Pope Asks Forgiveness of Waldensian Church during Historic Visit in Turin
By AT News Team, June 23, 2015: Pope Francis asked forgiveness from the Waldensian Evangelical Church yesterday in a meeting with representatives of the Protestant group in Turin, Italy. It was “the first time a Pope had visited a Waldensian house of worship,” reported Vatican Radio.
The head of the Roman Catholic Church specifically mentioned “violence and disputes committed in the name of the faith itself.” This history “can only grieve us,” the Pope stated, and cause us “to recognize that we are all sinners. … He then asked for forgiveness for ‘the non-Christian attitudes and behavior’ of the Catholic Church against Waldensians,” according to Vatican Radio.
During Medieval times the Catholic Church persecuted the Waldensians because they refused to recognize the spiritual authority of the popes and insisted that the Bible teaches a number of different doctrines than those taught by the Catholic Church. It is one of the only non-Catholic Christian communities native to Italy.
Chapter 4 in The Great Controversy, an important book by Ellen G. White, one of the cofounders of the Adventist movement, describes the history of “The Waldenses” or “Vaudois churches” of what is today northern Italy and adjacent parts of Switzerland and France. “In their purity and simplicity,” White wrote, they “resembled the church of apostolic times. Rejecting the supremacy of the pope and prelate, they held the Bible as the only supreme, infallible authority.” The foundational doctrine of the Adventist denomination today is “sola scriptura,” to use the traditional Latin phrase for the Protestant theological principle of “the Bible alone.”
The Waldensian denomination today has about 30,000 adherents in Italy with its headquarters in Turin where Pope Francis met with the group of leaders. Relations between the Waldensians and Catholics is currently one based on “mutual respect and fraternal charity,” he said. The two faiths provide for joint celebration of mixed marriages among their members and collaborated in recent years in a translation of the Bible that both accept. They work together in humanitarian service projects.
The visit and the Pope’s apology could be reason “to add an element to our presenting church history in regards to the Waldensian church and the role of the Roman Catholic Church,” Pastor Herbert Bodenmann, director of the Adventist Press Service in Basel, Switzerland, told Adventist Today. “In the future we should at least mention this request of the Pope in 2015 for forgiveness for the persecution in the middle ages.” He pointed out that the Waldensian Church has accepted the Pope’s apology.
I hope that members of our faith community as Adventist Christians will agree with the Waldensians and view this act of the current Pope as coming from Christian concern and refrain from doing what, in the past, has been the typical response of sectarian Adventists who do not realize that we live in the 21st Century and not in the Middle Ages. Our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church realize that their faith community has made serious mistakes in the past. If only all Adventists could realize that we have made serious mistakes as well in our traditional understanding the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the modern world.
Amen!
Would Dr. Taylor be so kind as to do Adventists the great and good service of specifically identifying “the serious mistakes…in our traditional understanding [of] the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the modern world” that he claims “we have made”? (It’s called the courage of one’s convictions.)
Would Dr. Taylor be so kind to specify the “serious mistakes” the SDA church has made in teaching doctrines contrary to the Bible? Don’t hold back, let us hear all of it, not only about the Catholic church.
Well said Erv. And may God continue to bless Pope Francis.
Why should we change, just because of an apology? We have doctrinal differences that cannot change just because the pope has apologised for attrocities perpetrated by the roman catholic church
This act of contrition is further evidence of the graciousness and openness of Pope Francis. No doubt, the conspiracy theorists in the church will doubt the sincerity of this act and somehow use it as further “proof” of the diabolical nature of the Roman Catholic Church, but bravo for Pastor Bodenmann for apparently accepting it as a sincere attempt to right a past wrong.
Is it possible for Seventh-day Adventists to claim that Mark 9 and Luke 9 justify re-understanding Ellen White’s vision of the Great Controversy as truly between Christ and Satan, and not actually between Roman Catholicism and Seventh-day Adventism?
As regularly as Ellen White edited The Great Controversy from edition to edition for historical reporting, is it possible that had she lived she would by today have seen appropriate to, like other protestants, move on from interpreting the Anti-Christ as a human to full metaphorical interpretation? Google Books Ngram notes a large hit of Pope as Anti – Christ in the mid 18th century, and then again in the 19th century a much lesser but noticeable pop just prior to Ellen White’s publication of The Great Controversy. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pope+is+Anti-Christ&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPope%20is%20Anti%20-%20Christ%3B%2Cc0
While this will concern a segment of Seventh-day Adventist members, we are already well along in positioning the church for this next step. The wording of the Fundamental Beliefs do not identify Roman Catholicism or Popes, which Protestants were open and notorious about doing centuries ago.
What true Protestantism demands is a change in doctrine. Not some apology for past attitudes. By the way, the attitude only refected the antichrist doctrine of Rome that has not changed a jot or tittle.
Luther rightly defined the Pope as “the antichrist and the devil’s apostle.” Nothing has changed. The most evil people in the world can be “nice” when it suits their purpose.
Not all SDA’s will be deceived by this false show of humility for the sake of power and political gain. Let Rome admit to their faulty errors in doctrine and we may find some reason to seek unity on truth, not pardons for sins. The Great Controversy by EGW is more valid than ever before, as we see her predictions coming to pass before our very eyes.
We are aware that many, if not most, SDA’s will abandon the historic message of our pioneers and opt for some generic non-definable Christanity that patronizes the eccumenical movement. But loyal Protestants still agree with Luther’s evaluation and are not moved by the present agenda of Rome.
As evidenced by the pre-existing cooperative efforts between the Waldensian and Catholic churches, a spirit of forgiveness and acceptance by the Waldensian Church existed long before this formal apology. Perhaps Seventh-day Adventists who bear grudges against the Catholic church could take a page from the Waldensian Evangelical Church’s’ book.
I think this apology should be taken in the spirit in which it appears to have been given.
As an aside, about ten years ago I communicated with the Waldensian church, in Italy, for clarification of there disagreements with Rome. They stated that they did not accept the authority of the pope and travelled around preaching from the bible etc. etc.
I asked there position on the 7th day Sabbath – the reply was that they know of no record that the day of worship was ever an issue. Due to their itinerant and secret mission they worshipped where and when they could but the Sabbath was not one of their issues with Rome.
The representative I was communicating with said they did not have extensive records as they were a persecuted group and did not have opportunity to have a detailed historic records like most churches. Their only awareness of this idea was from SDA’s who over the years visited from time to time, enquiring and siting the writings of EG White.
I found this interesting.
“A Striking illustration of Rome’s policy towards those who disagree with her was given in the long and bloody persecution of he Waldenses, SOME OF WHOM WERE OBSERVERS OF THE SABBATH. Others suffered in a similar manner for their fidelity to the fourth commandment.” “The Great Controversy” p.577, 1950 ed.
Some 25 years ago on a Reformation Tour led by HMS Richards (the original and first broadcaster) and we visited the Waldenses church near Turin. Someone asked about their Sabbath observance and the pastor or rector who hosted us had no knowledge of any observance in their long history.
We don’t “bear grudges” against anyone or any church. We could equally say, only a Jesuit would come on a Protestant forum and make such a comment.
The Pope has no authority to speak officially for the church on his own personal evaluation. So his “apology” is meaningless as far as the Catholic church is concerned. Again, it is only a political move to soften up the world for an agenda that is obvious to any bible believing Protestant bible believer.
His apology is a parallel to the statement made by the Lake Union Conference on racism. They have no authority to speak for the church as a whole. I have a jail ministry that is not sponsored by the local church or conference. So I do not officially represent SDA church doctrine in my ministry.
Unless you are ordained by the church to speak officially for the church on any given ministry, it is still only your own private opinion. Several years ago I had a radio ministry that fell into the same catagory.
Even in a Sabbath school class, the teacher does not present official church doctrine unless they are ordained by the church. Let’s not over play what the Pope may say as his private opinion and claim it is an official church position. Only when he acts as the official head of the church is his declarations infallible.
I am struggling to find any coherent reasoning in this comment.
Was not the Pope ordained by the RC Church? Was not Don Livesay ordained by the SDA Church? And were not these gentlemen duly elected to their current positions within their respective churches?
I am wondering by whose authority Bill Sorensen concludes that the Pope does not speak for the RC Church?
Jim, the Pope does not represent the church while he is mowing his law, or any other thing he does on his own. It is only when he is seated officially as head of the church that he can make statements that are official church pronouncements.
” But loyal Protestants still agree with Luther’s evaluation and are not moved by the present agenda of Rome.”
“The Pope has no authority to speak officially for the church on his own personal evaluation. So his “apology” is meaningless as far as the Catholic church is concerned.”
Mr. S- You seem to be claiming that the Pope’s gesture was part of the “agenda of Rome” on the one hand and claim that he doesn’t speak for Rome on the other hand. Am I missing something?
Not at all. As long as people think he is speaking for the church, they will be impressed by his statement. Not knowing it is only his personal opinion. Thus, Rome can benefit by his statement and when and if confronted, simply say that it was only his personal opinion.
As for identifying “the serious mistakes…in our traditional understanding [of] the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the modern world” that he claims “we have made,” those mistakes are rather obvious. Ellen White’s understanding of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Controversy reflects her 19th century world view. In my view, she was mistaken. We are talking about the 21st Century, not the 16th century. It’s is that simple. Unless we believe EGW was infallible, I don’t see the problem. Perhaps others can enlighten me.
Dr. Taylor, I know you think the bible is faulty and would be really surprised if you believed EGW’s views were credible.
I’m surprised that Mr. Sorensen is surprised about my views concerning EGW.
I wasn’t.
Actually Ellen White’s understanding of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in The Great Controversy reflected not only her 19th century world view—just as either your or my understanding of anything reflects our respective 20th and/or 21st century world views—but it also reflected the 1st century worldview of the Apostle Paul, the 16th century worldview of the Protestant reformers, and the 21st century worldview of remaining Protestants. But then, that’s the rub isn’t it? Only those people who realize they are protesting can logically be considered Protestant Christians.
The other point is that “Ellen White’s understanding of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Controversy” includes the previous historical role of Roman Catholic Church—that is prior to her time; and it includes the role of the RCC at the time she was writing; and it includes any future role that the RCC would subsequently play or fulfill. (Of course both of the latter two would be considered “in the modern world.”)
So then, “in [your] view” what are some of the “rather obvious” mistakes that she made in her assessment of either?
Apparently (if not rather obviously) the “rather obvious” is not so obvious, is it?
Roman Catholic has only changed their tactics. Remember the new pope is a jesuit and he is there because the church wanted someone who could spice up their image.
And we mustn’t forget that Mrs. White was writing on the heals of Vatican I (1860s, if I’m remembering correctly) at which, more authority was given to the Pope. His newly acquired option of occasionally speaking ex cathedra would, I think, provide more fodder to fuel even more rigorous protestant anti-papist rhetoric.
I am glad to see the Catholic church humbly coming before the Waldensian church to ask forgiveness for their un-Christian actions. Not their beliefs – I don’t see many asking forgiveness for believing differently than others – but for the acts of persecution committed.
There acts of persecution are part of their belief. Don’t be fooled by double talk and political statements. People are totally ignorant of the Catholic religion. They do not believe in separation of church and state. They believe it is their duty to persecute and kill anyone who verbally attacks their authority.
They are exactly like Isis. So don’t be fooled by political agendas.
Bill, I do not know the pope’s heart. What I see right now is that the Catholic church, via the pope, is not persecuting anyone, but asking forgiveness. ISIS is actively killing Christians and those who don’t agree with them.
I do not see their actions as being the same, and actions are all I can base my opinion on.
Perhaps you can rejoice that the Catholic church is not currently persecuting anyone and commend them on their actions when they conform to what Christ commands. Then denounce them when they merit it.
They do not believe in separation of church and state. They believe it is their duty to persecute and kill anyone who verbally attacks their authority.
They are exactly like Isis. So don’t be fooled by political agendas.
===================================
This is correct.
This is also true of much of Protestantism as well.
This, not Sunday, is why it will be easy for both to unite in the future in persecution of those who do things God’s way: love, not force.
Sadly, many people who claim to be SDA also believe in force and coercion. They just think that God does it!
Maxwell was trying to get us away from this–but he got very little response one one hand and vitriol fro other corners.
These SDAs that buy the principles of force and coercion will also cleave ties with the church and join the masses.
Yes, Patrick. As Dr. Ford taught: “Orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy.”
I was betting with myself what Mr. Sorensen’s response would be like and I won my bet. True to form. At least, he is consistent no matter what the topic. If one wishes to appreciate what Adventism was like in the 1930s, Mr. Sorensen provides a perfect reflection of it.
Ervin,
“Ellen White’s understanding of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Controversy reflects her 19th century world view. In my view, she was mistaken.”
My question to you earlier about the “serious mistakes” of the SDA church revolves around this very issue: If there have been errors of Biblical interpretation regarding one issue, then there must be more. I know you don’t like “bible-quoting” “true-believers” but the fact is the Holy Scriptures don’t change and are relevant for today as they were when first written, especially the New Testament. Unlike all human writings on matters relating to Scripture and Prophecy, they are fallible and do not always reflect the true Spiritual needs of individuals, which, overall affects society and the way we deal with each other; and most importantly, our relationship with Jesus Christ and God the Father.
So, if apologies are in order for some, them why not examine and deal with all doctrines contrary to Scripture?
“Why not examine and deal with all [traditional unique SDA] doctrines contrary to Scripture?” That would take a long, long time.
However, it might begin with the Investigative Judgment doctrine, closely followed by the Remnant Church idea and then “Great Controversy” theology. Our Young Earth/Young LIfe Creationism thing might be next. Is that enough to get started?
Ervin,
“Our Young Earth/Young LIfe Creationism thing might be next.” No, that is not “traditional unique SDA” doctrine, that is Biblical.
Try again. You started right, but ended contrary to Scripture.
Thank you Dr. Taylor. I consider that a compliment. As for the fact that Rome does not persecute those who oppose her here in America, it is precisely because she has no power here to do so. In countries where she does have such power, she continues to act like “the beast” prophesied in the bible.
EGW is absolutely correct and we see step by step the fulfillment of what she has clearly stated. Including the fact that modern Protestantism is woefully ignorant of Rome’s agenda. And this is how and why she will pull it off with the help of apostate Protestantism and more than a few SDA members and former members.
We never assumed historically that the SDA church could well be the final antichrist movement that she is rapidly becoming today. Our parents and grand parents would be shocked and amazed at the present apostasy in the SDA church. And some today are slowly learning this reality as time goes by. We can see by history the true church becomes God’s worst enemy when it no longer embraces bible truth.
Some of us are not “over expecting” that the GC sessions will stand and defend the bible in Texas. The church is driven more by political expediency than a commit to bible truth.
“People are totally ignorant of the Catholic religion. They do not believe in separation of church and state.”
Mr. S- It’s ludicrous to think that the Catholic Church in Rome would not believe in the absolute necessity of a wall of separation between church and state. Are you arguing that it is wrong that the residents of Vatican City live under a “monarch” and do not have democratic elections? Is the separation of church and state, in your view, an essential belief for the SDA Christian?
Wow, and I really believe you are serious Mr. Wortman. I see you know nothing of Catholicism. Or, if you do, you are deliberately trying to obscure clear historic and present facts. And yes, you represent a huge majority in America today. All you have to do is study US history to answer your question.
And the fact is, most Catholics in America are equally ignorant of their church’s teachings. In fact, most church people don’t know what their church teaches for the most part. And this includes many SDA’s.
Michael Wortman,
Why in your view is it “ludicrous to think that the Catholic Church in Rome would not believe in the absolute necessity of a wall of separation between church and state”? Do tell.
Dear Bill – I was a Catholic and taught high school catechism, so I am pretty familiar with their teachings. Deeper study of the catholic church was why I eventually left.
You mention that “In countries where she does have such power, she continues to act like ‘the beast’,” however traditional bastions like Mexico and Ireland are legalizing same-sex marriages in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. Can you provide an example of where she is still acting like a beast? I am familiar with most Catholic-majority countries and it seems like any political influence is only waning.
Perhaps you have read “Keys of This Blood” by the late Malachi Martin who was a Jesuit. He makes no bones about the goal and aim of the RC church. He understood, that for Catholicism, what America produces by way of Catholics, are for the most part “the Judas element in the church”.
They hate America and what we have traditionally stood for. Catholics in America have been to some degree influenced by Protestantism and the freedom of thought and biblical influence. That influence is being lessened year by year and decade by decade.
Our Universities are teaching treason to the American way of life on many levels. They are creating traitors to the American government by way of citizens who are duped by Socialism.
And in the SDA church the people are being equally educated to be traitors to the Protestant and SDA church principles. Simply put, Jesus said, “Ye worship, ye know not what.” And the result of both civil and spiritual apostasy, “The whole world is wondering after the beast” and the principles of Romanism.
An Elitist system of civil government and religion combined to enslave the whole world in sin and rebellion against God’s kingdom. And the SDA church is doing their part to help it become a reality.
When our leaders affirm they don’t know what the bible teaches on any given subject, you can be sure Rome will agree and affirm they alone are able to interpret and define scripture. People are looking for stability and Rome offers it.
Let’s be very clear that Catholicism (at the corporate level) is not a spiritual organization, it’s a political one, and whenever a political organization perceives/imagines that it is being encircled and/or outflanked by a competitor, it expresses its most abrasive characteristics.
By the same token, the SDA organization is not strictly speaking a church, it is an enterprise that promotes a peculiar variant of faith as its reason for being. When the corporate church is feeling secure and in control, it generally behaves itself quite well. When leadership perceives that the status quo (as they define it) is threatened, it can behave quite badly in the name of preserving what it sees as the Old Landmarks. In reality all faith are engaged in a struggle to keep their teachings consistent with the needs of the people of that era. As the culture changes, so do the needs of the people, and to meet those needs the church must also change. That change occurs not in rejecting the Lordship of Jesus, but in finding better ways to minister to the needs of the people as those needs move in new directions.
Bill, what is the Roman Catholic position on women’s ordination and how does it compare to your position?
Patrick G,
Although the United States of America is not numerically a Catholic-majority country, it is the country with the largest Christian population in the world, and Roman Catholicism is the largest single denomination in America.
Catholic influence, as measured or gauged by the political influence of the pope, isn’t on the wane in the most powerful and influential nation in the world, with the world’s largest Christian population, in which the RCC is the largest denomination.
Where did you get your information that the United States is the country with the largest catholic population in the world?
Actually Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines all have more than the U.S.
Tim,
The fact is I never said “that the United States is the country with the largest catholic population in the world.” What I actually said that “it is the country with the largest Christian population in the world, and Roman Catholicism is the largest single denomination in America.”
Stephen,
I stand corrected. Must have been the bifocals.
Mr. S- Re: the separation of church and state:
To my knowledge most Adventists who live in countries with monarchies that are directly connected with a state religion (Church of England/Lutheran/ etc.) haven’t suffered at the hands of their sovereigns all that much lately. The British don’t seem to regard Queen Elizabeth as having the qualities of a beast or condemn her for cooperating with Satanic forces in her dual roles as monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The British monarchy was hostile to certain protestant religions in the past. Present-day British protestants don’t seem to hold that against either the monarchy or the present monarch as you hold on to the injustices of the past inflicted by the Roman Catholic Church and continue to blame both the church and the present Pope. To get back to the original post, it’s time to follow the lead of the Waldensian Evangelical Church and Pope Francis and forgive, even if we can’t forget.
Bill,
““The whole world is wondering after the beast” and the principles of Romanism.”
Is it possible that this “Romanism principles” or, the “beast” are spurred on by what is in the hearts of individuals throughout the world and not only in the Papacy? If we look at Biblical Prophecies and see aspects of the world in it, rather than possible errors within our own hearts, does that not shift the blame?
Daniel, the sinful nature of man is reflected in the Catholic system and spirituality. So, Luther said, “Pope self, is the real enemy of truth.” He recognized the Pope is simply a reflection of sinful human nature.
But we don’t divert our focus from the evils of Rome and their spirituality by simply asking ourselves to “examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.”
Just because we are sinners ourselves, does not mean we don’t speak against sin in every form and evil government of man. Yes, we should see ourselves reflected in the evil of the world. And “fear lest after teaching others, we ourselves should be cast away.”
The doctrine of original sin puts us all in the same boat. The SDA church is really becoming useless because they will not admit and define sin in its full meaning and application. Much of our basic theology is half baked and incomplete at best, and heretical at worst. And we think we are going to “finish the work?” What God intended for Adventism is light years from the reality that it actually is.
As one scholar said years ago, “SDA’s hardly know more than what day to go to church on.” This truth means the church is impotent to define scripture or exhort people to a clear and definitive explanation of a biblical relationship with God. And obviously can not prepare anyone for the second coming.
We have become an elitist movement ourselves and will end up as some non-Christian cult unless a reform is forth coming.
If the pointif could admit that we are all sinners as he did, then he could also denounce the name “Holy Father!’ because God is the only holly one. Human beings can never claim that title upon them!
“Why in your view is it “ludicrous to think that the Catholic Church in Rome would not believe in the absolute necessity of a wall of separation between church and state”? Do tell.”
Stephen- It is a matter of history that the Vatican has not operated under this principle (the term first iterated, I think, in a U.S. Supreme Court decision.) It is also not ludicrous for the government of Great Britain to not honor this U. S. political position as we Americans do. The monarch is also historically the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This is a matter of history and choice-not good or evil. At the same time I am not aware that the Catholic church has attempted to dissuade its American congregants of loyalty to this time-honored American principle.
I found this comment ludicrous,
“The foundational doctrine of the Adventist denomination today is ‘sola scriptura,’ ”
This is so far from truth that I can’t think of who should be fooled by such a statement. Certainly not those who know Adventism well! …
James- Instead of taking petulant “pot shots” at the Catholic church why not see what it has to say first and then conclude: I don’t agree but I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they sincerely believe.
Question:
According to the Bible, only God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit merit the designation “holy.” Yet on innumerable occasions Catholics refer to the pope as the “Holy Father.” Kindly provide a rational explanation for this blasphemy.
Answer
Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing’s association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.
In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is “holy.” In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” God’s dwelling place in the Tabernacle is “holy” (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called “holy” in Leviticus 10:17.
After Christ’s death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other “holy ones” or “saints,” called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, “it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy…
So, let’s let our soteriology guide our relationship with the Roman Catholic church and its Pope. It has made all the difference for me.
last paragraph of reply to James somehow cut off…..
Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
Answered by: Jan Wakelin
It appears that it might take a few centuries for the Adventist faith tradition to grow up in terms of its attitudes toward our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic tradition and the church body to which these fellow Christians belong. I suspect that the Roman Catholic Church will evolve as well so that both Adventism and Roman Catholicism will have a different look in 200 years.
Bill- Although I am no sure what you mean by “our” soteriology, perhaps the difference/distance between Catholic and “our” has been bridged recently by the Pope. Since he made his famous statement surmising that atheists may be among “the saved,” one can perhaps infer that the idea of salvation only coming through the Catholic Church is no longer a strongly held belief. To paraphrase the Hispanic statement of hospitality: Our soteriology is your(Catholic) soteriology.
We are nearer to the second coming of Jesus than we think. If we read Revelation 12, 13 & 17 we see Bible being fulfilled. May God help us to be ready when He comes.
Thank God for the SDA messages and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Come quickly Lord Jesus.
“Thank God for the SDA messages and the Spirit of Prophecy.”
The “Spirit of Prophecy” is the Holy Spirit testifying of Jesus Christ in each and every believer. It does not refer to any human writings.
The RC church is not the only centralized church in many countries. Why don’t we hear more about the Orthodox churches who are so involved with state? They seem to have been ignored both by White and in our prophecy. It would seem that the “beast” is any organized movement that uses the State to deny freedom. I do think this is usually and will be religious in nature.
Even the NT talks about antiChrists, not one but many. If we think biblical prophecies are conditional, why not more contemporary writings. Jesus’ first coming was nothing like what His people expected, but the suffering servant which they could have found in their own writings.
We may know how the even itself will play out, but what about the events leading up to it? Doesn’t it behoove us to be ready spiritually by accepting Christ’s righteousness no matter what the future looks like?
Perhaps the Great Controversy book was not the final word for end times. Could we not recognize the image to the beast today. The RC church was not the image, the image is yet to come. Just something to think about.
Concerning the RC church, it seems to fit religious history as a “beast” that denied freedom of belief, and many of its doctrines are man made traditions. Maybe it is the pattern beast for all that comes later and all the freedom-denying movements in the world’s history–a symbol perhaps. But this doesn’t include it’s followers. It is a system, not a person (not the current pope) that we must be wary of.
The Jews thought the Messiah would be political; He was not. Neither are the many political groups today. But they could support evil. Would ISIS be one of today’s antiChrists and image to the beast?
” Would ISIS be one of today’s antiChrists and image to the beast?”
Any group of people, or individuals who place human authority above the bible is antichrist to a bible believing Protestant. Simply put, God is the final authority, and He has not delegated this final authority to anyone or group of people.
God has ordained human authority on various levels. But none are above God Himself. So, we have family government, church government, civil government and even self government. all these governments have some relative authority in administration.
As was stated, Only God is Holy in the context of absolute holiness.Rev. 15:4. And yes, created things can be considered holy as well. Including human beings. But only in a relative sense as they have a correct relationship with God through Jesus His Son.
“The whole world is wondering after the beast” is a quote from the Book of Revelation which, I am told, was written at the end of the 1st century A.D. or the beginning of the 2nd century A.D.
Whoever wrote the Book of Revelation obviously did not have the Roman Catholic Church in mind since it did not exist at the time. (With apologies to my Roman Catholic friends who think it did.)
I’m sure someone will bring up something about “Predictive prophecy.” A very strange idea since this is no illustration I have ever heard about where there has been an accurate prediction about some future event or institution before the event or institution was created predicted on the basis of reading the Books of Daniel and Revelation. Perhaps someone can come up with an exception to that generalization. “Prodictive prophecy” seems to me to be a concept that has no illustration that it ever existed.
Ervin,The following is, forgive me, but, a ‘stupid statement:’ “I have [never] heard about where there has been an accurate prediction about some future event or institution before the event or institution was created predicted on the basis of reading the Books of Daniel and Revelation. Perhaps someone can come up with an exception to that generalization. “Prodictive prophecy” seems to me to be a concept that has no illustration that it ever existed.” I am sure you are wise in your field. But in this you are not!
Ah. Perhaps Mr. Lindensmith could favor us with a specific example of a “Predictive Prophecy” that actually predicted the future? I will be waiting with great eagerness.
Since in the final analysis, the esteemed Dr. Taylor is, with respect, and unbeliever, the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is insufficient. Perhaps he would consider 2 Peter 3:3-4?
Sorry “Prodictive prophecy” should have been “Predictive prophecy.” I guess I was thinking of “Productive prophecy” as another non-category.
talking in circles, getting nowhere!!!
I am reminded of the book of Jonah and the prophecy pronounced against Nineveh, that cruel city so deplored by the followers of Jehovah. Jonah, true to his prophetic stripe, yearned to see that wretched metropolis leveled and salted with sulfur. But to the prophet’s appalled disgust, Nineveh prostrated itself to the earth and confessed and sought pardon for its depredations and folly, and the fire and brimstone held their peace. Some might rejoice at such salvation, but not a man with a prophetic, predictive reputation to uphold, and Jonah once again cried out that a better God would have followed through and obliterated that city and honored his faithful prophet’s tattered reputation.
The Adventist culture through the years has regaled itself with pot-lucked pulchritude at the thought of the comeuppance of the papacy, and prior to that its emergence in full beastly fury against the remnant. The final Time of Trouble is seen as a direct result of this beastly bravado healed and heeling the spurs of its Satanic dragon-master. By and large we have sought evidence that this horrible confluence of evil is even now being unleashed, as we contemplate wars and rumors of wars, alliances and rumors of political fornication among the diabolically possessed, led by the papacy. Yet like Nineveh of old, the bishop-hatted potentate surprises us time and again with its eagerness to bend the humble knee…. As we implore God to end it all in conflagration…. Something seems wrong here…
The current pope offered an apology, which it seems was accepted.
This apology can only be accepted at face value as we cannot read the popes mind. We cannot think it undoes the past history, which was not a mistake. It was a choice.
Having said that, we cannot know the motivation of this act. What we do know is what has been revealed in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus returns His thoughts, as provided to us, either will have been our guide or not. It was the same in the day of Noah… so it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. The modern man of that time quoted science and learning as trustworthy and the prophet Noah as crazy… time will tell. I place my bets with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.
By the way should ISIS stop behaving in a barbaric way, and then offer an apology, feel free to accept it. Be wise enough to not linger near or turn your back on such who always carry a weapon of violence.
Watch their actions, not their words.
Allen,
“What we do know is what has been revealed in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy as inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
“Spirit of Prophecy”? Do you mean: “The Testimony of Jesus”? Or the writings of EGW?
All these comments about the pope, Catholics & who said what, really hits home with me. I married a man who was educated in Catholic schools 16 years. I had 4 small children when we got married. He said we should go to church as a family, & so went with me. That was 44 years ago. Do you have any idea how often his religion was disparaged? He was disparaged as a “Catholic”? Just about every week either in SS or church service he was insulted. No one knew he was Catholic, but that’s not the point. I never noticed it before then because I was born to it, so to speak. Guess what: Catholics who happen to attend a SDA service do not know the head of their church is “The Antichrist”, that they “have a mark of the beast on their forehead & on their hand”, that the “Beast” is their pope. Try explaining that to a Catholic hearing it from our pulpit. When my youngest child was grown I never went back to an SDA service again. That was 26 years ago. I’ve been told “we” don’t do that anymore. Well, it was not a very Christlike thing to have been saying. Period. So, the Pope has apologized for his church’s past. Perhaps SDAs could take a page out of his book……..just saying.
Well stated. Amen!
Darlene,
I agree and had some of the same experience with my spouse. He just stopped going. Also attended RC church with him once and heard about how they planned to bring all Christians together under their umbrella. I never went back there either.
I have written a novel including this very subject. I hope you will get to read it. It’s called “Starting Over in the Past.” It should be on kindle soon as I am sending it to a publisher next week.
EM – I will look for it. I still read books made with paper & pages that turn.
Things such as what certain Protestants have interpreted will occur in Revelation 13 have to have some structural and societal predicate.
My advice Mr. Wortman is: just because the obvious is obvious, don’t ignore it. Although the current pope is a political liberal with whom I’m often in agreement; the fact remains that he is seeking to exert political influence in secular matters; and intentionally blurring the lines between the spheres of the secular and the sacred. If he’d been conservative and been doing this I would’ve consider it most alarming. It’s no less alarming because he’s liberal.
Here’s what I know, the influence and prominence of the RCC among American positions of thought leadership is unprecedented and growing. On both sides of the political divide news pundits and anchors on the major television and cable channels are predominantly Catholic. The Congress of the United States is, in both parties, led by Catholic leaders. Six of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices are members of the Catholic Church.
Granted—because they are ubiquitous—when contentious, wedge, or hot-button issues are being argued in the public arena, there are now Catholics on either side of such issues. So while there is no current officially sanctioned (conspicuous) initiative “to dissuade its American congregants of loyalty to this time-honored American principle” of separation of church and state; we constantly hear rhetorical challenges to it.
It is part of the so-called culture war between ‘traditionalists’ (a la Bill O’Reilly) and ‘secularists’ that has heated this week. Couple this with real wars, etc. and attempts by the pope himself to challenge the continuing relevance and need for Protestantism—aided and abetted by Protestants (including some ‘SDAs’ we know)—and that Great Controversy stuff becomes increasingly more true to life. (Not to mention the most conspicuous—or obvious—”matter of history” that you’ve acknowledged.)
Of course the scoffers among us must fulfill their collective prophetic role and pretend as if none of this is occurring and things are as they’ve always been.
(Correction: …I would’ve considered it most alarming…)
“Six of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices are members of the Catholic Church” Stephen-if 2/3 of the court are Catholic and a decision such the one on gay marriage is reached, doesn’t that ease your mind about the influence the church has over the political process in America a bit. We’ve been so immersed in a culture of suspicion and paranoia that it’s difficult to think clearly. Being Catholic is not equivalent to being an automaton under the control of an outside sourse anymore than being an Adventist is. Our religious affiliation influences us but doesn’t entirely define us.
Michael,
Actually five of the six are usually on the same side of 5-4 decisions, and three of them are nearly always on the same side of anything. The fact that one of the five broke from the other four on this marriage decision is somehow meaningful to you. (Or to be fair, that two of the six parted from the other four.)
Clearly “our religious affiliation influences us but doesn’t necessarily define us,” but the point of course is that at least half of these six clearly have an almost identical worldview, as apparently do all of the three Jewish members of the court. If there were six Adventists on the court and five of them were conservatives, chances are three of the conservatives would see a number of things very similarly. That wouldn’t make them automatons either Michael; but it would make Adventism more influential.
If the pope has the guts enough to apologize then it’s way past time that we individually and as a church as a whole do the same!
Walter,
That is a fair statement. Individually we should all apologize for the wrong we do to others. But what would the “church” (I assume you are referring to the SDA church) need to apologize for?
Do you need a list? Most would be following the worldly culture around them in how they viewed other human beings and treating them as the world did.
Great controversy p 571.
“The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. ”
I still believe it.
This is a free country. We can all believe what we wish and express it freely. That does not make it factual or true.
The Children of Israel were frequently instructed to kill all of their enemies, including women and children.
Any relevance to this discussion?
Paul and Silas told the Jailer all that was necessary for
salvation.
Paul and Silas told the jailer the way to be saved.
“believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.”
Accept this, and forget about what others believe.
There is no salvation in being critical of another
church organization. Remember Acts 16:31.
Let’s just see what is said when the pope address’s our political leaders. And let’s just see what comes out of the GC session and why don’t we look at how the Muslims may fit into the picture in coming events?
Bravo Pope Francis.
Can we now expect the British Anglicans to apologise for all the Roman Catholics they hung on the gallows at Tyburn? They were just as resolute as any Protestant martyr. Is there an imminent apology coming from the Orangemen of Ireland and Scotland for the murder of Oliver Plunkert, Dermot O’Hurley and those Roman Catholics who perished in the Battle of the Diamond (1795) defending their basic religious rights. Do I hear an apology from the Protestant descendants of those who deported the Roman Catholic Arcadians from eastern Canada, a third of them dying from disease and drowning (not far from Ellen White’s hometown back yard)? And what about the Lutheran armies who fought against Roman Catholic States leading up to and during the Thirty Years War in Europe (1618-1648)?
Little of this is known by the rank and file among SDAs because they only read “Great Controversy” for historical background. It is a very biased interpretation of history, indeed, to the point of being an embarrassment to scholars.
In the final analysis we still have to fall back on “Sols Scripura”, Examine all words and actions against the background of the bible. We should probably avoid making individual judgements and make sure our own actions are consistant with the bible
Will Adventists ever eliminate Catholic paranoia? The majority of Catholics, and that surely includes Pope Francis, are far more tolerant than most Adventists I’ve known.
Because our prejudices against Catholics are “justified” by Mrs.White ‘s endorsement of the 19th century protestant view, they are no less ugly than antisemitism and it is we who are responsible for the ugliness.
Michael,
You are in fact caricaturing EGW. Ellen White had a similar view of the papacy as did the Protestant reformers. In all fairness, shouldn’t you preface such critique of her in light of that?
In your view is Protestantism an anachronism?
Stephen- Perhaps your characterization of Mrs. White’s view of the papacy is more accurate.In my mind there is not much difference. If by anachronism you are asking if I think Protestantism should merge with Catholicism, no. I am no defender of Catholic theology. Far from it. What I find disturbing is the tendency of some Adventists to be so hateful to Catholics. expressing their prejudice so openly, and with no apparent concern for the feelings of their Catholic brothers.
There are fewer than 20 million SDAs. There are perhaps 1.2 billion Roman Catholics. I may have my math wrong, but I think that equates to 510 Catholics for every member of the SDA Church. And Protestant differences are with the system and the papacy, not with individual parishioners.
I’m sorry, but I seriously doubt most Catholics even know what Seventh-day Adventism is. As such, these concerned statements regarding their feelings appear somewhat overstated, all things considered; not to mention that “hatred to Catholics.”
At a ratio of 510/1, they aren’t exactly the endangered Christian variety, relatively speaking.
Michael, if Protestantism isn’t an anachronistic movement, then someone should perhaps inform the pope.
Stephen: It isn’t a matter of what Catholics think about SDAs, or the percentage ratio. It’s a question of Christlike actions & attitudes. Will SDAs reach a point in their security where they do not need a “persecuting enemy” to vilify in order to feel legitimate?
Hey, Stephen- You’ve pointed out an area of similarity between Catholic and Adventist church leaders. Both of them are interested in unity! 🙂 But seriously, derisive expressions are just as damaging to the perpetrator as they are to the object of derision, don’t you think?
I have no quarrel with your sentiments.
I don’t want eschatology conflated with derision. They aren’t synonymous; so conflation has a chilling effect on Protestant Seventh-day Adventist eschatology.
Whence comes the tendency to say that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is apostate and then, in the next sentence or paragraph, use the word, “we”, or “us” as of the person thinks of himself as a member of the very organization he has just said is apostate? Is there a name for that? Two faced, perhaps.
I was fifteen when I requested “regular” membership in 1959. I wanted to encourage the denomination to not accept new members until they were identifiably protestant. To do otherwise, it seemed to me, would substantially increase the probability that inadequately informed members would make comments that would misrepresent the advent movement. Has this already occurred to such an extent that members of our denomination now have several very different ideas about what the advent movement is?
The good news is that some of the comments in this thread indicate identifiable protestantism. And no, a person isn’t a protestant by virtue of being “anti-Catholic”. A protestant is someone who subscribes to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers.
Adventist eschatology was developed using the principle that some prophecy is conditional. Why wouldn’t that principle apply to things Ellen White predicted?
I have studied the history of the United States congress when the Blair Sunday Law amendment was before congress in the late 1880’s and into the next decade. While the SDA church was given much credit for it’s defeat, I did not find one instance where the Roman Catholic Church gave it prominent support. It was mainly protestants.. Back in those days many protestants thought the RCC was the beast of Revelation. Pope Francis doesn’t sound anything like what we have projected on the pope in 2015. Many SDA’s do a lot of beastly preaching against the current pope. The way I see it, either he is going to exit the scene and be replaced by a tyrannical pope of a bygone era or we have our prophecies wrong. Take your pick. I know I will probably be burned at the stake for even suggesting that EGW had it wrong.
No, Tom you will not be “burned at the stake for even suggesting that EGW had it wrong.” EGW had a number of things wrong – including the future. You would be welcomed in many Adventist churches — those who celebrate freedom of expression and welcome diverse opinions.
Here’s what they call a ‘two-fer’ (one), or perhaps it’s really a ‘one-fer’ (two).
Tom, where did anyone “project” anything for “in 2015” for the pope or anything? By the way, the reason that “back in those days many protestants [sic] thought the RCC was the beast of Revelation” may have been because they were Protestants. With all respect, from where did you think that general train of thought originated? (Of course there are multiple beasts spoken of in Revelation, but I do understand.) Why were they considered to be Protestants?
You offer a false choice (“take your pick”) between this current pope necessarily being solely prophetically significant and his immediate successor. We haven’t been given and are not privy to near that level of specificity.
Esteemed Dr. Taylor, how do you know that Ellen White had the future wrong? That knowledge of course presumes future knowledge. Are you perhaps some sort of prophet? Have you kept this a secret or have you told this to your Adventist church—which celebrates freedom of expression, etc?
I’m sure you doubt EGW’s prophetic gift, but she may have gotten something right. In any case, the future is unknown in the specificity that Tom apparently expects; unless of course you somehow know better.
Correction: …where did anyone “project” anything “in 2015” for the pope or anything else.
It is the evangelical Protestant Christians who are so loudly calling for Christian principles in the laws and government, not Roman Catholics who are, for the most part much more liberal and tolerant of others even though they are in the majority. Most politicians who vigorously support government control of marriage, the home and family openly declare they are Christians fighting to return this country “back to God”–as they know what they want is what God wants.
“The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.” Great Controversy, page 571
Ron- This quote from Great Controversy says it all. To me it fully explains the enduring prejudices harbored by current SDA supporters of a traditional view of Ellen White. I wonder if traditional Mormons cling to their extra-Biblical scripture in similar ways. I find it puzzling that some can go through the mental gymnastics of claiming to believe in both sola scriptura and Mrs. White’s additions and specialized interpretations of scripture simultaneously.
This is why I have asked you (if you are the same Michael) if you believe Protestantism to be an anachronism. It seems, for practical purposes, you do; but are unwilling to just say so.
It is an anachronism or it isn’t. You appear to suggest that EGW’s observations are anachronistic but yet appear unwilling to say that Protestantism itself is an anachronism. My question (if you are in fact Michael Wortman) is what is the difference?
“Ah. Perhaps Mr. Lindensmith could favor us with a specific example of a “Predictive Prophecy” that actually predicted the future? I will be waiting with great eagerness.”
Yes, Mr. Tayler, I will attempt to do that. I only ask that, for the sake of, discussion at least, try to not play games with this. Try to be objective. You are a scientist, you are trained to be able to do this. Thank you!
You are aware of the Ten Divisions of the Rome Power in Daniel. Rome sub-divided into 10 regions (on average) when it was broking up. This is known history, refer to a detailed text, any good one will do.
1. The Visigoths which is now called Spain
2. The Franks which is now called France
3. The Sueves which is now called Portugal
4. The Burgundians which is now called Switzerland
5. The Anglo Saxons which is now called England
6. The Lombards which is now called Italy
7. The Alamannis which is now called Germany
8. The Ostrogoths gone
9. The Vandal gone
10. The Herulis gone
As you know three of these powers were said to be “rooted up.” Their demise begins the hegemony of the power nest power. That would “persecute the saints,” blaspheme against God,” “change times and laws,” and have “the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.” This power would dominate 1260 years. This time would begin when the three powers that stood in the way were removed.
This is all very well known to us.
________________________________________________
In March 537 Witigis returned to besiege Rome, cutting the aqueducts to reduce Belisarius’ garrison, a maneuver that backfired by turning Witigis’ own camp into a malaria‑breeding marsh.
When the Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I sent reinforcements, Witigis was forced to agree to a three‑month truce, which Belisarius broke, invading Picenum and threatening Ravenna. In…
________________________________________________
In March 537 Witigis returned to besiege Rome, cutting the aqueducts to reduce Belisarius’ garrison, a maneuver that backfired by turning Witigis’ own camp into a malaria‑breeding marsh.
When the Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I sent reinforcements, Witigis was forced to agree to a three‑month truce, which Belisarius broke, invading Picenum and threatening Ravenna. In March 538 the Goths abandoned the siege of Rome. They held out in northern Italy for two more years, but, by the spring of 540, they held only the stronghold of Ravenna.
To salvage the situation, Witigis agreed to abdicate, and the Gothic chiefs offered the throne to Belisarius. The General, on pretext of accepting, entered Ravenna; he seized Witigis and Matasuntha, the Gothic nobles, and Theodoric’s treasure and bore them off to Constantinople. The fate of Witigis is unknown.
The following is from Encarta and refers to Belisarius battling the remnates of the Ostrogoths Auntil 548AD This was mopping up after the March victory in 538AD when the Goths abandoned Rome.
Witigis. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
“Witigis.” Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . (2008).
Beisarius next took Sicily and then recovered Italy from the Ostrogoths, whose king he captured at Ravenna in 540. Except for…
Beisarius next took Sicily and then recovered Italy from the Ostrogoths, whose king he captured at Ravenna in 540. Except for 541‑42, when he again fought the Persians, Belisarius battled the Ostrogoths in Italy until 548, when his command, owing to intrigues at court and Justinian’s jealousy, was transferred to his rival, Narses.
1993‑2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
For other references on the above
The Civilization of the middle ages by Norman Cantor esp. around page 260
The Ruin of the Roman Empire James O’Donnell
http://www.flowofhistory.com/readings-flowcharts/the-early-modern-era/the-age-revolutions/fc106
I have not come to the one (of many) modern predictions based on the above understanding of Daniel Seven. I will wait for a response from Erv and others before going to that point!
Stephen- Re your anachronism question: As I am sure you are aware the difference lies in the authority of the text. By your definition, as I am reading you, which may not be entirely accurate, you consider Mrs. White’s writings as authoritative as scripture. If this was true for Seventh-day Adventism, it would be properly classified as a cult. Protestantism, as you know, claims the Bible as its authoritative source.I usually don’t think of Mrs. White’s writings as anachronistic, but yes, since this is your term, I suppose I would regard some of her writings as anachronistic. As to whether I consider scripture anachronistic, I would place Paul’s advice for women to not speak up in church in that category, but I would speak in terms of cultural conditions which comes close to what you may consider to be an anachronism.
I’m glad we’re hashing this out Michael; because otherwise we would misunderstand each other. I don’t consider White’s writings as authoritative as Scripture, but do equate White’s Protestant views with the Protestantism of the reformers.
So, if White’s Protestant views are anachronistic, then the reformers views are also anachronistic. That’s why I’m asking for the difference.
I should just ask if you think that the Protestantism of the reformers and their views of the papacy are anachronistic.
I think that the separation that took place in the Christian church is significant.The understanding of this history is important because it helps us understand the roots of current beliefs and behaviors. When fighting a war it is necessary to vilify ones opponent. As a young child I remember the distrust that even a child felt against the “Japs” or the “Red” Chinese. As kids we were fascinated by Chinese drip torture. For us it exemplified the extent of evil in the Chinese system of government.(That was well before the Bush administration made an argument for the “proper” use of torture.) People can’t be motivated to kill in war without dehumanizing their opponents. We don’t forget historical wrongs but we move on. US relationships with Japan are currently friendly. Because the writings of Mrs.White are so respected in Adventism they froze the natural process of “moving on.” Many feel it would be disloyal to Mrs. White and it would dishonor the place she held/holds in Adventism to put aside the vituperative words from Great Controversy that were quoted above. It is time for Adventism, in my way of thinking, to put aside the anger towards the Catholic Church as most of Protestantism has certainly done and move on. Stephen, do you think of Protestant churches as “whores of Babylon” because they have put aside the original anger that motivated the reformers and have “moved on?”
So, I take it from your non-answer that you do believe the Protestantism of the reformers is anachronistic and that as such, Protestants and Protestantism should “move on.”
Well, that assumes at least a couple of things that are not in evidence. One of them is that Protestants no longer disagree with what they originally protested. Another is that the prophetic interpretations that delineate the disagreements have been proven incorrect.
Do you believe either to be true?
I believe that Adventism is Protestantism taken to its logical conclusion; how about you? It wasn’t “anger that motivated the reformers” (unless you regard righteous indignation as anger). It was disagreement with a blasphemous system.
Paul was frank in his admission that “now we see through a glass darkly…” What is behind part of what I am saying is, like Paul, I think our understanding of spiritual matters- the nature of God and life, predictions about the future, etc.- is incomplete. You seem to see more clearly than I do. That, I suppose, allows you to have more confidence that history will progress as specifically as Mrs. White predicted and to endorse her take on reformation history. I find some of the arguments in Richard Rice’s book, The Openness of God, in which he posits that while God may know everything that is knowable, the future is not one of the areas of knowledge in which He can have complete understanding, comes closer to how I imagine God. Of course, those Protestants who believe in predestination would vehemently disagree. As far as your last statement goes, I can’t disagree with it very much. It wouldn’t take much to find blasphemy in any human system-protestant Adventism included.