History presents sudden phenomenal dissolution of paganism that was supplanted by meteoric rise to power of the papacy:
Augustine's City of God a commentary on this amazing historical development.
Pagan Romans bewailed the sack of Rome in 410 A.D., attributed the calamity to Catholic Christians' triumph over paganism. J. N. Andrews and pioneers saw Rome as the disgraced pagan "sanctuary" or "dedicated place" (MIQDASH) of Daniel 11:31. Linguistically possible; but also historically justifiable.
A. B. Bruce: "Paganism is a perpetual eclipse of Divine Grace" (The Galilean Gospel, p. 96).
"The more Christianity supplanted the heathen worship the more did it absorb the elements of paganism" (The History of the World, p. 617).
Did Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7 refer to this transfer and absorption of paganism into papacy? If not, where did he get his "taken away" idea?
Ellen White firmly identifies Paul's "man of sin" as the papacy. Her reason? Scriptural exegesis.
Perhaps Paul indeed comments on Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31.
(Jesus surely taught disciples significance of Daniel's prophecies; Matt. 24:15; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; Acts 1:3).
Did John in Revelation 13:1, 2 allude to this development?
Early Adventists so understood this passage; Emperors Constantine to Justinian allowed Bishop of Rome to assume political power.
Thus the dragon was pagan Rome; the beast, papal Rome.
The "dragon's seat," the city of Rome, was the former bastion of paganism, spiritual successor in John's day to 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.
The ancients clearly recognized Rome as successor of the Babylonian pagan worship-headquarters; a pagan from the East at home in Rome's Pantheon.
Historical comment in The Great Controversy could fit 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" (pp. 50, 54, emphasis added).
While paganism was "taken up" (Hebrew, rum) into the papacy and "removed" politically and militarily (Hebrew, SUR), could there ever be an actual "taking away" of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary?
When Daniel spoke of the papacy changing God's law, was careful to state it as only an attempted action: "he shall think to change times and laws" (7:25). In contrast, does not say "little horn" will "think" to take away HA TAMID. "New view" says he actually does take it away.
Overwhelming emphasis of Scripture: no earthly or hellish power can actually "take away" Christ's high priestly ministry (Heb. 4:14-17; 5:6, 6:19, 20; 7:24, 25; 8:1). To suggest otherwise could be blasphemy.
Further, papacy never took away Christ's ministry from the minds of true Christians, for they preserved their faith pure throughout the Dark Ages (cf. GC61, 74, 75).
Papacy could not "take away" Christ's ministry from the minds of their apostate or misinformed adherents, for they never in the first place had the true understanding of His ministry. Christ's letter to "Thyatira" (Rev. 2:18-29) is not to the papacy, but to true followers of Christ at this time. No hint that His heavenly ministry had truly been taken away, ever.
If the papacy actually took away Christ's ministry from the minds of the people (as "new view" proponents said), it would follow logically that the 16th century Reformation restored it:
Would establish Lindsell's, Barnhouse's, Walvoord's, Conradi's contentions that 1844 is meaningless trivia, thus no excuse for the existence of Seventh-day Adventist Church. Again, the "new view" presents itself as logically subversive of Seventh-day Adventism.
If the "new view" is correct, also would logically follow that what was "restored" or "justified" in 1844 was the same ministry "taken away" by the papacy earlier, that is, the first apartment ministry of Christ as High Priest. But 1844 inaugurates a new second apartment ministry.
Either way, the "new view" of Conradi logically resolves itself into a denial of biblical Seventh-day Adventism; is seen to be basic to Cottrell's and Ford's position.
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 (Rev. 12:13)?