LoveGodsWord said:
↑ Is it God's fault that people had a wrong understanding of the application of the scriptures
She doesn't say that Miller had a wrong message. She said he had a heavenly message, and the truth. But of course, it was a false message. And she also says God judged people on the basis of their rejection of that false time-setting message.
EGW believed that his preaching fulfilled the
prophecies of Scripture, and saw him being guided by the Lord.
"
I saw that William Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this; others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump." (Early Writings, p. 258.)
Your argument here is a false one as it starts with a false premise, that those whom God or angels lead must be theological infallible. Your trying to equate the attributes of God with His messengers. For instance, God led John the Baptist. After all, Jesus Himself said that there was no greater prophet than John (Luke 7:28). And yet, we find John questioning the Messiahship of Jesus (Matthew 11:3), no small theological point, to be sure.
Or what about Peter who, though certainly led of God, refused to eat with Gentiles when other Jews were around (Galatians 2)? Thus, sometime after the Cross, after Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep" (John 21:17), after even Pentecost, Peter seems to have missed one of the foundational truths of what Jesus taught and what the Cross was to accomplish (Galatians 3:28).
Yet here in both of these examples from God's WORD we do not deny that both John the Baptist and Peter as being led by God now do we?
In
The Great Controversy, EGW wrote of Martin Luther that "angels of heaven were by his side, and rays of light from the throne of God revealed the treasure of truth to his understanding." Does that mean that everything Luther wrote was from God?
What Protestant who loves the gospel that Martin Luther unearthed from centuries of rubbish and superstition generated from the RCC, doesn't believe that the Lord led Luther?
Now, did EGW's endorsement (after all having angels of heaven by your side is a pretty good endorsement) mean that she would have supported Luther's vitriol against those who believed in the seventh-day Sabbath? Would she have endorsed his attacks against Ulrich Zwingli, who argued that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper were just symbols as opposed to Luther's more Catholic-leaning position of a real presence of Christ in them?
Did this mean that she agreed with Luther's diatribes against the Jews, in which he wrote things the Nazis used centuries later to help pave the way for mass murder?
Your argument above is based on a false premise and is therefore a strawman argument.
Hope this helps.