her writing must also be clear enough that the reader of the manual can understand the directions contained therein. She is a professional in English grammar, not to mention the fact that she is also a linguist, fluent in several languages. If Randy would have her carefully analyze Miller’s fourteen rules, she would indubitably find that there is only one of those fourteen rules that identify how God reveals thing to come—again, that rule is Rule VI.

RULE VI—God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables, and in this way the same things are often time revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures, and parables.

The only way God reveals things to come, according to Miller, is “by visions, in figures and parables.” In Rule VIII, Miller is in full agreement with Ellen White when he states:

RULE VIIIFigures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy, to represent future things.

Rules VI-XIII address certain issues connected with figures, but none of the information from Rules VII-XIII contradicts that “visions, figures, and parables” is the only method “God” reveals “things to come.”

You, Leo, Emiliano, and others claim to uphold Miller’s rules, but you destroy them with your literal application of prophecy! You confuse your audience with references about prophecy being literally fulfilled, while making no distinction whatsoever to the fact that the fulfillment of prophecy is a totally different subject than the application of prophecy. It is true that every prophecy is literally fulfilled. The correct interpretation of this truth is so imperative, that it is emphasized in three (perhaps more than three) of the Conflict of the Ages series.

“After the Lord’s ascension, the disciples realized the fulfillment of His promise. The scenes of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ were a living reality to them. They saw that the prophecies had been literally fulfilled.” The Desire of Ages, 667.

“In his [Paul’s] presentation of the gospel he sought to make plain the prophecies relating to the first advent of Christ. He showed conclusively that these prophecies had been literally fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. The foundation of his faith was the sure word of prophecy.” Acts the Apostles, 124.

“With intense interest he [William Miller] studied the books of Daniel and the Revelation, employing the same principles of interpretation as in the other scriptures, and found, to his great joy, that the prophetic symbols could be understood. He saw that the prophecies, so far as they had been fulfilled, had been fulfilled literally; that all the various figures, metaphors, parables, similitudes, etc., were either explained in their immediate connection, or the terms in which they were expressed were defined in other scriptures, and when thus explained, were to be literally understood. ‘I was thus satisfied,’ he says, ‘that the Bible is a system of revealed truths, so clearly and simply given that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.’—Bliss, page 70. Link after link of the chain of truth rewarded his efforts, as step by step he traced down the great lines of prophecy. Angels of heaven were guiding his mind and opening the Scriptures to his understanding.” The Great Controversy, 320.

The fact that every prophecy is literally fulfilled is a completely different issue from how we establish and apply prophetic passages. Every prophecy will have a literal historical fulfillment, and you will only correctly recognize that prophecy if you seek to understand the prophetic illustrations contained in the “visions, figures, and parables” in a figurative sense.

Sister White often refers to passages in the Bible that will be literally fulfilled. This does not mean that those prophecies are unsealed to the student by relating to the passages in a literal fashion—for this would not only contradict her stated definition of prophecy and Miller’s rules, but it would be absolutely absurd. Are we to believe that when she informs us that Ezekiel 9 is to be literally fulfilled that it has to do with six angels going through the temple in Jerusalem? When are they going to rebuild that temple in order for that to be fulfilled literally? Every prophecy is literally fulfilled, but how a student of prophecy rightly divides a prophetic passage is a different consideration then how that prophecy will be fulfilled in history. If a prophetic passage is to be correctly established, a student of prophecy will analyze the prophetic passage in a figurative sense.

To build your false prophetic model while claiming to uphold Miller’s rule is quite a trick, since it requires that you cloud some issues, wrest some facts, and dazzle your audience with some titillating ideas designed to stimulate their emotional sensibilities. With all the clouds, wresting, and stimulation, you destroy Miller’s rules—while professing to uphold them! You are forced by the make-up of your audience to manifest this fancy footwork, for your audience is familiar with the following endorsement of Miller’s rules:

“Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology, Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation:—

“‘1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.’

The above is a portion of these rules; and in our study of the Bible we shall all do well to heed the principles set forth.” Review and Herald, November 25, 1884.

If you are going to speak to the audience that professes to be those that will actually participate in the proclamation of the third angel’s message, then you must claim to uphold Miller’s rules. But, Rule VIII claims that figures “always” have a figurative meaning.  Webster’s 1828 dictionary informs us of the meaning of “always.”

ALWAY, ALWAYS: 1. Perpetually; throughout all time; as, God is always the same. 2. Continually; without variation.

Figures “perpetually” and “without variation” have a figurative meaning. But you, as did Uriah Smith, insert a literal application to uphold your effort to allow historical events to define prophecy.

You teach that Sister White upholds a literal application of prophecy in direct contradiction to her stated words. You employ a passage from The Great Controversy which actually refutes yours claim, but you insist otherwise. It is also of interest that the passage is primarily addressing false teachings and false teachers.

“The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: ‘Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.’ Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.’ John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error.” The Great Controversy, 598.

You interpret this passage to say that prophecy can be literally applied, when she actually stated, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” She is stating here that a passage that possesses no symbolic or figurative meaning is to be treated as truth, not as a prophecy. You employ this identical misguided logic on Miller’s eleventh rule to attempt the same ends.

RULE XIHow to know when a word is used figuratively. If it makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, then it must be understood literally, if not, figuratively.

Miller has already established in Rule VI that God only reveals things to come by “visions, figures, and parables.” He is now helping the student to understand how to know when a passage is figurative in nature, or simply a literal passage of Scripture. In this rule and in the previous passage from the Spirit of Prophecy, you suggest that both Miller and Sister White are informing us of how to apply prophecy in a literal fashion, when in actuality they are informing us how to know when a passage is not prophetic. If it is a literal passage with no figurative meaning, then it is simply a literal passage in God’s word which possesses no revelation of things to come. This is where Randy’s wife would excel. Without any difficulty, she would easily recognize that there is no justification for suggesting that Miller’s eleventh rule somehow overturns his sixth rule.

Uriah Smith became so wrapped up in his attempt to foist his false prophetic application upon Adventism, that he placed in his evaluation of Daniel 11 a claim that the vision of Daniel 11 was a literal prophecy. His claim is a direct denial of Sister White’s claim that prophecy is a “figurative delineation of events,” and Miller’s sixth and eighth rules that state that God reveals things through “visions, figures, and parables” which “always” have a “figurative meaning.” Smith needed to place that false premise in his opening remarks of Daniel 11, since his primary point of contention was the identification of the king of the north as a literal not figurative power. The very first publication by the Millerites after October 22, 1844 was titled The Word to the Little Flock, which was co-authored by Joseph Bates, James & Ellen White. On page 9, James White wrote:

“Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chapter 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all Christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not ‘come to his end;’ and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation13:11–18. His number is 666.”

James White knew from the very foundation of Adventism that the king of the north was Rome (figurative), not Turkey (literal). So, when Uriah Smith began to teach otherwise, White believed that he himself was defending not only Truth in a general sense, but that he was defending against an attack upon the foundational truths of Adventism. The attack that White opposed was based upon the concept of using current history to define prophecy, in connection with employing a literal application of prophetic symbols instead of a figurative application as Protestantism had always done, and as Miller’s rules identify, and as Sister White thereafter confirmed. The history of the time that Smith used was referred to by the historians as “the eastern question” and had to do with the aggression of Islam (the children of the east—9/11). Smith’s old controversy [which is your (Don Frost’s) new controversy] has several parallel characteristics for those who will see.

It is beyond the scope of this open letter, but it needs to be noted for the few that will hear, that the Protestant rule that identifies prophecy as a “figurative delineation of events” is the rule that allowed them to become Protestants. Without that rule, they would have been unable to identify the pope as the antichrist, and would have had no justification for separating from the papal beast. We may not understand this historical fact today, but the Jesuits understood it well enough to invent the literal application of prophetic symbols for the exclusive purpose of destroying the Protestant’s ability to identify the pope as the antichrist. The false rule that Smith employed—which you have now taken up—is not simply false, but it is a direct attack against genuine Protestantism, the foundations of Adventism (Miller’s rules), the Spirit of Prophecy, and the true message of the Midnight Cry.

As already noted, you publically use The Great Controversy statement that completely denies your premise to claim that prophecy can be literally applied. You place your emphasis on the portion of the sentence that reads, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning,” and then suggest that a tower is obviously a tower. You cut the sentence in half to uphold your faulty premise. The sentence reads, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.”

The word “tower” in the both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy is directly defined as a symbol, but somehow you overlook this fact and move right ahead with your presentation. The Bible identifies a tower as symbolic when it states:

And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem. Micah 4:8.

Sister White identifies the Tower of the flock as the second Adam. Both the second Adam and the Tower of the flock are figures of Jesus Christ.

“All that was lost by the first Adam will be restored by the second. The prophet says, ‘O Tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, to thee shall it come, even the first dominion.’” Review and Herald, October 22, 1908. 

The Bible therefore identifies that a tower is a symbol of Christ, who is also a temple according to Revelation 21:22.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Sister White completes this figurative loop concerning the figurative nature of a biblical tower when she states:

“The tower was a symbol of the temple. The lord of the vineyard had done everything needful for its prosperity. ‘What could have been done more to my vineyard,’ he says, ‘that I have not done in it.’ Isaiah 5:4.” The Desire of Ages, 597.

Therefore, both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy inform any who are willing to see that a “tower” at the end of the world is a figure for a church. A biblical “tower” either represents God’s church or a fallen church at the end of the world, but you teach that it represents the Twin Towers of New York City. You prepare your listeners to accept your false contention by turning Sister White’s words upside down, by ignoring the closing words of the sentence which states “unless a symbol or figure is employed.”

You disregard that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy both specifically define a “tower” in a figurative sense, identifying it as a church, while turning Miller’s sixth rule upside down by claiming that there is one other way that “God” “reveals things to come” beyond “visions, figures, and parables.” Your ploy in disregarding Rule VI is in turning Rule XI upside down by claiming that Rule XI is teaching the student of prophecy when he should apply prophecy literally, when grammatically Miller is simply identifying how to make a distinction between a literal or figurative passage. In essence, you turn Rule VI and Rule XI upside down. When you turn a 6 upside down, you get a 9; when you turn an 11 upside down, you get an 11. So, Miller’s rules themselves provide a figurative symbol of your work, for your turning of his rules upside down changes Rules VI and XI into 9 and 11—9/11—which is of course, the very history that you employ to define prophecy, as opposed to allowing prophecy to define history.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16.

You and those sympathetic to you may think that the fact that turning Miller’s rules upside down figuratively produces 9/11 is simply some misguided human argument that I am employing to attack your Midnight Cry message. But I would assume the majority of the audience that might consider your teachings and my response to your teachings have already recognized that William Miller’s dream, as recorded in the book Early Writings, possesses the same inspiration as the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy—we have all accepted that his dream figuratively identifies the covering up and unsealing of the truths represented as Jeremiah’s old paths. With Sister White’s inspired endorsement of these rules, we should also understand that the Hand of inspiration was as much the author of the rules as it was Miller’s dream. Therefore, the recognition that 9/11 is figuratively identified when you and others employ Rule XI to turn Miller’s rules upside down should cause a student of prophecy to step back and remember that they are standing on holy ground when they study these things.

When Jesus had fed the five thousand, He sent the disciples to the sea and told them to get a boat and cross over to the other side. He tarried behind for so long that the disciples finally left without Him. That night, in the midst of a great storm, He came to them walking on the water. He then stilled the winds. The next day He was in the synagogue in Capernaum teaching that if anyone were to be His disciple they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. This is the story of 9/11.

The tarrying time in our history began at 9/11 when the winds of strife were restrained. Thereafter, we are called to eat His flesh and drink His blood. In His time, most of those that claimed to be His disciples turned from Him, for they refused His message of eating His flesh and drinking His blood due to the same faulty prophetic approach that you and Uriah Smith have employed. Sister White is specific when she says those disciples that left Him at the synagogue in Capernaum did so because they determined to understand His words in a literal sense, and not a figurative one.

At 9/11, you and others have turned Miller’s rules upside down as you repeat the controversy of Uriah Smith by employing the Jesuit technique of applying the prophetic symbols in a literal fashion in order to erect a platform to define prophecy through the current history—rather than allowing prophecy to identify current history. You argue that “towers” are the literal Twin Towers, disregarding the definition that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy provide for “towers” as none other than Christ—the Tower of the flock. Your insistence of applying the towers literally, repeats the disciple’s choice in the synagogue in Capernaum who chose to refer to Christ’s body (the Tower of the flock and the Bread of Heaven) as literal, rather than figurative.

I have no confidence that any of my logic can impact the direction that you and those employing these faulty concepts are heading towards; for the disciples that turned from Christ at the synagogue at Capernaum never reversed their decision once. Instead, they turned and walked no more with Him. I am certain that you are a nice guy—I have never spoken to anyone that has interacted with you that does not submit this fact about your personality. That reputation is a pleasant Christian attribute, but it is not what is at issue here. Your false teachings are what are at issue.

False teachers may appear to be very zealous for the work of God, and may expend means to bring their theories before the world and the church; but as they mingle error with truth, their message is one of deception, and will lead souls into false paths. They are to be met, and opposed, not because they are bad men, but because they are teachers of falsehood, and are endeavoring to put upon falsehood the stamp of truth. What a pity it is that men will go to such pains to discover some theory of error, when there is a whole storehouse of precious gems of truth by which the people might be enriched in the most holy faith. Instead of teaching truth, they let their imagination dwell upon that which is new and strange, and throw themselves out of harmony with those whom God is using to bring the people up upon the platform of truth. They cast aside all that has been said in regard to unity of sentiment and feeling, and trample upon the prayer of Christ as though the unity for which he prayed was unessential, that there is no necessity for his followers to be one, even as he is one with the Father. They go off on a tangent, and Jehu-like, call to their brethren to follow their example of zeal for the Lord. If their zeal led them to work in the same lines in which their brethren who have carried the heat and burden of the day, are working; if they were as persevering to overcome discouragements and obstacles as their brethren have been, they might well be imitated, and God would accept them. But men are to be condemned who start out with a proclamation of wonderful light, and yet draw away from the agents whom God is leading. This was the way in which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram did, and their action is recorded as a warning to all others. We are not to do as they have done,—accuse and condemn those upon whom God has laid the burden of the work.” Review and Herald, September 12, 1893.

I have certain empathy for you, for I believe those that have encouraged you and promoted you have a greater condemnation before the Lord in at least one regard. The Bible is clear that we are not to lift up novices to a position of influence before they have had time to prove themselves. Bill Campbell, Randy Moeller, Glenn Woiler, and others who have followed this message for years now, should have unquestionably been much more guarded in their promotion of someone who has consistently demonstrated that he did not yet understand the breadth of this message. Yet they moved forward, perhaps based upon the sentiment that all of us in this movement are holy.

First Timothy 3:6 informs us that an elder should not be a “novice,” which means “newly planted.” You have received a genuine disservice by being lifted up, well before you were ready to publically present the message. I have heard your claims that the day of the Lord began on October 22, 1844. That is preposterous. It moves the sacred waymark of the closed door in the parable of the ten virgins.

I have heard your ideas that perhaps the two failed assignation attempts of Reagan and Pope John Paul II in 1982 were the fulfillment of Daniel 11:40. That is also preposterous. It destroys the time of the end in this reform movement, which is of course another sacred waymark. These and other of your ideas should have been recognized by your promoters as evidence that you were not yet prepared to be lifted up as the modern version of Samuel Snow—even if you do infer (or at least in the past have inferred) or emphasize the close connection between the meanings of the names “Snow” and “Frost.” Some have informed me that they have read on a website or perhaps Facebook that you do not identify yourself as Snow. It is good if you have moved away from that thought, but there are far too many that have heard your claims as such in the past. If you have publically distanced yourself from that claim, I hope that you have clearly admitted that you have made this claim or inference in the past.

I am certainly no one’s judge, but my understanding is that those that have broadcasted your faulty ideas far and wide have a much more serious standing in all this than you, for they should have recognized the warning flags that many of us could see even at a distance. But they failed to see. I sometimes think that the reason we fail to see (which is simply another explanation of failing to hear), is that we spend far too much time talking, and virtually no time listening. Paul states:

And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. 1 Thessalonians 4:11.

I perceive your message as superficial and designed to connect with those that are not willing to genuinely take up the work of thorough biblical study. Your message connects with the superficial among us that Paul identifies as having “itching ears,” which I understand to be having a hunger for the emotional exciting emphasis that is located with your historical tidbits and fables that you employ to interpret prophecy. The style of presentation which those with itching ears love to hear is contrasted with a message that preaches the Word, which is to say, a message that employs the prophetic word to define history and not the reverse.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2–4.

Now that the Lion of the tribe of Judah has opened up Ezra 7:9, it can be soundly and conclusively identified that the “time” which Paul just referred to—when there will be those that “will not endure sound doctrine”—arrived in history on 9/11. At that time there will be individuals who will “heap upon themselves” false “teachers,” because they have “itching ears,” and they will turn from the “truth” unto “fables.”

At the synagogue in Capernaum, most of Christ’s disciples turned away from Him based upon their unwillingness to apply His prophetic word figuratively. In the passage above Paul is informing us (concerning the very same period of time) that there is a group that turns away, but he adds to the understanding of the motivation of the disciples that turn away. Paul makes clear that they are also those who love to listen to the fables, and that they are personably responsible for bringing these teachings upon themselves. This is the reason why I have much concern for those that are promoting your message, as I do for the messenger they are promoting.

It is because of Paul’s reference to the itching ears that I am convinced that at least part of the reason that a message such as yours finds reception among those professing to uphold Miller’s rules and the truths connected with 9/11 has to do with their ears. In my experience, I have arrived at a conclusion about human nature that may or may not be accurate. Still, I have noted from interactions I have had with God’s people through the years that those who strive to be so talkative are almost always terrible listeners. With that observation I have made the assumption that those of us that are so talkative, might be able to pray very long prayers, but I am afraid that if this is who we are, we probably do not accomplish the more important part of prayer—stopping and listening for God’s voice as He answers our requests. I therefore understand Paul’s ‘itching ears’ to represent those among us that are more than happy to drink a message such as yours; whether they understand it or not, they are starving to hear God’s voice speaking to their souls, but do not understand that it is virtually impossible to hear His voice, or anyone else’s voice for that matter, when all we do is talk.

“Those who are most superficial generally have the most to say.” Testimonies, volume 4, 71.

I am sure that this open letter will backfire against me in regard to upholding the longstanding accusation of my critical spirit, divisive nature, and unloving attitude. The reality is that I never intended to be so direct and open about your erroneous teachings. In the recent newsletters from our ministry, I was sending out warnings that your promoters could have recognized if they had chosen to do so. Those newsletters were dealing primarily with the teachings of you and Emiliano Richards, yet the Path of the Just brethren (who also teach some of these faulty ideas) determined that those newsletters were specifying them, and to them this proved that I had broken some type of mutual agreement that I never made. (I have never agreed to be silent about false teachings.) So be it.

The point is that your teachings have already cost me and Future for America in a variety of ways, and I am certain there will be more fallout after this open letter goes forth. I would have been content to share these concerns in a more subtle way through newsletters in hopes that your promoters might begin to re-evaluate their responsibility towards God in terms of being watchmen upon the walls of Zion, but the distribution of your message into the public arena has changed the situation.

If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if he is teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side. We should all know what is being taught among us; for if it is truth, we need to know it. The Sabbath-school teacher needs to know it, and every Sabbath-school scholar ought to understand it. We are all under obligation to God to understand what he sends us. He has given directions by which we may test every doctrine,—‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ [Isaiah 8:20.] But if it is according to this test, do not be so full of prejudice that you cannot acknowledge a point simply because it does not agree with your ideas.” Testimonies to Ministers, 111.

Your teachings are erroneous, and they are the fulfillment of Sister White’s warning that the “old controversies” would be revived during the time of the latter rain. The Jews that turned and walked no more with Christ in John 6 employed the literal application of His words, and His words were figurative words. In doing so, the disciples at the synagogue in Capernaum typified those from 9/11 onward that refuse to relate to the Tower of the flock as figurative. The prophetic application that the Jews employed was later introduced by the Jesuits in order to defeat Protestantism, and thereafter the same application was used by Smith to defeat Adventism. Your approach to prophetic application has been marked by God’s prophetic word in a variety of ways, and you need to publically retract your teachings; for Adventism, genuine Protestantism, and the Tower of the flock will not be defeated by this counterfeit.

Those that in my human judgment that have allowed you to become an influence in this movement—men who should have known better—need to do the very same thing in a more serious fashion. They had more light than you, and light is what we are to be judged by.

“There is less excuse in our day for stubbornness and unbelief than there was for the Jews in the days of Christ. They did not have before them the example of a nation that had suffered retribution of their unbelief and disobedience. But we have before us the history of the chosen people of God, who separated themselves from him, and rejected the Prince of life. Though they could not convict him of sin, though they could not fail to see their own hypocrisy, they hated the Prince of life because he laid bare their evil ways. In our day greater light and greater evidence is given. We have also their example, the warnings and reproofs that were presented to them, and our sin and its retribution will be the greater, if we refuse to walk in the light. Many say, ‘If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested his words, or falsely interpreted his instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified him as did the Jews;’ but that will be proved by the way in which you deal with his message and his messengers today. The Lord is testing the people of today as much as he tested the Jews in their day. When he sends his messages of mercy, the light of his truth, he is sending the spirit of truth to you, and if you accept the message, you accept of Jesus. Those who declare that if they had lived in the days of Christ, they would not do as did the rejectors of his mercy, will today be tested. Those who live in this day are not accountable for the deeds of those who crucified the Son of God; but if with all the light that shone upon his ancient people, delineated before us, we travel over the same ground, cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive reproof and warning, then our guilt will be greatly augmented, and the condemnation that fell upon them will fall upon us, only it will be as much greater as our light is greater in this age than was their light in their age.” Review and Herald, April 11, 1893.

Jeff Pippenger—August 19, 2014

Who We Are

July 17, 2014

Yesterday we received the Public Statement regarding Elder Pippenger and Future for America:

In the treatise, there is a history represented. I do not fully agree with the evaluation that was made of what took place during that time; however, I do acknowledge that the sequence presented of that history is probably fairly accurate. Nevertheless, there are most certainly elements that were left out, and slants and inferences that were included. Such things are expected when men take up the weapons of public warfare. I will refrain from “tit for tat,” and I am willing to allow this statement to be compared with the record that the angels of Heaven documented—and we know that the angels make no mistakes and they keep their records isolated from any unholy human emotion.

Those that formed this confederacy and prepared the treatise have failed to provide any evidence that my identification of the history of 9/11 to the Sunday law in the recent newsletters is erroneous.

I contend that if those who have formed this confederacy would have surveyed the field of this movement, they could have and should have discerned the many voices that have taken it upon themselves to develop and present prophetic models that deny the rules of prophetic principles adopted by William Miller, and endorsed by Ellen White. From my understanding, when individuals identify themselves as leaders in this movement, they have a subsequent responsibility to recognize errors, and to work to correct them.

“If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if he is teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side. We should all know what is being taught among us; for if it is truth, we need to know it. The Sabbath-school teacher needs to know it, and every Sabbath-school scholar ought to understand it. We are all under obligation to God to understand what he sends us. He has given direction by which we may test every doctrine,—‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ [Isaiah 8:20.] But if it is according to this test, do not be so full of prejudice that you cannot acknowledge a point simply because it does not agree with your ideas.” Testimonies to Ministers, 111.

In the frustration expressed in the treatise concerning these individuals’ perception of my character and of my past actions, they insist that I have identified them as the false disciples of 9/11. But, they have yet to provide a rebuttal to any of the doctrinal logic I have been setting forth in recent newsletters concerning the prophetic history represented from 9/11 through the Sunday law. If I am wrong, I should be presented with clear biblical passages that identify this error (or errors), so that I can repent and correct my fault. If I am correct, this very principle should be acknowledged.

I am certainly open to criticism on the attempts I have made in hope of conveying my understanding of the prophetic record in terms of clarity in writing newsletters. But, this is secondary to the issue regarding the true or false doctrinal conclusions that I possess. Granting that I may have been unclear in my representation of the false disciples of 9/11 and the fanaticism of the false applications of prophecy that are now swirling through this movement, I will try and clarify this point a little further in a brief fashion.

We have been informed that the fanaticism that impacted the Millerite movement leading up to the Great Disappointment appeared after the first disappointment—which also marks the tarrying time of the history in fulfillment of the parable of the ten virgins. We are further told that the fanaticism disappeared when the message of the Midnight Cry arrived.

“It was not the proclamation of the second advent that caused fanaticism and division. These appeared in the summer of 1844, when Adventists were in a state of doubt and perplexity concerning their real position. The preaching of the first angel’s message and of the ‘midnight cry’ tended directly to repress fanaticism and dissension.” The Great Controversy, 398.

The first angel’s message was empowered on August 11, 1840, and the first disappointment arrived on April 19, 1844. The Midnight Cry arrived at the Exeter camp meeting August 15, 1844. Therefore, from April 19, 1844—which marked the arrival of the tarrying time until the Midnight Cry of August 15, 1844—fanaticism raised its ugly head in the Millerite movement. That history, as is our history, was a fulfillment of the parable of the ten virgins.

“I am often referred to the parable of the ten virgins, five of whom were wise, and five foolish. This parable has been and will be fulfilled to the very letter, for it has a special application to this time, and, like the third angel’s message, has been fulfilled and will continue to be present truth till the close of time.” Review and Herald, August 19, 1890.

Consequently, when the tarrying time arrived at the end of the world, fanaticism had indubitably arrived—God’s word never fails. Many of the men—if not all of the men—that signed the treatise had at least at some point believed that 9/11 marked the arrival of the “day of the Lord.” At least two of those men have recently acknowledged that 9/11 does not mark the arrival of the “day of the Lord,” but that it actually marks the arrival of the tarrying time in our history.

The writings of Ellen White repeatedly warn of a satanic attempt to move or destroy the waymarks of the Millerite history, and I contend that the three primary waymarks are those that are represented in the parable of the ten virgins. There are other waymarks that will be attacked and they must be guarded; but the tarrying time, the Midnight Cry, and the closing of the door are perhaps the three most important waymarks that will come under attack.

I would further contend that if we do not know the difference between the closed door in the parable—which marks both the Sunday law and the “day of the Lord” in our history—and the tarrying time in the parable—which began at 9/11—then it is virtually impossible for your spiritual sensibilities to discern that fanaticism has entered this movement since 9/11. (In fact, one of the current primary fanatic positions holds the idea that 9/11 is not the tarrying time.) Those who appear uncertain about these waymarks are labelling my work in identifying the existing false applications of prophecy as fanaticism. If what I am teaching is false, it would behoove any professed watchmen upon the walls of Zion to know and to explain why this teaching is fanaticism.

“The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101–102.

“Today Satan is seeking opportunities to tear down the waymarks of truth,—the monuments that have been raised up along the way; and we need the experience of the aged workers who have built their house upon the solid rock, who through evil report as well as good report have been steadfast to the truth.” Gospel Workers, 104.

I invite those that are professing to be the watchmen in this history to step down off of the soap box and climb up into the watchtower, and begin fulfilling the responsibility of guarding the flock from the wolves that are now moving among the sheep. I make the claim about the wolves not only because I am aware of many men who are now teaching foolishness, which I perceive to be error, but based upon the principle that all of the prophets speak more for our time than for the days in which they lived. Therefore, based upon that prophetic truth—in connection with the prophetic fact that at the arrival of the tarrying time on 9/11 fanaticism began—all of the biblical warnings in God’s word regarding false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing has become present truth.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2–4.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 1:19–2:3.

I would offer this for your reflection as you consider the treatise. I have been, and still am, open for correction in how I am approaching the application of God’s prophetic word. Where is that correction? I find absolutely no elevated brotherly love demonstrated when we allow men to teach errors simply because they are our longtime friends, or are in some type of working relationship with us.

If those that wish to warn the world of the dangers of my unholy and unsanctified influence would turn the weapons of their warfare away from my personality and character and begin to fulfill their responsibility of rightly dividing the Word of truth and thereafter demonstrate to those now being drawn into this foolish mud fight why I am a teacher of error, they would have easy access to perhaps four hundred hours of recorded prophetic material and hundreds of pages of written material that should provide them with enough evidence to prove in a convincing way why the ideas I present are not biblical. When you produce those errors, I intend to public retract those errors.

Some of the individuals in this confederacy that have led their readers to believe that they have had a close and long-term personal relationship with me should know themselves that the easiest way to move my understanding of biblical truth is through an application of a “Thus saith the Lord.” If it is important for this confederacy to continue this public and disgraceful saga, then by all means, correct the erroneous ideas you find presented within the newsletters that have apparently been such a trial for your ministries.

Jeff Pippenger—July 17, 2014

Who We Are

July 8, 2014

An open letter to those who have become agitated over the biblical injunction that calls for a solemn assembly within the house of the Lord in advance of the Sunday law:

Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God. Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord. Joel 1:13, 14.

Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired; Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord’s anger come upon you. Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger. Zephaniah 2:1–3.

The biblical command for God’s people to gather together into His house—which is in Jerusalem, and is represented by the Seventh-day Adventist church at the end of the world—is to be applied before the occurrence of the Sunday law.

Over the past week or so, voices have been ubiquitously erupting and calling the wrath of God down upon myself and upon the ministry of Future for America for presenting the following concept: God’s prophetic Word identifies that from September 11, 2001—when the judgment of the living and the sealing of God’s people began—an internal gospel work is to be accomplished among the people of God in advance of the ingathering of the eleventh-hour workers that commences at the Sunday law.

The individuals that are now the most zealous in sounding the alarm about my apparent “apostasy” had, prior to the circulated emails, retracted their previously held doctrinal position of identifying 9/11 as the arrival of the “day of the Lord.” Once they were thoroughly presented with the fact that 9/11 does not mark the arrival of the “day of the Lord,” but rather the arrival of the “day of the Lord’s preparation”, they took hold of that understanding, and this prompted their recant. They testified that they had then recognized the prophetic logic that there indeed was a time of preparation in advance of the Sunday law, which marks the beginning of the “day of the Lord”. They also came to understand that these prophetic days align with the instructions found in the fourth commandment concerning the day of preparation and the Sabbath. If you concur, you understand that the “day of the Lord” that begins at the Sunday law identifies the Sabbath day.

Although they arrived to the correct understanding of the “day of the Lord”, they exhibited their failure to make the logical leap to recognize that something needs to be accomplished during the time of the “Lord’s preparation” in advance of the “day of the Lord”. Perhaps they assumed that the “day of the Lord’s preparation” actually means “business as usual.” Though as Seventh-day Adventists in good standing, they know that the preparation day identifies a work that is to be done in advance of the Sabbath.

But, God’s dealings with men are ever the same, and before any great work—the ingathering that is accomplished during the Sunday law crisis—there is a work of preparation that is to be accomplished.

“‘Come up to Me into the mount,’ God bids us. To Moses, before he could be God’s instrument in delivering Israel, was appointed the forty years of communion with Him in the mountain solitudes. Before bearing God’s message to Pharaoh, he spoke with the angel in the burning bush. Before receiving God’s law as the representative of His people, he was called into the mount, and beheld His glory. Before executing justice on the idolaters, he was hidden in the cleft of the rock, and the Lord said, ‘I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee,’ ‘merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness and truth; . . . and that will by no means clear the guilty.’ Exodus 33:19; 34:6, 7, A.R.V. Before he laid down, with his life, his burden for Israel, God called him to the top of Pisgah and spread out before him the glory of the Promised Land.

Before the disciples went forth on their mission, they were called up into the mount with Jesus. Before the power and glory of Pentecost, came the night of communion with the Savior, the meeting on the mountain in Galilee, the parting scene upon Olivet, with the angel’s promise, and the days of prayer and communion in the upper chamber.

“Jesus, when preparing for some great trial or some important work, would resort to the solitude of the mountains and spend the night in prayer to His Father. A night of prayer preceded the ordination of the apostles and the Sermon on the Mount, the transfiguration, the agony of the judgment hall and the cross, and the resurrection glory.” The Ministry of Healing, 508, 509.

Before the Sunday law, which marks the arrival of the “day of the Lord,” a work of preparation is to be done among God’s people. God never changes and His dealings with men are ever the same.

Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? Then will the Lord be jealous for his land, and pity his people. Joel 2:15–18.

All of the prophets agree with one another, and a clear example of this is evidenced when Joel’s command to blow a trumpet in Zion corresponds to a second witness found in the trumpet message of Isaiah.

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Isaiah 58:1.

Isaiah identifies that the trumpet message for this time is directly applied to Seventh-day Adventists that need to overcome their sins before their probation closes at the Sunday law. Therefore, Isaiah’s trumpet message is simply another representation of the message to Laodicea.

“We must no longer remain upon the enchanted ground. We are fast approaching the close of our probation. Let every soul inquire, How do I stand before God? We know not how soon our names may be taken into the lips of Christ, and our cases be finally decided. What, oh, what will these decisions be! Shall we be counted with the righteous, or shall we be numbered with the wicked?

Let the church arise, and repent of her back-slidings before God. Let the watchmen awake, and give the trumpet a certain sound. It is a definite warning that we have to proclaim. God commands his servants, ‘Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.’ The attention of the people must be gained; unless this can be done, all effort is useless; though an angel from heaven should come down and speak to them, his words would do no more good than if he were speaking into the cold ear of death. The church must arouse to action. The Spirit of God can never come in until she prepares the way. There should be earnest searching of heart. There should be united, persevering prayer, and through faith a claiming of the promises of God. There should be, not a clothing of the body with sackcloth, as in ancient times, but a deep humiliation of soul. We have not the first reason for self-congratulation and self-exaltation. We should humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God. He will appear to comfort and bless the true seekers.

“The work is before us; will we engage in it? We must work fast, we must go steadily forward. We must be preparing for the great day of the Lord.” Review and Herald, March 22, 1887.

Those that are raising their voices against the message identifying the time of the Lord’s preparation as a time for an internal work to take place among Seventh-day Adventists are not raising their voices against Jeff Pippenger, or the ministry of Future for America—they are raising their voices against God’s prophetic word. Since 9/11 the Lord has been entering into covenant with those that Isaiah likens to an “ensign” that is lifted up at the Sunday law crisis.

“In the last days of this earth’s history, God’s covenant with his commandment-keeping people is to be renewed.” Review and Herald, February 26, 1914.

When Christ entered into covenant with ancient Israel in the beginning of their history during the time of Moses, there was a period of forty years where God interacted exclusively with His chosen people.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8.

At the end of ancient Israel, when Christ was entering into covenant with the Christian church, there were seven years that God interacted exclusively with His chosen people.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17.

When God was entering into covenant with modern Israel in the Millerite time period, God interacted exclusively with His chosen people from October 23, 1844 through 1850.

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6.

“The work of God in the earth presents, from age to age, a striking similarity in every great reformation or religious movement. The principles of God’s dealing with men are ever the same. The important movements of the present have their parallel in those of the past, and the experience of the church in former ages has lessons of great value for our own time.” The Great Controversy, 343.

The three prophetic witnesses of the covenant histories of Moses, Christ, and the Millerites identify that when God renews His covenant with modern Israel from 9/11 to the Sunday law, there will be an exclusive interaction that takes place between God and His chosen people. The three lines of Moses, Christ, and the Millerites provide a very detailed identification of why the reception of the Laodicean message precludes the work of public evangelism.

The “attack” that exploded immediately after we placed this truth into the public record at our recent camp-meeting marks one of the primary prophetic characteristics found in these three lines. Those of you that have never heard of me or Future for America might very well assume from the rhetoric that whatever this matter is about, it is so convoluted that you need not take time to investigate it one way or another. Those of you that have had an issue to settle with me for some time may very well rejoice that I am finally getting my dues. Those of you that were open to the ideas that we have presented upon prophecy in the past might suddenly decide that you need to re-evaluate whether your former reception to our voice was reasonable or not. But, whether or not you fall into one of these three categories or some other category, there is at least one thing that I will leave you with:

None of the zealous rhetoric that has taken place over the past week or so has introduced one biblical argument to identify why the claims I am making from the prophetic lines is incorrect. Go ahead and re-read those emails. They are by and large exposés on my many character defects. Yes, there are some individuals that have offered Spirit of Prophecy passages on the work of public evangelism, but those considerations are amply addressed in the public presentations at our most recent camp-meeting that ignited this current firestorm. And the answers that were provided in that camp-meeting are supported by inspiration.

It is true that I am now presenting that Adventism is to be gathering together into a holy convocation in preparation for the great harvest ingathering of the Sunday law crisis. I find William Miller’s words fitting to this point—in the final sentence of his thirteenth rule of prophetic interpretation he writes, “For God takes care that history and prophecy doth agree, so that the true believing children of God may never be ashamed.”

The pope is now calling for Sunday laws, and the normal secular news organizations are presenting his call to their audiences. Radical Islam is on the verge of establishing a modern empire in the Middle East. The great modern powers of Russia and China, and the lesser powers in the Middle East, North Korea, and some in South America are rattling their sabers. The stock market is rising, rising, rising while the Catholic immigrants are flooding over the borders of the southern United States. The civil government in the United States, and no doubt the entire world, is paralyzed by corruption and worldly philosophies. Murders and crimes are becoming more bizarre. Earth quakes, volcanoes, and catastrophic weather disasters are now commonplace.

At this very time, the Seventh-day Adventist church is celebrating, ordaining women, and requiring employees to receive instruction in Jesuit hypnotic practices, and on and on. History doth agree with the prophetic record that the Sunday law is about to happen. History and prophecy are also demonstrating the fact that Seventh-day Adventism is totally unprepared for this event. Yet the prophetic message that identifies that we are now to cease from our own works, repent in sackcloth and ashes with tears between the porch and the altar, and seek the remedy offered to the Laodicean people is being attacked with the venom of a serpent!

I have found that there are many men that are teaching error, whose characters are in no way representative of what the high calling of Christ Jesus requires. In spite of this fact, I have also found that these teachers of error are better addressed by identifying their teachings as error through a presentation of the truth of God’s word.

My understanding of this argument over the work that is to be accomplished among God’s people in the closing scenes of the investigative judgment just before the Sunday law is that it will create a separation where those that stand upon the truth are to become the minority. Because of this prophetic fact, I do not expect many to candidly investigate this subject. However, I will leave you with a thought concerning your position if you have read this far into this open letter and possess a contrary opinion: since when was a message purportedly from God’s word to be evaluated by the criticisms thrown against the characters of those that present that purported message of God?

Were the majority against the message of Noah? Does that history illustrate the end of the world? Were the majority against the message of Moses? Was that history an illustration of the end of the world? Were the majority against the message of Christ, and did that history illustrate the end of the world? Were the majority against the message of William Miller, and did that history illustrate the end of the world?

Jeff Pippenger—July 8, 2014

Links