Well said. Something important for us to keep in mind.

Thank you Ron.

I personally for myself went over the subject of EGW many times. I think that the evangelicals outside of SDA do take offense at what she wrote, and thus they try to disprove the remote possibility of her being right, ignoring all of the wonderful guidance that she gives. I think when introducing EGW to somebody who is unfamiliar, I would begin with something like Adventist Home, instead of giving them GC and waiting for the explosive reaction. I know, because such was my experience. The problems that I've had with her were:

1) She stated some things that were not explicitly stated in the Bible
2) She went against many things that I believed at the time.

I think that with time and more reading I realized a couple of things. Number one and the main one, is that Bible does not layout the requirement to believe in a future prophet to be saved. Bible is complete and contains everything we need to know and understand. Requirement is relationship and mind transformation. God will judge the wrights and wrongs. No one will be able to use the "but my pastor said that" excuse. So, with that being said I learned to give people (and myself) freedom to grow in faith and have moments of doubt... through doubt we grow. If Israel, who had observed God's miracles first hands had rejected God... I would think that we would likewise have moments of doubt and disbelief.

One of the biggest things that I've learned from EGW experience, about myself and the religious experience in general... we simply don't know... That's what the faith is all about, we choose to believe based on some knowledge that we received. By faith we receive it as truth, and we believe it to be so... but we could be wrong. We have to understand that we could be wrong. God accommodates doubt, if doubt clears up... then our faith is made stronger. But either way, we have to diligently study out and check up the facts...

For example, my pastor has been putting up certain historical facts that I found questionable. One of such was claim that Ostrogoths were defeated and uprooted in 538 AD when papacy took power. Upon checking up reliable sources, all of them agreed that Ostrogoths did not vanish until 555 AD. My pastor did not have answer for my question... he simply followed the script provided for him before and failed to check the facts out. But I don't see it in any way being a stumbling block for my faith. We learn from our mistakes and move on... just like people did in 1848. When there's faith mixed with lack of understanding... there will be mistakes. That's why important and diligent unscripted (I.E. quarterly devotions) self studies are important. Don't get me wrong... guided devotions are great, but they leave you hanging in out in the dry when the rubber really meets the road. We can never live somebody else's faith, which at times I found myself doing.

Go back and check out what was going with the Ostrogoths about 538 AD. You will find that even though they did not entirely disappear until 555 AD, they were all but history before that time. The point is, as far as the prophecy is concerned that, the Ostrogoths were not standing in the way of the power of the Bishop of Rome after 538 AD. It is not a question of whether they completely disappeared in 538 AD. The fact is that they were "defeated and uprooted" as a power opposing the Bishop of Rome in 538 AD.

Here is the evidence which I wrote for a thread about a year ago:

Please kindly consider below what I believe is strong evidence that SDAs' are correct in their understanding of the significance of the year AD 538.

Will Durant, in his book, The Age of Faith, p. 110, describes the Ostrogoths after AD 538 "the defeated people". When you read the whole story of what happened at that time, it is obvious that the Ostrogoths were a dying, disorganized, and weak force, in the last throes of their existence as nation.

Think for a few moments about these well documented facts:

In AD 549, the only reason Totila and his army of 10,000 were finally able to take Rome for what historian Durant describes as a "brief success" was owing to the fact that Justinian considered the West was won and had called Belisarius to the East for the war against Persia. By AD 553, only 8 years after their failed siege against Rome, Narses had driven the Ostrogoths from Italy.

It should be obvious that the weakened state of the Ostrogoths was such by that time that they had ceased to be a serious opposition to the Pope religiously or politically long before they were actually driven out of Italy. Here's why:

The ultimate defeat of the Ostrogoths was made a foregone conclusion by the Emperor's decision when he got news of Belisarius' victories against the Vandals. Says Gibbons, "Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, [Justinian] proceeded without delay to the full establishment of the Catholic Church" (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. 41, paragraph 11). It was at that point that he called Belisarius to Italy in order to defeat the Ostrogoths and thus give the Pope the power to do what the law already said he should do, which was to force everyone to conform doctrinally to the Western Orthodox Church's teachings.

The Pope clearly was able to do this when the Ostrogoths were driven back from Rome, thus freeing the Bishop of Rome to peform the duties that the Emperor's new laws intended him to do. That much is obvious, and it is all we are concerned with at this point. It doesn't matter that a few years later, an admittedly weakened, disorganized, and even defeated people, came into a Rome that was virtually defenseless.

Totila's army of 10,000 was able to enter Rome because the Greek garrison was demoralized, its officers incompetant and cowards, and traiters opened the gates to the Goths. Totila then let Rome for Ravenna, at which point Belisarius recaptured the city of Rome. (See page 110 of Durant's The Age of Faith.)

Please notice that in AD 538, Witigis' Ostrogoths laid siege to Rome with 150,000, but in AD 549, Totila's Ostrogoths had only 10,000 men under arms. It's hard to believe that under those circumstances anyone is going to seriously deny that AD 538 was a very significant year in terms of the lessening of Ostrogothic power. Again, remember that in AD 538, Belisarius had only 5,000 men in arms, yet the Ostrogoths' 150,000 troops failed to take the city and after a year returned in defeat to Ravenna. The Ostrogoths lost 1/3 of their people in that slaughter. At that point, according to Durant, they were a "defeated people." I don't know about you, but to me it sounds as if AD 538 was rather a pivotal year in terms of the influence and power of the Ostrogoths. They came back to Rome with an army of a mere 10,000, and succeeded in taking a virtually defenseless city for what the historian calls a "brief success."

Therefore, I submit, SDA's have very good historical grounds for saying AD 538 was the year in which the 1260 year prophecy should begin because that was the year that the Ostrogothic kingdom lost whatever significant power and influence they had excercised before, and the year when the Bishop of Rome was free of serious Arian oppostion to his position as head of all the Christian churches. The Ostrogoths were afterwards a defeated and doomed people, and no "brief success" by a mere force of 10,000 in taking a defenseless Rome can change those all-important facts.

Shudder Shudder. Oh Please.

Have you read that book recently?

Might I suggest Christ's Object Lessons or Steps to Christ?

In AD 537/8, the Ostrogoths had 150,000 men under arms; but when they came back they had an army of only 10,000. Now, please, what sane and sober military officer would not call that a catastrophic defeat?

Totila's mere 10,000 took Rome only because Belisarius was called to the East to fight the war against Persia and Justinian considered the West already won. Also because the Greek garrison in Rome was demoralized, its officers incompentant cowards, and because traiters opened the gates to the Goths. That is when Totila took Rome again (AD 549). But it was a very brief success. Justinian sent Narses to Rome and he drove the Goths from Italy (AD 553). This clearly supports what Desmond Ford says in his commentary on Daniel, that the Ostrogoths were not a threat during this period to the Pope's power and influence.

An interesting insight into the Ostrogothic "success" and radically declining strength is that in AD 540, the Ostrogoths of Ravenna offered to surrender to Belisarius if he would become their King. He lied, they surrendered, and then he happily presented the city to Justinian. At that time, Belisarius was always escorted by a large number of Vandals, Goths and Moors. (See Durant's The Age Of Faith, p. 109.) Clearly the Goths and Vandals were subdued and defeated if they would escort the man who had destroyed them and ask him to become their king.

All we are arguing is that the Pope had been declared the head of all the churches, the corrector of heretics, and that the Emperor was prepared to defeat the Pope's unorthodox enemies, which he did in short order.

Pope Silverius was removed from Rome in AD 537 by Belisarius and was exiled to the Island of Palmeria where he soon died from harsh treatment. Vigilius was made Pope by the orders of the Emperor. (Durant's The Age Of Faith, p. 115)

What does that show? It shows that the emperor was concerned to make the Papacy, the Catholic Church and trinitarian, orthodox doctrine dominate and would do almost anything to see it happen. That is all that's important so far as the 1,260 day/year prophecy is concerned.

Justinian made the Pope head of all the churches in 533. What matters as far as the 1260 day/year prophecy is that event that led to the Pope's being able to be the head of the churches without serious opposition from the Arian nations, which, as we have pointed out, occurred in AD 538, when the Ostrogoths were reduced from a force of 150,000 men under arms to one of 10,000 and compelled to lift their siege against Rome.

It's important to remember that the growth of the Bishop's power did not come all at once. AD 538 was an important date in its development, but it was a gradual process before the Papacy would reach the zenith of its power and influence. The fifth century Leo the Great was the first pope under whom the new power of the bishop of Rome was clearly visible. ( J.M. Roberts, History of the World,1987, p. 301)

Consider these facts alone and then tell me that AD 538 was not a significant year for papal power: In AD 537/8, the Ostrogoths had 150,000 men under arms; but when they came back they had an army of only 10,000. Now, please, what sane and sober military officer would not call that a catastrophic defeat?

In studying this subject recently, I've been amazed at how many historians see Justinian's autocratic rule the precursor of the Pope's autocratic rule in the Church. Well, when do you think that all started? Around AD 538, when the Emperor sent his best general to destroy dissenters of the pope docrines. Guess who continued that policy when he had the power to do so? Yes, the bishop of Rome.

I love Adventist Home and have found it very helpful. And yes, I am reading now. My wife is reading it in Spanish and we have fun discussing it with your children.

What is it about that book that you do not like?

It's so applicable even by today's standards! I think in a way it became the lost art. Especially the warnings of the city influence and difficulties living in a city in the last days. That stroke me as providential. Thinking about what happened when the power went out for a day in the NYC... what would happen if both the water and the power is gone... like in New Orleans? I think that call to leave the Babylon is not only call to leave the spiritual one, but also the physical one as the last days draw near.

I would think that being a woman she emphasized gender equality, while it may not have been the popular belief during her days too. I'm surprised that she did not get much heat for that (or perhaps she did, I don't know..)

I understand what you are saying about the "beginning" of the defeat... but I would not call it the end of the nation... especially considering that the capital took another 2 years to conquer, and that unlikely comeback you have mentioned. I have no problem with the "beginning of the end", yet I don't see the "uprooted" title as appropriate. But again, I don't make a big deal out of it as my faith does not rest on our understanding of dates but on the person of God and His promices.

I'm wondering how you handle this information from the Word.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25 NASB



A lesson many have not found until serious damage has been done to their walk with God. Revealing another reason why it is a good thing to apply principle where you find it, whatever the context.

"One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
" Romans 14:5 NASB

If Jesus allows this freedom on something so important as the day He has commanded to remember, it would seem to be logical, to think for one's self in other matters is a given. And I would also suggest, to think for one's self does not mean that our thinking turns error into Truth just because we are free to think it does.
Regards!