Dear Jeff,
Even though we’ve never met, I have spoken to you on the phone in the past when you were with Hope International. I am currently a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church in the —, Virginia area. I believe you preached here sometime in the last ten years. I am a friend of WW who lives in Richmond, Virginia. You may or may not remember him as you meet so many people in your ministry, but the two of you conversed when you spoke at the Amicus SDA church in Ruckersville, Virginia some time ago. I’ve always appreciated the depth and thoroughness of your studies. The reason I am contacting you is that a controversial teaching has cropped up in the Potomac Conference. I will give you a brief synopsis. I would like to know if you’ve run across this teaching in your travels and if you can offer any insights. I sent the following information to a couple of other friends for their input as well:
We had an interesting Sabbath at — SDA church in Cumberland County (1/6/2007). The speaker was the Potomac Conference evangelist, Ron Rogers who is planning on conducting a series here in a couple of months. We had an afternoon question and answer addressing concerns regarding a sermon he preached in late November 2006 wherein he alluded to portions of Matthew 24 applying only to the destruction of Jerusalem and not the Second Coming. Prior to this past weekend’s session I had obtained a videotaped copy of the sermon and converted it to DVD format. I will send you a copy if you wish. I believe you would be very interested in what he has to say.
When I pressed him regarding his position on the matter he stated that Matthew 24 verses 3 through 23 dealt specifically with the destruction of Jerusalem and has nothing to do with the Second Coming and challenged many of the Adventist preachers of the past who taught contrary. He also indicated that my position was in direct conflict with the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy and the General Conference (in an attempt to discredit me since I was the one pressing him on the matter). He quoted a portion of Uriah Smith to support his view. I afterward went home and examined every Spirit of Prophecy statement regarding “the destruction of Jerusalem” and I found him to be in gross error on the matter. There is one statement that particularly interests me:
“In his answer, Jesus did not take up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the last great day of his coming. He mingled the description of these two events. When he spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, his words referred also to the final destruction that will take place when the Lord rises out of his place to punish the world for its iniquity. The entire chapter in which are recorded Christ’s words regarding this, is a warning to all who shall live during the last scenes of this earth’s history.” Review and Herald, December 13, 1898.
It is apparent from this statement that an issue would arise where enemies of the truth would seek to divide this chapter into sections isolating the two events and even imply that the great commission to go to all the world and preach the gospel only applies to the first coming of Jesus. If verses 3 through 23 applies to the destruction of Jerusalem and not the Second Coming then what do we do with verses 12, 13 and 14:
Matthew 24:12: And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Matthew 24:13: But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matthew 24:14: And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Have you run into this issue before?
This is a new one to me. Let me know what you know about this. Would you like a copy of his sermon? If so, where do I send it? God bless. LW.
Response
Dear LW,
I of course know and remember WW. I never have run into this before. I have very little time to study the truth, let alone to take time and study error, so I will pass on looking his presentation over. Jeff.
“Many know so little about their Bibles that they are unsettled in the faith. They remove the old landmarks, and fallacies and winds of doctrine blow them hither and thither. Science, falsely so called, is wearing away the foundation of Christian principle; and those who were once in the faith drift away from the Bible landmarks, and divorce themselves from God, while still claiming to be His children.” Review and Herald, December 29, 1896.
Published by