The Image of the Beast.

[Hobie]

What is the Image of the Beast, lets go over the text:
"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads" (Revelation 13:15-16).

This passage tells us that the mark of the Beast will be enforced by the image of the Beast. An image is something that has the attributes of the original. The first beast of Revelation 13 was a power that utilized state resources in order to enforce its doctrines, even when these doctrines were contrary to the Word of God. The only power which has ulitlized the powers of the state to persecute and send many good Christians to their deaths and has been through the ages that qualifies is the Papal power.

According to Revelation 13, the second beast, will exercise the same authority as the first beast (the Roman Catholic system) and causes the world to worship the papal system (Revelation 13:12). We are seeing signs of this taking place already in our day.

We are told in Revelation that events will happen that will actively encourage the world to make "an image to the beast." With its political and perhaps military might their is one country which has rose up at the time prophesized that will bring this image of the Beast to life and cause it to speak and declare a death decree against all those that would not comply with its regulations. Those who have allegiance or showing they follow or belong to the first beast, (hence the name, mark of the Beast) will have the mark of those that cooperate with the image of the Beast. Only those with the mark will have permission to conduct business.

Revelation 13:12 says that the second beast "exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast." If the power that arose at the specified time, United States is to exercise all the authority the Papacy had and force the world to worship the Papacy, then it follows that the US will become like Rome was during the 1260-year period when she enforced her doctrines through the law and persecution. The United States will, pass religious laws especially on worship and the Sabbath and enforce their observance.

In becoming like Rome, by forming a union between church and state, and using the power of the state to enforce religious laws, the United States will become an image of the Beast, and use even its control of commerce to enforce it.

And that no man might buy nor sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his name...and his number is six hundred, three score and six (Revelation 13:17-18).

[piecrust]

Why on earth would this be about the USA?  Is that in the middle east?

[Hobie]

Biden Says U.S. Must Lead New World Order: What America Needs If He's Serious - Steve Forbes |Forbes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_UY3YDnBlE

Joe Biden wants a 'new economic world order.'
The goal is to replace the old paradigms of globalization — free trade and a reliance on markets — with a "worker-centered" trade policy that raises wages not just for Americans, but around the world.

But building a new world economy is proving more difficult than eulogizing the old one. While the pro-globalization consensus has shown cracks for years — from the financial crisis to the election of former President Donald Trump — Biden's team has struggled to outline how it will shape new rules and institutions to replace those that governed the world for the last half-century.

Biden's team is moving slowly to transform a paralyzed World Trade Organization, once the premier facilitator of globalization, into a new-look economic club that reflects its progressive values. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/joe-bidens-economy-trade-china-00096781

The world wants and demand 'order'...
'"Our world is facing existential challenges, but the global community is more fragmented and divided than at any time during the past 75 years," he said, highlighting the need for "a global order that works for everyone".'
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146622

[dpr]

What is the Image of the Beast, lets go over the text:
"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads" (Revelation 13:15-16).

This passage tells us that the mark of the Beast will be enforced by the image of the Beast. An image is something that has the attributes of the original. The first beast of Revelation 13 was a power that utilized state resources in order to enforce its doctrines, even when these doctrines were contrary to the Word of God. The only power which has ulitlized the powers of the state to persecute and send many good Christians to their deaths and has been through the ages that qualifies is the Papal power.

You are not understanding the "image of the beast" according to interpretation in Bible Scripture. That "image of the beast", along with the coming Antichrist, is symbolic of what Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, did in Daniel's day with setting up a gold idol image of himself, and demanding that all bow in worship to it or be killed. So the "image of the beast" itself is not what that demands the bowing, it will be the Antichrist himself that does that.

Furthermore, the 1st beast of Rev.13:1 is about the coming "one world government" system that is still no yet complete today. The Antichrist, when he appears in JERUSALEM, is when it will be completed, and establish a time of 'world peace' for the end. If you follow SDA teaching, then you are way... behind in Bible prophecy about the end of this world.

According to Revelation 13, the second beast, will exercise the same authority as the first beast (the Roman Catholic system) and causes the world to worship the papal system (Revelation 13:12). We are seeing signs of this taking place already in our day.

The 1st beast NOR the 2nd beast is represented by the Roman Catholic Church. That is a 'false Jew' doctrine against the early Roman Church, which the Jews in Rome hated the Roman Church, and it is an idea that has trickled down to many Jewish converts to Christ by their heeding ideas from orthodox Judaism. So there is a price to pay for Jewish converts to Jesus that still desire to associate with their 'unbelieving' orthodox Jewish brethren in Judaism.

The coming Antichrist, the "man of sin" of 2 Thess.2:4, and the pseudochristos of Matthew 24:23-26, and "another beast" of Revelation 13:11 forward, is NOT about a pope. It is about a supernatural one working supernatural miracles, raining fire from heaven down to the earth in the sight of men. It will be Satan himself come to JERUSALEM to play God, deceiving the whole world. And hopefully, brethren will wake up and understand that coming false-Messiah will be claimed to be descended from the tribe of Judah, because that false one is to come representing the Messiah of The Bible.

[Amo]

You are not understanding the "image of the beast" according to interpretation in Bible Scripture. That "image of the beast", along with the coming Antichrist, is symbolic of what Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, did in Daniel's day with setting up a gold idol image of himself, and demanding that all bow in worship to it or be killed. So the "image of the beast" itself is not what that demands the bowing, it will be the Antichrist himself that does that.

Furthermore, the 1st beast of Rev.13:1 is about the coming "one world government" system that is still no yet complete today. The Antichrist, when he appears in JERUSALEM, is when it will be completed, and establish a time of 'world peace' for the end. If you follow SDA teaching, then you are way... behind in Bible prophecy about the end of this world.


The 1st beast NOR the 2nd beast is represented by the Roman Catholic Church. That is a 'false Jew' doctrine against the early Roman Church, which the Jews in Rome hated the Roman Church, and it is an idea that has trickled down to many Jewish converts to Christ by their heeding ideas from orthodox Judaism. So there is a price to pay for Jewish converts to Jesus that still desire to associate with their 'unbelieving' orthodox Jewish brethren in Judaism.

The coming Antichrist, the "man of sin" of 2 Thess.2:4, and the pseudochristos of Matthew 24:23-26, and "another beast" of Revelation 13:11 forward, is NOT about a pope. It is about a supernatural one working supernatural miracles, raining fire from heaven down to the earth in the sight of men. It will be Satan himself come to JERUSALEM to play God, deceiving the whole world. And hopefully, brethren will wake up and understand that coming false-Messiah will be claimed to be descended from the tribe of Judah, because that false one is to come representing the Messiah of The Bible.

Why do you call yourself a Protestant Huguenot, and then deny the testimony of your Protestant and Huguenot forefathers?

John Calvin


Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western church, we affirm to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church. Hence it appears, that we by no means deny that church may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions, in such churches, Christ lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God. — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,1960), Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 12.


"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."
Taken from Institutes by John Calvin.

I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)

Respecting the Pope, " Whereas the Bishop of Rome hath erected for himself a temporal monarchy in the Christian world, and usurping a sovereign authority and lordship over all churches and pastors, doth exalt itself to that degree of insolency as to be called God, and will be adored, arrogating to himself all power in heaven and on earth to dispose of all ecclesiastical matters, and to define articles of faith; and in the civil State he tramples under foot all lawful authority of magistrates, setting up and pulling down Kings, disposing of Kings, and their kingdoms at his pleasure; we therefore believe and maintain that he is truly and properly the anti-Christ, the son of perdition, predicted by the Holy Prophets; we hope and wait that the Lord, according to His promise, and as He hath already begun, will confound him by the Spirit of His mouth, and destroy him finally by the brightness of His coming" (Taken from - The Seventeenth National Synod of the Huguenots, at Gap, in Dauphiny, October 1st, 1603)

The antichrist you speak of, who is the devil himself impersonating Christ, is at the very end of time. Who works among those who have already been deceived and or chosen deception over truth. You reject the teachings of your Protestant and Huguenot Fathers, in favor of Roman Catholic inspired prophetic interpretation invented exactly to detract the pointing finger of biblical prophecy away from the Roman Church. Emphasis in the following quoted works is mine.

JESUITS INTORDUCE FUTURIST COUNTERINTERPRETATION
LE ROY EDWIN FROOM


I. Counterinterpretaions Divert Protestant Applications

For some time following the launching of the Reformation, Roman Catholic leadership carefully avoided exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse.  They seemed unable to parry the force of the incriminating Protestant applications of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which were undermining the very foundations of the Catholic positions.  Upon the first outbreak of Luther's antipapal protest two Catholic doctors, Prierias and Eck, in the true spirit of the recently concluded Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), had boldly reasserted the Lateran theory and declared the papal dominion to be Daniel's fifth monarchy, or reign of the saints, and identified the existing Roman church with the New Jerusalem.

But what of the various prophecies of the Antichrist that was to do its exploits between the time of Rome's iron empire and the saints' reign?  In Germany, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Sweden, England, and Scotland there had been simultaneous and impressive declarations by voice and pen that the Papacy was the specified Antichrist of prophecy.  The symbols of Daniel, Paul, And John were applied with tremendous effect.  Hundreds of books and tracts impressed their contention upon the consciousness of Europe.  Indeed, it gained so great a hold upon the minds of men that Rome, in alarm, saw that she must successfully counteract this identification of Antichrist with the Papacy, or lose the battle.

She felt the tremendous force of the arguments used against her.  And she discovered, to her dismay, that she could no longer hold her members by mere ritual, dogma, of force.  There must be reasoned evidence and plausible exposition of Scripture prophecy to counter the largely unbroken harmony of the reformed positions.  Catholicism must have preachers who would match the dynamic Reformation eloquence and scholarship.  The Jesuits were summoned to aid in the extremity, and cleverly provided the very method needed both for defense and for attack.

From the ranks of the Jesuits two stalwarts arose, determined to lift the stigma from the Papacy by locating Antichrist at some point where he could not be applied to the Roman church.  Whereas Luther and some of his associates had, in the early part of the reformation, doubted the canonicity of the Apocalypse, Catholicism could now pose as the actual defender of the New Testament canon, as against the inconsistency of the Reformers, who had boasted that they rested their case solely on Holy Writ.

1. Condemned Reformation on Point of Agreement.- The Reformers in all lands had been unanimous in applying most of the prophecies of Antichrist to the Papacy, though some applied one or two symbols to Mohammedanism, as a paralleling Eastern Antichrist.  In fact, it was this united Protestant stand on the Papacy that became the spring of their reformatory action.  It was this clear understanding  of the prophetic symbols that led them to protest against Rome with such extraordinary courage and effectiveness, nerving them to break with her, and to resist her claims, even unto death.  These positions were, moreover, shared by hundreds of thousands, and were adopted by both rulers and people.  Under their influence, whole nations abjured allegiance to the bishop of Rome.  It was clearly a crisis of major proportions.  Of this wholesale Protestant testimony The Catholic Encyclopedia charges:

"to the 'reformers' particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl them against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting."

In the reaction that followed, Catholicism loosed all its reserves upon the adherents of the Reformation.  But the counter Reformation did not merely condemn the Reformation in general: it attacked the prophetic positions on which all Protestants were agreed.  It repudiated the interpretation which they embodied in their solemn confessions and sealed with their blood.  It thus attacked and condemned Protestantism's prophetic spring of action.

2. Application to Papacy Must be Diverted.-  Rome had felt the cumulative force of these prophecies.  She must somehow offset them.  There was no way but to deny their applicability to the Papacy, as their integral existence in the Scripture could not be denied.  The persistent Protestant application to the Papacy of Antichrist, under the various symbols, must be countered and turned if the Protestant prophetic fortress was to be overwhelmed.  The incriminating finger of prophecy-pointed by Daniel, Paul, and John-must be diverted.  The symbols must be pushed out of the entire field of medieval and contemporary history.

II. Two Conflicting Alternatives Brought Forth

Rome's answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory.  Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain, and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her Futurist interpretation.  And through Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, she advanced almost simultaneously the conflicting Preterist interpretation.  These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Historical interpretation of the Protestants.  Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome.  The one accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of papal Rome's career.  The other achieved it by making it overlap the immense era of papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation.  It is consequently often called the gap theory.

According to the Protestants, the vision of Babylon and the supporting Beast is divinely interpreted in chapter 17 of the Apocalypse.  It was on this that the Reformers commonly rested their case - the apostate woman, the Roman church: the city, seven hilled Rome; the many waters, the many peoples; the Beast, the fourth, or Roman, beast of Daniel: the sixth head, the Caesars; and the seventh, the popes.  Concerning the two alternatives, presented by Ribera and Alcazar, consigning Antichrist either to the remote past of future, Joseph Tanner, the Protestant writer, gives this record:

"Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system.  The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled at Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.  On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal power by bringing out the futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years.  Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Riberas, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times."

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations.  Thus the roman Catholic writer G. S. Hitchcock says:

"The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian Dispensation."
"The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D." 

Similarly, Dean Henry Alford (Protestant), in the "Prolegomena" to his Greek Testament, declares:

"The founder of this system [Futurist] in modern times.....appears to have been the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580."
"The Praeterist view found no favour, and was hardly so much as thought of, in the times of primitive Christianity.....The view is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar....in 1614.'

E. B. Elliot states precisely the same fact, only assigning slightly different dates; and many others, such as Dr. Candish, of Edinbugh, support the charges.  Thus the fact is established.

Catholics dared not admit that the dynasty of the popes had fulfilled the prophecies of the Man of Sin, or that Babylon the Great was the Roman Catholic Church.  Yet it was clear that no other power or system existing during the early and the later Middle ages really answered the description.  Hence, declared that Babylon meant pagan Rome.  Others, of the Futurist School, which won general acceptance among the Catholics, declared that these prophecies regarding Antichrist were still largely unfulfilled, and insisted on a literal interpretation, especially of the prophetic time feature.

Futurism contended insistently for an individual Antichrist, not a system or dynasty; for a diminutive three and a half literal years, not twelve and a half centuries; for an individual Jew of the tribe of Dan, a clever infidel, to set himself up in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, not a succession of bishops in the Catholic Church.  Thus the prophecies allegedly had only to do with the first few centuries after Christ, and then three and a half years sometime in the future.  Between the two was the great gap of the spreading centuries with which prophecy had naught to do.  Antichrist obviously had not come - because the time of the end had not come. 


III. Ribera Initiates Futurist Counterinterpretation

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), of Salamanca, Jesuit scholar, writer, and critic, was born in Villacastin, Spain.  Educated at the University of Salamanca, he later specialized in the Scriptures, as well as Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, in which he became a recognized expert, receiving a doctorate in theology.  Joining the Jesuit order in 1570, at the age of thirhty-three, he was soon called by Alvarez to teach and write on the Scriptures at the University of Salamanca.  Serving as confessor and biographer of the famous Carmelite nun and mystic, St. Theresa, he began the composition of his famed commentaries in 1575.  This writing was interspersed with preaching for a period of sixteen years.  It was under these circumstances that he began his controversy with Protestant Historical School interpretation.

About 1590 Ribera published a 500-paged commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the Protestant application of Antichrist to the church of Rome.  Ribera's death at fifty-four the preparation of further commentaries.  Those that were printed passed through several revised editions-at Salamanca about 1590, Lyons and Antwerp in 1593, Douay in 1612, and Antwerp in 1603 and 1623.

1.  Gist Of Ribera's Prophetic Exposition. - Ribera assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John's own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years' reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent.  He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world - and all in this brief space of three and one-half literal years!

Ribera made Revelation 12 refer to the persecution of the church when she would be compelled to flee into the wilderness during this very last three and a half years of time, which period coincides with Antichrist's reign.  Ribera also believed that at that time Christian Rome would be overthrown because of her sins.  He placed the one thousand years, which he regarded as an indefininte period, between the cross and the coming of Antichrist just before the second advent, but repudiated Augustine's view of the temporal rule of the saints on this earth; instead, he placed the ruling saints with Christ in heaven during the thousand years...............

I will leave you with further testimony from Protestants of the past in my next post.

[Amo]

From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energized and guided by the prophetic Word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the papal apostasy till he recognized the pope as antichrist. It was then he burned the papal Bull. Knox's first sermon, the sermon which launched him on his mission as a Reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The Reformers embodied their interpretation of prophecy in their confessions of faith, and Calvin in his "Institutes". All the Reformers were unanimous in the matter . . . And their interpretation of these prophecies determined their reforming action . . . It nerved them to resist the claims of that apostate church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs, it sustained them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples... —H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation (Toronto: S. R. Briggs, [n.d.]), pp.250-260.


Martin Luther
We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Briefwechsel (Weimar, 1930-1948), Vol.2, p.167, cited in What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol.1, p.34.

You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with the spirit of His mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the brightness of His coming, for which we are waiting. — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-), Vol. 8, p.554., cited in Plass, op. cit, Vol.1, pp.36, 37.


(In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

Heinrich Bullinger
By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks . . . But when the apostolic prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size. —Trans. from Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta (Daniel the Most Wise Prophet of God), chap. 7, fol. 78v.

Nicholas Ridley
The head, under Satan, of all mischief is Antichrist and his brood; and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. The beast is he whereupon the whore sitteth. The whore is that city, saith John in plain words, which hath empire over the kings of the earth. This whore hath a golden cup of abominations in her hand, whereof she maketh to drink the kings of the earth, and of the wine of this harlot all nations hath drunk; yea, and kings of the earth have lain by this whore; and merchants of the earth, by virtue of her pleasant merchandise, have been made rich.

Now what city is there in the whole world, that when John wrote, ruled over the kings of the earth; or what city can be read of in any time, that of the city itself challenged the empire over the kings of the earth, but only the city of Rome, and that since the usurpation of that See hath grown to her full strength? — Nicholas Ridley, A Piteous Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England, in the Time of the Late Revolt from the Gospel, in Works, p.53.

Philip Melanchthon
18. Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist.

19. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God, etc.

20. But it is certain that the popes do rule in the church, and under the title of the church in defending idols.

21. Wherefore I affirm that no heresy hath arisen, nor indeed shall be, with which these descriptions of Paul can more truly and certainly accord and agree than with this pontifical kingdom . . .

25. The prophet Daniel also attributes these two things to Antichrist; namely, that he shall place an idol in the temple, and worship [it] with gold and silver; and that he shall not honor women.

26. That both of them belong to the Roman Pontiff, who does not clearly see? The idols are clearly the impious masses, the worship of saints, and the statues which are exhibited in gold and silver that they may be worshiped. —Trans. from Philip Melanchthon, "De Matrimonio," Disputationes, No.56, in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), Vol.12, cols. 535, 536.

John Hooper
Because God hath given this light unto my countrymen, which be all persuaded, (or else God send them to be persuaded!) that the bishop of Rome nor none other is Christ's vicar upon the earth; it is no need to use any long or copious oration: it is so plain that it needeth no probation; the very properties of antichrist, I mean of Christ's great and principal enemy, is so openly known to all men, that are not blinded with the smoke of Rome, that they know him to be the beast that John describeth in the Apocalypse. — John Hooper, Declaration of Christ and His Office, chap. 3, in Works, Vol. 1, pp.22, 23 (early writings).

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them."
Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."
Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.)
Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."
Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)."
Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)

Irish Articles of Faith (adopted in 1615): "The Bishop of Rome...be that 'man of sin', foretold in the holy Scriptures."

Savoy Declaration: "The Pope of Rome...is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."

Baptist Confession 1688: "The Pope of Rome...is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition."

For eleven hundred years, Christians have identified the Church of Rome as being the Whore of Revelation 17.

By 900 AD, "Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the Pope antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon" (Martyrs Mirror, 5th English edition, p. 240).

In the tenth century, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, called the Pope Antichrist, in a full council at Rheims (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, 1821, p. 229).

The Waldensian treatise titled the Noble Lesson, dated 1100 A.D., stated: "Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." In 1120 or 1160 A.D., A Treatise Concerning Antichrist identified the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of Peter the Valdo (Faber, pp. 379-384).

In 1206, the Albigenses made the following confession: "That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ" (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821 edition, first published in 1692, p. 178).

Throughout the Reformation era, Rome was considered the Mother of Harlots. On September 9, 1560, Pastor Jean Louis Paschale of Calabria, just before he was burned alive in the presence of Pope Pius IV in Rome, turned to the Pope and "arraigned him as the enemy of Christ, the persecutor of his people, and the Anti-Christ of Scripture, and concluded by summoning him and all his cardinals to answer for their cruelties and murders before the throne of the Lamb" (J.A. Wylie, History of the Waldenses, c1860, p. 120).

William Tyndale identified the Pope as Antichrist in his treatise "The Practice of Prelates" and in his Preface to the 1534 edition of the New Testament. Many of the early Protestant Bibles contained artwork that portrays the Scarlet Woman of Revelation 17, and identifies the Roman Catholic Church as this apostate religion. In his 1893 work titled Union with Rome, Bishop Christopher Wordsworth of the Church of England stated the view which prevailed among Protestants at that time: "... we tremble at the sight, while we read the inscription, emblazoned in large letters, `Mystery, Babylon the Great,' written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome."

John Wesley's Notes; But he that had the mark, namely, the name of the first beast, or the number of his name - The name of the beast is that which he bears through his whole duration; namely, that of Papa or Pope: the number of his name is the whole time during which he bears this name. Whosoever, therefore, receives the mark of the beast does as much as if he said expressly, "I acknowledge the present Papacy, as proceeding from God;" or, "I acknowledge that what St. Gregory VII. has done, according to his legend, (authorized by Benedict XIII.,) and what has been maintained in virtue thereof, by his successors to this day, is from God." By the former, a man hath the name of the beast as a mark; by the latter, the number of his name. In a word, to have the name of the beast is, to acknowledge His papal Holiness; to have the number of his name is, to acknowledge the papal succession. The second beast will enforce the receiving this mark under the severest penalties. (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, Revelation 13:17)

[dpr]

Why do you call yourself a Protestant Huguenot, and then deny the testimony of your Protestant and Huguenot forefathers?

What, you think you can try and discredit by knowing a 'little' bit of European history?

My ancestors were French Huguenots that fled Catholic persecutions in 16th century France. They wound up in Britain, and then came to Virginia Colony as indentured servants.

The standing debate in THAT time, was the belief that the pope was the prophesied Antichrist. Yet the prophecies did not match, and that time is long... past. So it's time to mature... in God's Word about the events coming for the end of this world, instead of dwelling on old beliefs like many of the early Reformers of the Protestant Reformation had about a pope that never came to pass.

The antichrist you speak of, who is the devil himself impersonating Christ, is at the very end of time. Who works among those who have already been deceived and or chosen deception over truth. You reject the teachings of your Protestant and Huguenot Fathers, in favor of Roman Catholic inspired prophetic interpretation invented exactly to detract the pointing finger of biblical prophecy away from the Roman Church. Emphasis in the following quoted works is mine.

God's Word about the very end, the time which we are in today, declares that Satan himself will be the coming Antichrist to Jerusalem, and be setup up as "king of the world" and as God, sitting in a rebuilt JEWISH TEMPLE in Jerusalem. And in the middle of the Daniel 9:27 symbolic "week", that false one will end the orthodox Jews old covenant worship they will have re-started in Jerusalem, and instead he will place an IDOL image in false worship at that new 3rd temple in Jerusalem, for all the world to worship, or be killed, just like what the king of Babylon did in Daniel's day.

Even Revelation 13:4-8 shows for the end, that the whole world will worship the "dragon" (another title for Satan, per Rev.12:9).

So trying to claim the old Reformer's idea that today's pope is the Antichrist for the end, is just stupid, Biblical illiteracy. And those like myself who study God's Word instead of believing professional mouthpieces that preach as a business, we well understand these points.

[Amo]

Here we are, put some real knowledge behind your claims. Tell which prophecies did not match, and do not match, and I will show you how they do better than any other explanation. As these boards have been filled with the evidence of such for years now, and continue to be.

Ignorance and or willing ignorance will be no excuse before God on the day of judgment for being a false prophet. You will not fault people who died by the millions at the hand of the papacy, for calling the pope antichrist, and the Roman Church Babylon for this and other egregious sins against humanity, with impunity before God. Even calling your own ancestors who lived under real live persecution, ignorant for doing so.

The pope is antichrist period, for the position he claims to fill, which belongs to Christ our Lord alone. If you do not understand this, then you understand nothing. As long as there is a pope claiming universal leadership of "Christianity" and the world, then the pope is antichrist. I'm sorry you think your ancestors were stupid and biblically illiterate. Not to worry though, some day you will see them again, and can explain to them why they were.

You bring nothing new to the table, which the Jesuits have not spoken long before you. Are you sure it is your ancestors who are the stupid and biblically illiterate ones? Today's pope is part of the beast whose deadly wound has been healed, not the beast when first established by the dragon as well.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

[Cathlodox]

Remember, the SDA Church claimed that the only problem with the reformation was that it STOPPED REFORMING. SDA's wanted the Trinity Doctrine to be taken off the table as they taught it was the wine of Babylon.

"The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming.  Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors." – James White, Sabbath Herald, February 7, 1856


Sabbath Herald
"The doctrine of the Trinity WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CHURCH BY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush." (vol. 6, no. 24, page 185)

J.H.WAGGONER: Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing this sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of socinianism." J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1884), p. 174.

You will notice that SDA's will quote huge swaths of statements from the reformers - what they are not being honest about is the position of those same reformers is NOT the position the SDA's are taking. Can you imagine ANY of the "reformers" saying the things I've quoted above? Didn't think so.


Can you imagine any Protestant saying the below?


Sabbath Herald
"Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error." Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1865 No. 13

This is standard SDA Biblical process.

[dpr]

Remember, the SDA Church claimed that the only problem with the reformation was that it STOPPED REFORMING. SDA's wanted the Trinity Doctrine to be taken off the table as they taught it was the wine of Babylon.

"The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming.  Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors." – James White, Sabbath Herald, February 7, 1856


Sabbath Herald
"The doctrine of the Trinity WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CHURCH BY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush." (vol. 6, no. 24, page 185)

J.H.WAGGONER: Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing this sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of socinianism." J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1884), p. 174.

You will notice that SDA's will quote huge swaths of statements from the reformers - what they are not being honest about is the position of those same reformers is NOT the position the SDA's are taking. Can you imagine ANY of the "reformers" saying the things I've quoted above? Didn't think so.


Can you imagine any Protestant saying the below?


Sabbath Herald
"Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error." Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1865 No. 13

This is standard SDA Biblical process.

Those SDA opinions sound just like the Judaizer converts that Apostle Paul had to deal with in the Book of Galatians. It reveals the Romans 11 'blindness' which God put upon the majority of the Jews.

[Cathlodox]

Those SDA opinions sound just like the Judaizer converts that Apostle Paul had to deal with in the Book of Galatians. It reveals the Romans 11 'blindness' which God put upon the majority of the Jews.

They try to ride the coattails of the Reformers yet they are NOT Protestant by any stretch of the term. They are not reformers they are "Restorationists" believing that Lucifer had taken control of the Christian Church immediately after the Apostles died.

SDA's condemn the Catholic Church saying that Papal infallibility is wrong YET they moved Ellen White into the same position claiming that her writings are a continuing source of authority.

SDA's ignore the fact that for Protestants, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the ONLY infallible source of authority. What they do is pour new and alien definitions into established terms - they have done this with the Trinity Doctrine and other common Christian terms. They are running out of rope.

 

[Amo]

No surprise dpr, that you should quote Cathlodox and jump on his bandwagon full of lies. Seeing that you have already submitted to Roman Catholic Jesuit authored interpretations of biblical prophecy. Yes, reject the testimony of the Protestant Reformers and your ancestors the Huguenots, and run back to your Mother, Babylon the great for safe haven. She is far older, wiser, and more powerful than you concerning the ways of this world.

If you want to win in this world, then you be wise to return to her fold. Join the ten kings who will give their power unto the beast which she ever increasingly rides unto her final chosen destination. Then you can revolt against her in the end, as France did in the end of her reign over dark ages Europe, in bloody, violent, murederous revolution. Perhaps one of the, if not the worst revolt of history. When the beast she rode at the time received its deadly wound, from which it is rapidly recovering.

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Yes, the woman who reigns over the kings of the earth, not the woman whom God reigns over. God's church, the pure woman, the chaste virgin, prepared to meet their Lord are the city of Zion. The prostitute Babylon who reigns over the kings of the earth, is Rome. Over whom the man of sin has set himself up as it were in the temple of God, as though he were the head of Christ's church in His place. Go to, join hands with the man who would set himself up in the place of God. Nevertheless, please do rather heed the following warning and flee from the man of sin and lawlessness.

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. 9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. 11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. 15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. 21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Have a little more faith in the testimony of your Huguenot ancestors. Who having lived under the very persecuting power of a Roman Catholic united church and state, had to flee for their lives in order to worship God as their consciences dictated. That they rightly identified the power you now find yourself aligning with. Which power attempted to force them to worship God in ways their consciences would not allow them. Which power even today continually seeks civil power to enforce their "social justice" agendas. Or in other words, their political agenda upon all. Open your eyes and see. These threads alone are filled with evidence, which does not even scratch the surface of all that is going on concerning the political intrigues of the Roman church the world over.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

[Cathlodox]

Amo said: No surprise dpr, that you should quote Cathlodox and jump on his bandwagon full of lies. Seeing that you have already submitted to Roman Catholic Jesuit authored interpretations of biblical prophecy. Yes, reject the testimony of the Protestant Reformers and your ancestors the Huguenots, and run back to your Mother, Babylon the great for safe haven. She is far older, wiser, and more powerful than you concerning the ways of this world.

I've quoted your Prophet and quoted your Church.

You are suggesting dpr join the Adventist band, repudiate the Trinity Doctrine and start preaching creature Christ?

[Amo]

They try to ride the coattails of the Reformers yet they are NOT Protestant by any stretch of the term. They are not reformers they are "Restorationists" believing that Lucifer had taken control of the Christian Church immediately after the Apostles died.

No, Lucifer never took control of Christ's church, which has always existed along with the Roman church despite her best efforts to extinguish it. Gee I wonder where authentic bible believing Christians got the idea that the church began apostatizing so soon after the apostles death?

Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Oh yea, Jesus told us to beware of false prophets, and Paul told us that there were wolves and men ready to speak perverse things in order to draw away disciples unto themselves, in his day. Just waiting for his departure to begin such deceptions.

SDA's condemn the Catholic Church saying that Papal infallibility is wrong YET they moved Ellen White into the same position claiming that her writings are a continuing source of authority.

There is nothing the same about EGW being a prophetess, and the Pope being the "Vicegerent of Christ". Assuming Christ's office in His place during His what, supposed absence. What prophet of God ever claimed such an exalted and as it were divine position. Prophets, including EGW point to God's holy word, as the final word upon all issues. The Pope claims power over and above the scriptures. What prophet ever made anything like the following claim from one of your popes? Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God[/b] [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

SDA's ignore the fact that for Protestants, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the ONLY infallible source of authority. What they do is pour new and alien definitions into established terms - they have done this with the Trinity Doctrine and other common Christian terms. They are running out of rope.

We need no rope to hold up terms like the trinity, which exist nowhere in scripture. Nor do some of us care about maintaining extra biblical creeds or confessions. Save we determine to join institutions using them, in agreement with them. Why even bring up Sola Scriptura in defense of a descriptive word concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which does not even exist anywhere in scripture? Concerning divisive issues among professed Christians of the past, which caused kings and emperors to have to step in and prevent supposed "Christians" from killing each other over such issues. Dragging the kings of this earth into settling the issues of Christ's supposed church. To the extent of eventually dragging entire kingdoms and nations in to bloody persecutions and wars regarding the same and many other issues. Proving by such fruits, the falsehood of all denominations or professed "Christians" involved in the same. 
Brining us back to the first scripture I quoted in this response.

Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[Amo]

I've quoted your Prophet and quoted your Church.

You are suggesting dpr join the Adventist band, repudiate the Trinity Doctrine and start preaching creature Christ?

All kinds of people quote others, dissecting their words to twist them how they wish. No one has as much practice at this as BABYLON THE GREAT. Babyl-on brother, it is your duty.

dpr need not abandon the term trinity to be an SDA, nor any other. Some have no problem with the term, I have no problem with or without it. Nor any need to accept this or that creed concerning it, believing the testimony of scripture concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Avoiding that which scripture does not address.

As far as whatever you mean by creature Christ, I know not, and care not. Never heard of it but from you, and don't know anyone who believes Christ is any other creature than the first born of God as scripture  plainly states. Fully God, and fully man. Make whatever twisted drivel you wish. I'll have none of it.

[Amo]

Wrong thread, post moved.

[dpr]

All kinds of people quote others, dissecting their words to twist them how they wish. No one has as much practice at this as BABYLON THE GREAT. Babyl-on brother, it is your duty.

dpr need not abandon the term trinity to be an SDA, nor any other. Some have no problem with the term, I have no problem with or without it. Nor any need to accept this or that creed concerning it, believing the testimony of scripture concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Avoiding that which scripture does not address.

As far as whatever you mean by creature Christ, I know not, and care not. Never heard of it but from you, and don't know anyone who believes Christ is any other creature than the first born of God as scripture  plainly states. Fully God, and fully man. Make whatever twisted drivel you wish. I'll have none of it.

Just the fact of 'anyone' attacking the BIBLICAL CONCEPT of the 3 Persons of The GODHEAD should be a major warning to ANY true... Bible-believing Christian.

And the belief in the TRINITY of The GODHEAD which the Catholic Church believes comes from actual BIBLE SCRIPTURE, and NOT the Catholic Church itself! True Protestants ALSO believe God's Word that declares the 3 Persons of The GODHEAD. So the word 'Trinity' is merely a descriptor for a BIBLICAL CONCEPT that is written.

But ain't it just like the 'FALSE Jews' to make up lies from their 'father', just like they did when tempting our Lord Jesus? Those come to all Christian forums, and they are here also pushing their propaganda, targeting new babes in Christ Jesus. So brethren in Christ, IF you are still weak in your Bible study, you had best get crakin' in it, because these FALSE-Jews are really turning up their steam from the pit attacking actual Bible doctrine.

[Amo]

Just the fact of 'anyone' attacking the BIBLICAL CONCEPT of the 3 Persons of The GODHEAD should be a major warning to ANY true... Bible-believing Christian.

And the belief in the TRINITY of The GODHEAD which the Catholic Church believes comes from actual BIBLE SCRIPTURE, and NOT the Catholic Church itself! True Protestants ALSO believe God's Word that declares the 3 Persons of The GODHEAD. So the word 'Trinity' is merely a descriptor for a BIBLICAL CONCEPT that is written.

But ain't it just like the 'FALSE Jews' to make up lies from their 'father', just like they did when tempting our Lord Jesus? Those come to all Christian forums, and they are here also pushing their propaganda, targeting new babes in Christ Jesus. So brethren in Christ, IF you are still weak in your Bible study, you had best get crakin' in it, because these FALSE-Jews are really turning up their steam from the pit attacking actual Bible doctrine.

There is a ditch on either side of the road. Denying the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is putting yourself in a ditch one the one side. Insisting everyone else believe exactly as you do regarding that which scripture does not fully explain is unreasonable as well, and simply the ditch on the other side.

Especially when such leads to real violence and war. As it has in the past. There is no excuse for anyone professing to be a follower of Christ, to enter into war, save one of words alone. Christ has never called anyone to kill in defense of His truth. To the contrary, only the wicked kill those who disagree with them, simply for doing so. If a professed Christians ever find themselves persecuting or killing in God's name, or to supposedly defend His truth, then they have found themselves deceived.

[Cathlodox]

All kinds of people quote others, dissecting their words to twist them how they wish. No one has as much practice at this as BABYLON THE GREAT. Babyl-on brother, it is your duty.

dpr need not abandon the term trinity to be an SDA, nor any other. Some have no problem with the term, I have no problem with or without it. Nor any need to accept this or that creed concerning it, believing the testimony of scripture concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Avoiding that which scripture does not address.

As far as whatever you mean by creature Christ, I know not, and care not. Never heard of it but from you, and don't know anyone who believes Christ is any other creature than the first born of God as scripture  plainly states. Fully God, and fully man. Make whatever twisted drivel you wish. I'll have none of it.

For dpr to join the Adventist Church he would have to repudiate the Doctrine of the Trinity - the same doctrine of the Trinity the Lutheran's, Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists use.

You repeatedly accuse me of misquoting and twisting the words of Ellen White and other SDA's so I'm going to give you the opportunity to expose me for being dishonest - I urge you to show us how I'm misrepresenting the following quotes from your organization.

Remember Amo, I've already shown you where the Sabbath Herald explained that after someone started keeping the Sabbath they would be open to understanding how Father God has always had a body of flesh with members and parts.

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854
The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what became of the body of Jesus who had a body when he ascended, who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere. Doxology. "To God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, three in one." Again. "Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees. Lives through all life, extends through all extent, Spreads undivided and operates unspent."-Pope. These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers.

Sabbath Herald, June 6, 1878
For, fifteen years I was a member of the Wesleyan Methodist church, and during the whole of that time I was deeply convinced of sin. Although the last three years of that time I was appointed class leader and local preacher, I did not feel what I tried to point out to others,—the experience of a true believer in Jesus; but the more I studied their doctrines the more I became bewildered, until I finally decided to try no longer to attain that height of perfection which is set forth in the Scriptures; for when I examined their teaching in describing the personality of God, I found that it was altogether contrary to the word of God.

Amo, as you and Hobie know the Methodist Church subscribes to EXACT same Trinity Doctrine as do the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists and Evangelical Churches - ALL OF WHICH teach God The Father does NOT have a body of flesh with members and parts. So too the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The SDA's teach the DIRECT OPPOSITE aligning themselves with the Mormon Church who teaches the SAME THING. Additionally the SDA's teach that The Father, The Son & Holy Spirit are one God in the sense that they are united in Character and Purpose. THIS ISN'T the Trinity, period.

So, you can continue to misrepresent the Sabbath and claim that Jesus is currently dressed as a Levitical High Priest and doing the work of one in a temple in heaven but at the end of the Day you still reject the Trinity Doctrine.



If you want to convince anyone I'm misrepresenting Adventism's teaching on the Trinity you need to pick one or more of things I've quoted from your Sabbath Herald and show us where I've diverted from the truth. Until then you are the one looking dishonest.

[Rella]

@Cathlodox, Good morning....

Look I am NOT an SDA and I certainly am not an Ellen White follower, or believer.

Nor am I a defender, as both Amo and Hobie will tell you.

I will say, though, that I respect her, even though I believe much of her writings to be wrong or written without clarity.

BTW look at https://media1.whiteestate.org/legacy/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

To read ELLEN WHITE'S TRINITARIAN STATEMENTS: WHAT
DID SHE ACTUALLY WRITE?

I also am not a defender of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young,
OR the POPE..... any of them but less so with Francis and his Jesuit mind and beliefs. (Man could I post some hair curling things on His statements)

I can fault Martin Luther, and most of all John Calvin for I see each has led people to believe how they interpret things from the 4 corners of the Holy Bible
and as prophets go... the more modern ones that John Calvin had claimed as did Ellen G White... or lets say
the term was assigned by followers based on what had been said.

Without concensus... there is nothing IMO.

But one thing certain that I can assure you is nowhere, at any time did these folk ever once talk on praying to Mary.....

Yet you follow guidance that does not come from 1st century Apostle times but

https://www.christian-history.org/mary-veneration-worship.html

I don't have a written out history of the veneration of Mary. I can tell you that if you read through the writings of the early church fathers up to AD 250, you won't get even a hint of Mary worship. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox like to point to a manuscript that is dated to about AD 250 and is anonymous that mentions praying to Mary. I can't remember exactly what it says, but it calls her Mother of God. So it's possible, even likely, that veneration of Mary began that early. In the second century, though ... nothing.

And now... no one can stop you... even though it is not
biblical.

So I would caution you to be careful on how you degrade
Mrs. White.

She was just entitled to her beliefs that she felt came straight from God as you are on Mary that came
from

(same link)

I will add that Roman Catholics also like to lean on a chapter in Irenaeus' book Against Heresies (Book 5, ch. 19, c. AD 185) that talks about "recapitulation." I really love the passage. It talks about how Jesus undid through obedience what Adam caused through disobedience. It also says that Mary, obeying while a virgin, undid the disobedience of Eve who disobeyed while a virgin.

Be blessed

 

[Cathlodox]

Rella, follow this thread out to its logical conclusion - I'd be happy to talk about Mary after we see this topic through.

The Trinity is a DEFINED WORD, it means exactly what Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches, ALL Protestant Churches, Evangelical Churches say it means. The Trinity does not mean what Joseph Smith / Ellen White and Arius said it means.

[Texas Conservative]

@Cathlodox, Good morning....

Look I am NOT an SDA and I certainly am not an Ellen White follower, or believer.

Nor am I a defender, as both Amo and Hobie will tell you.

I will say, though, that I respect her, even though I believe much of her writings to be wrong or written without clarity.

BTW look at https://media1.whiteestate.org/legacy/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

To read ELLEN WHITE'S TRINITARIAN STATEMENTS: WHAT
DID SHE ACTUALLY WRITE?

I also am not a defender of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young,
OR the POPE..... any of them but less so with Francis and his Jesuit mind and beliefs. (Man could I post some hair curling things on His statements)

I can fault Martin Luther, and most of all John Calvin for I see each has led people to believe how they interpret things from the 4 corners of the Holy Bible
and as prophets go... the more modern ones that John Calvin had claimed as did Ellen G White... or lets say
the term was assigned by followers based on what had been said.

Without concensus... there is nothing IMO.

But one thing certain that I can assure you is nowhere, at any time did these folk ever once talk on praying to Mary.....

Yet you follow guidance that does not come from 1st century Apostle times but

https://www.christian-history.org/mary-veneration-worship.html

And now... no one can stop you... even though it is not
biblical.

So I would caution you to be careful on how you degrade
Mrs. White.

She was just entitled to her beliefs that she felt came straight from God as you are on Mary that came
from

(same link)
Be blessed

 

How could you respect Ellen White?  She was a false prophetess.

[dpr]

There is a ditch on either side of the road. Denying the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is putting yourself in a ditch one the one side. Insisting everyone else believe exactly as you do regarding that which scripture does not fully explain is unreasonable as well, and simply the ditch on the other side.

Especially when such leads to real violence and war. As it has in the past. There is no excuse for anyone professing to be a follower of Christ, to enter into war, save one of words alone. Christ has never called anyone to kill in defense of His truth. To the contrary, only the wicked kill those who disagree with them, simply for doing so. If a professed Christians ever find themselves persecuting or killing in God's name, or to supposedly defend His truth, then they have found themselves deceived.

I only insist... that one who calls themself a Christian to stick with what God's Word says about the 3 Persons of The Godhead, which means Jesus is God The Son.

And I don't care who one 'says'... they are, IF they reject the Biblical FACT that Jesus Christ is Immanuel God with us, meaning God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, then they are NOT a Christian.

This is a very serious matter, and one which Apostle John also pointed to...

2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV

When John said the above, he was pointing to those who reject... that Jesus is The Christ. That title of "Christ" is a Heavenly Office Title, not a flesh title. It points to GOD The Son, one Person in The Triune Godhead of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Thus those of the false 'Oneness' crowd that like to claim... they are Christians do lie, and are not, for they have rejected the Only Savior which The Father sent Which is The Christ.

[Amo]

I only insist... that one who calls themself a Christian to stick with what God's Word says about the 3 Persons of The Godhead, which means Jesus is God The Son.

And I don't care who one 'says'... they are, IF they reject the Biblical FACT that Jesus Christ is Immanuel God with us, meaning God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, then they are NOT a Christian.

This is a very serious matter, and one which Apostle John also pointed to...

2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV

When John said the above, he was pointing to those who reject... that Jesus is The Christ. That title of "Christ" is a Heavenly Office Title, not a flesh title. It points to GOD The Son, one Person in The Triune Godhead of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Thus those of the false 'Oneness' crowd that like to claim... they are Christians do lie, and are not, for they have rejected the Only Savior which The Father sent Which is The Christ.

I agree that is dangerous not to consider our Savior to be God. I also agree with the scriptures point of the danger in denying that Christ came in the flesh, our flesh. Which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception basically denies. In that it separates His mother from the rest of humanity, so that both His Father and mother, were not like any of the rest of us.

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Immaculate Conception
THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
Copyright © 1910

[dpr]

I agree that is dangerous not to consider our Savior to be God. I also agree with the scriptures point of the danger in denying that Christ came in the flesh, our flesh. Which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception basically denies. In that it separates His mother from the rest of humanity, so that both His Father and mother, were not like any of the rest of us.

Wait a minute, what did you say there in red?

Jesus of Nazareth was... immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit through Mary's womb. That is not just a Catholic doctrine, that is a Christian doctrine of The New Testament! You have never read it, have you?...

Matt 1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
KJV

Matt 1:22-25
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.
KJV


The idea of that Jesus was immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit is a basic Christian doctrine. The idea of Mary worship later was created by false ones in the Catholic tradition. Protestants do not pray to Mary, but only to The Father via Jesus Christ, our Only Mediator to The Father for us, as written.

So that has absolutely nothing... to do with your false claim that Mary's position was separated from the rest of mankind because of God having chosen her womb to bear The Christ. God chose Mary's womb, and that's it. She is not God, nor to be worshiped as God.

[Amo]

Wait a minute, what did you say there in red?

Jesus of Nazareth was... immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit through Mary's womb. That is not just a Catholic doctrine, that is a Christian doctrine of The New Testament! You have never read it, have you?...

Matt 1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
KJV

Matt 1:22-25
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.
KJV


The idea of that Jesus was immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit is a basic Christian doctrine. The idea of Mary worship later was created by false ones in the Catholic tradition. Protestants do not pray to Mary, but only to The Father via Jesus Christ, our Only Mediator to The Father for us, as written.

So that has absolutely nothing... to do with your false claim that Mary's position was separated from the rest of mankind because of God having chosen her womb to bear The Christ. God chose Mary's womb, and that's it. She is not God, nor to be worshiped as God.

You should read posts in their entirety. I speak of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which I quoted in the post you are referring to. It is a far cry from the biblical immaculate conception.

[Cathlodox]

Wait a minute, what did you say there in red?

Jesus of Nazareth was... immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit through Mary's womb. That is not just a Catholic doctrine, that is a Christian doctrine of The New Testament! You have never read it, have you?...

Matt 1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
KJV

Matt 1:22-25
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.
KJV


The idea of that Jesus was immaculately conceived by The Holy Spirit is a basic Christian doctrine. The idea of Mary worship later was created by false ones in the Catholic tradition. Protestants do not pray to Mary, but only to The Father via Jesus Christ, our Only Mediator to The Father for us, as written.

So that has absolutely nothing... to do with your false claim that Mary's position was separated from the rest of mankind because of God having chosen her womb to bear The Christ. God chose Mary's womb, and that's it. She is not God, nor to be worshiped as God.

dpr,

SDA's believe that Christ was born with a "sin nature" - i.e. they say Christ yearned or lusted to sin BUT ever resisted His desires to sin. This horrific Doctrine is simply re-warmed arianism - a creature christ pizza.

[dpr]

You should read posts in their entirety. I speak of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which I quoted in the post you are referring to. It is a far cry from the biblical immaculate conception.

The actual 'term' immaculate conception is... about Jesus being born through Mary's womb by The Holy Spirit, so I do not recognize all the Catholic original sin tradition that 'they' try to add to that phrase. And that was my point.

[dpr]

dpr,

SDA's believe that Christ was born with a "sin nature" - i.e. they say Christ yearned or lusted to sin BUT ever resisted His desires to sin. This horrific Doctrine is simply re-warmed arianism - a creature christ pizza.

Yes, I understand. And I believe they hold to those old beliefs of Arianism because it aligns with some ideas the orthodox Jews believe about Jesus of Nazareth.

[Rella]

How could you respect Ellen White?  She was a false prophetess.

First, she was a woman... bucking a lot of men... some of which I am sure were more insistent then even you... I did not say I followed her... she was totally wrong about Saturday worship... but I just kind of agree with her on what I read about what she wrote about YLT...

Ellen G Whites writing on Youngs Literal Translation where she wrote...
" DescriptionYoung's Literal Translation of the Bible is fundamentally different from other, more common translations in that the YLT aims for strict adherence to the literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek text. Therefore, for example, many passages are written in present tense where traditional versions would be past tense. Originally published in 1862, the most recent revision was made in 1898, after Young's death."

This was backed up kind of by Got Questions

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible was first translated in 1862 by Robert Young, a Scottish publisher who was self-taught and proficient in various ancient languages. Young also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance and Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament. A revised version of the YLT was published in 1887 and a new revised version in 1898, a year after Young's death.

Young's Literal Translation - Translation method
Young's Literal Translation is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings. Young was especially concerned that many English translations changed the tenses of Greek and Hebrew verbs, and he insisted on using the present tense in many places in which other translations use the past tense, particularly in narratives. Young's Literal Translation also consistently renders the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (divine name) throughout the Old Testament as "Jehovah," instead of the traditional practice of representing the Tetragrammaton in English as "LORD" in all capitals.

Young's Literal Translation - Pros and Cons
Young's Literal Translation is very fitly named. It very likely is the most strictly literal English translation ever developed. The literal renderings of the verb tenses are especially unique and can be quite valuable in studying God's Word. Aspects that are usually only clear to those who can study the original Greek are clarified in the YLT. The strictly literal translation method can make Young's Literal Translation somewhat difficult to read and in some instances very unnatural sounding in English.

Young's Literal Translation - Sample Verses
John 1:1, 14 – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" "And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth."

Anyway.. to put it crudely... She had far worse outhouse experiences then I ever would and all women of that day need a whole lot of respect .

[Cathlodox]

Rella said: First, she was a woman... bucking a lot of men... some of which I am sure were more insistent then even you...

She was a woman who BACKED a lot of men.

Ellen didn't incept a single Doctrine of the SDA Church. Men within the SDA org incepted multiple Arian Doctrines and Ellen confirmed those Arian Doctrines to be "the truth" via the mystical Charism she claimed for herself.

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

Ellen stated that she had been gifted Papal Authority to determine what is truth and what is error. Companies of devoted [Arians and semi-Arians] assembled together and those heretics put forth suggestions for Doctrines which Ellen White confirmed.

SDA's replaced the Catholic Magisterium with a "Prophet Pope" - as Ellen is stated to be a continuing source of authority SDA's by definition are outside Protestantism as that Faith Tradition rests on Sola Scriptura where the Bible alone is the only infallible source of authority. 

[Cathlodox]

One should be clear on what's really going on here!

Ellen White describes that in the Adventist movement many devout people gathered together and tried to sort out doctrines - WHOLE nights would be spent beating the Bible looking for an answer - and the Bible failed to provide an answer as to if the new teaching was truth or error!

At long last everyone is out of hope and suddenly Ellen groans, passes gas and falls down on the floor lying motionless - after a time Ellen rises and says the Lord "shew her" the truth.

Does this sound like Protestantism? Like something Martin Luther would have bought off on? It isn't.

[Rella]

One should be clear on what's really going on here!

Ellen White describes that in the Adventist movement many devout people gathered together and tried to sort out doctrines - WHOLE nights would be spent beating the Bible looking for an answer - and the Bible failed to provide an answer as to if the new teaching was truth or error!

At long last everyone is out of hope and suddenly Ellen groans, passes gas and falls down on the floor lying motionless - after a time Ellen rises and says the Lord "shew her" the truth.

Does this sound like Protestantism? Like something Martin Luther would have bought off on? It isn't.

Not exactly... but maybe.... when you consider.... WHICH YOU WONT... one of the most influential "Protestant" Reformation people... following on the heels of RC defect Martin Luther.

And that would be JOHN CALVIN.

https://blog.oup.com/2014/05/john-calvin-authority-prophet/

For some, it was no surprise to see a book claiming that John Calvin believed he was a prophet. This reaction arose from the fact that they had already thought he was crazy and this just served to further prove the point. One thing to say in favor of their reaction is that at least they are taking the claim seriously; they perceive correctly its gravity: Calvin believed that he spoke for God; that to disagree with him was to disagree with the Almighty ipso facto.

The belief may, of course, appear utterly astonishing and bizarre to us today. While I'm sympathetic with such astonishment, I don't share it. This is not necessarily because I believe Calvin was a prophet. It's rather because I know him well enough to know that such a belief is entirely in keeping with his character and I suppose I've grown accustomed to it. Most of what comes out of his mouth or flows from his pen carries with it, it seems patently clear to me, a prophetic tone and energy. There's no question in my mind that he held that the heavens themselves opened when he opened his mouth.

I have friends who ask with some chagrin: "didn't Calvin feel the same sense of utter uncertainty, confusion, and awkwardness with respect to his own place in the universe that people in the twenty-first century do? Wasn't he aware of his own weaknesses?" If so, the logic follows, how could he have become convinced that he was a divine messenger since this assumes a certain sense of faultlessness? For one of us to believe ourselves a prophet seems impossible, so, what of Calvin? Didn't his inner reservations and neuroses weigh on his self-conception and convince him that he couldn't possibly be the mouthpiece of the Divine? My answer is a simple "no." I don't think he believed that he erred in his service of God. Ever.

Read the link if you want more.

So Ellen affected the beliefs of those within the SDA...

John Calvin OTOH is far more wide in appeal....

1. Primitive Baptist or Reformed Baptist Churches

2. Presbyterian Churches

3. Reformed Churches
 
4. The United Church of Christ

The United Church of Christ traces their reformist roots to Martin Luther and John Calvin with strong influences of the doctrine espoused by both men.

5. The Protestant Reformed Churches in America

to list a few....

Neither of these people were prophets... 

But she just strikes a chord in me because you almost universally gravitate to men for such roles and ideas... and she is a woman. Likely with mental issues from the beginning but obviously had a charisma that drew people to her... unlike Joseph Smith who came on the scene , again claiming revelations from God yet it is not his name that people associate with Mormonism but that of Brigham Young... (BTW is a very very distant cousin of mine)

Their stories, one and all should be known...

And then they all... including Calvin... should be attacked the same as Ellen

[Texas Conservative]

First, she was a woman... bucking a lot of men... some of which I am sure were more insistent then even you... I did not say I followed her... she was totally wrong about Saturday worship... but I just kind of agree with her on what I read about what she wrote about YLT...

Anyway.. to put it crudely... She had far worse outhouse experiences then I ever would and all women of that day need a whole lot of respect .

Not a very good argument for respecting someone.  I could say, life was harder in Hitler's day.  He started from the bottom and became very successful, as a brown haired man leading a very Aryan blue eyed, blonde haired country.  And look how he made it.  He's worthy of respect. 

 

[Rella]

Not a very good argument for respecting someone.  I could say, life was harder in Hitler's day.  He started from the bottom and became very successful, as a brown haired man leading a very Aryan blue eyed, blonde haired country.  And look how he made it.  He's worthy of respect. 

 

Who did Ellen White have murdered?