Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland

An Historical Approach to "the Daily"

1. History presents a sudden phenomenal dissolution of paganism that was supplanted by a meteoric rise to power of the papacy:
   1. See Augustine's City of God—a commentary on this amazing historical development.
   2. Pagan Romans bewailed the sack of Rome in 410 A.D. and attributed the calamity to Catholic Christians' triumph over paganism. J.N. Andrews and the pioneers saw Rome as the disgraced pagan "sanctuary" or "dedicated place" (miqdash) of Daniel 11:31. Linguistically, this is possible; but also historically justifiable.
   3. A. B. Bruce: "Paganism is a perpetual eclipse of Divine Grace." 17
   4. "The more Christianity supplanted the heathen worship the more did it absorb the elements of paganism." 18
2. Did Paul refer to this transfer and absorption of paganism into Romanism in 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7? If not, where did he get his "taken away" idea?
   1. Ellen White firmly identifies his "man of sin" as the papacy. Her reason? Scriptural exegesis.
   2. Perhaps Paul is commenting on Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31.
   3. Jesus surely taught His disciples the significance of Daniel's prophecies (Matthew 14:15; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; Acts 1:3).
3. Did John in Revelation 13:1, 2 allude to this development?
   1. Early Adventists so understood this passage in Revelation. Emperors from Constantine to Justinian allowed the Bishop of Rome to assume political power.
   2. Thus, the dragon was pagan Rome; the beast, papal Rome.
   3. The "dragon's seat," the city of Rome, was the former bastion of paganism, spiritual successor in John's day to the old Babylonian paganism which enveloped the Jews in their Exile in Babylon. John could be referring to the miqdash of Daniel 8:11 and 11:31.
   4. The ancients clearly recognized Rome as successor of the Babylonian pagan worship headquarters; a worshiper from the East was at home in Rome's Pantheon.
4. Historical comment in The Great Controversy could fit the pioneer view of Daniel 8:11: "The work of corruption rapidly progressed. Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ. … Paganism had given place to the papacy." 19
5. While paganism was "taken up" (Hebrew, rum) into the papacy, and "removed" politically and militarily (Hebrew, sur), there could never be an actual "taking away" of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary?
   1. When Daniel spoke of the papacy changing God's law, he was careful to state that it was only an attempted action: "he shall think to change times and laws" (Daniel 7:25). In contrast, he does not say that the "little horn" will "think" to take away ha tamid. The "new view" says he actually does take it away.
   2. Overwhelming emphasis of scripture: no earthly or hellish power can actually "take away" Christ's high priestly ministry (Hebrews 4:14-17; 5:6; 6:19, 20; 7:24, 25; 8:1, and etc.). To suggest otherwise would be blasphemy.
   3. Further, the papacy never took away Christ's ministry from the minds of true Christians, for they preserved their faith pure throughout the Dark Ages. 20
   4. The papacy could not "take away" Christ's ministry from the minds of apostate or misinformed adherents, for they never had a true understanding of His ministry. Christ's letter to "Thyatira" (Revelation 2:18-29) is not to the papacy but to true followers of Christ at this time. There is no hint that His heavenly ministry had truly been taken away, ever.
   5. If the papacy actually took away Christ’s ministry from the minds of the people (as "new view" proponents have said), it would follow logically that the 16th century Reformation restored it.
      1. This would establish Lindsell's, Barnhouse's, Walvoord's, and Conradi's contention that 1844 is meaningless trivia; that there is no excuse for the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Again, the "new view" presents itself as logically subversive of Seventh-day Adventism.
      2. If the "new view" is correct, it would logically follow that what was "restored" or "justified" in 1844 was the same ministry "taken away" earlier by the papacy, that is, the first apartment ministry of Christ as High Priest. 1844 inaugurates a new second apartment ministry.
      3. Either way, the "new view" of Conradi logically resolves itself into a denial of Seventh-day Adventism and is basic to the Cottrell's and Ford's position.
6. If the papacy, directed by Satan, could actually "take away" the High Priestly Ministry of Christ, how could Satan do this if he had been "cast out" of heaven at the time of the cross (Revelation 12:13)?

Notes:

17. The Galilean Gospel, p. 96. [return to text]
18. The History of the World, p. 617. [return to text]
19. The Great Controversy, p. 50, 54 (emphasis added). [return to text]
20. See The Great Controversy, pp. 61, 74, 75. [return to text]