Has the RCC changed?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

B

brakelite

Guest
Really - "Millions"??
How about a ballpark figure as to how many "millions" . . .
Still dodging BoL. Answer the question. Has the RCC changed regarding the determined and deliberate policy of exterminating all opposition through the use of state power and state legislation that saw the deaths of millions throughout her 1500 year existence?
But yes, millions. Why would you question that except to defuse the issue? Even if the cost of life was less than one hundred, does that justify the torture and murder of those innocent 100?
Of course, the early Protestant churches were equally guilty. And I firmly believe will be so again. Which is what I frequently point out when dealing with prophetic issues regarding the last days...but that is not the subject of our discussion. The ECFs pointed out that the next power to rise imminently on the heels of the Roman Empire would be the little horn Antichrist power of Daniel 7. That power would, in the words of Daniel 7:25, "wear out the saints of the Most High". In Revelation 13:7 that same power, now depicted as a beast in its own right, is given the power to make war with the saints, and overcome them.
That little horn BoL can be proved to be the RCC, the Papacy. So. My question, which I believe is fully justified. Has she changed???
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Still dodging BoL. Answer the question. Has the RCC changed regarding the determined and deliberate policy of exterminating all opposition through the use of state power and state legislation that saw the deaths of millions throughout her 1500 year existence?
But yes, millions. Why would you question that except to defuse the issue? Even if the cost of life was less than one hundred, does that justify the torture and murder of those innocent 100?
Of course, the early Protestant churches were equally guilty. And I firmly believe will be so again. Which is what I frequently point out when dealing with prophetic issues regarding the last days...but that is not the subject of our discussion. The ECFs pointed out that the next power to rise imminently on the heels of the Roman Empire would be the little horn Antichrist power of Daniel 7. That power would, in the words of Daniel 7:25, "wear out the saints of the Most High". In Revelation 13:7 that same power, now depicted as a beast in its own right, is given the power to make war with the saints, and overcome them.
That little horn BoL can be proved to be the RCC, the Papacy. So. My question, which I believe is fully justified. Has she changed???
Nobody is “diffusing” anything – except for your LIES.

Yes, your claim of “millions” must be substantiated historically – or YOU need to STOPfalsely claiming that number. Your historically-bankrupt SDA nonsenseabout the Catholic Church has been debunked over and over again.

I’ve dealt with many people from your SDA cultsome of who were able to come out of that sect. ALL of them were obsessed with Daniel’s prophecies because YOUR faction is the only one who interprets Daniel in this way.

For your information – the one who made “war”against the saints was Pagan Rome – aided by Israel in the days of the Early Church. Paul himself attests to this. The Harlot of Babylon (Rome) is NOT Christ’s Catholic Church – but the city that was called the "Harlot" in Isaiah 1:21JERUSALEM.

THIS is what the Book of Revelation says about the Great Harlot of Babylon:
Rev. 17:6

I saw that the woman wasdrunk with the blood of God's holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.

Here is what CHRIST Himself said about that SAME city – In context:
Matt. 23:37

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

You SDA’a don’t read the Scriptures in CONTEXT. You proliferate fairy tales and lies spun by your perverted Scriptural acrobat foundress – Ellen G. White.

Christ founded MY Church (Matt. 16:18-19)E.G. White founded YOURS . . .
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Nobody is “diffusing” anything – except for your LIES.

Yes, your claim of “millions” must be substantiated historically – or YOU need to STOPfalsely claiming that number. Your historically-bankrupt SDA nonsenseabout the Catholic Church has been debunked over and over again.

I’ve dealt with many people from your SDA cultsome of who were able to come out of that sect. ALL of them were obsessed with Daniel’s prophecies because YOUR faction is the only one who interprets Daniel in this way.

For your information – the one who made “war”against the saints was Pagan Rome – aided by Israel in the days of the Early Church. Paul himself attests to this. The Harlot of Babylon (Rome) is NOT Christ’s Catholic Church – but the city that was called the "Harlot" in Isaiah 1:21JERUSALEM.

THIS is what the Book of Revelation says about the Great Harlot of Babylon:
Rev. 17:6

I saw that the woman wasdrunk with the blood of God's holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.

Here is what CHRIST Himself said about that SAME city – In context:
Matt. 23:37

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

You SDA’a don’t read the Scriptures in CONTEXT. You proliferate fairy tales and lies spun by your perverted Scriptural acrobat foundress – Ellen G. White.

Christ founded MY Church (Matt. 16:18-19)E.G. White founded YOURS . . .
That is what you call debunking? Seriously? SDAs are merely the last in a long line of historical and scriptural witnesses to the absence of Christ in the papal church. That is not to say that Christ is not in dime individual members of that church, which is why Jesus says, "come out of her my people". But SDAs were not the first to identify the Vatican system as Antichrist. And not without good reason.
BoL, you have always been zealous for what you believe is truth. I commend you for that. I may not agree with the manner you present yourself, I believe it dishonors not only your own church, but also the God you claim to represent. Nevertheless, that you cherish truth is a good thing, and not to be diminished. I do have a question however. I'm your quest for truth and in your zeal to preserve it, how deep have you studied the book of Daniel and it's harmonious relation to Revelation? From what you have presented above, it appears to me that your understanding of the prophecies of Daniel is very shallow, and your seem to ignore what your own church fathers understood and taught. Take for example Jerome.
(died 420): “He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”

(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome’s testimony is interesting. He admits and agrees with other early church fathers of his era that Rome was the restrainer, and had been removed in his (Jerome’s) lifetime. Yet it had not yet been made apparent who the power was that could definitively be called the Antichrist. Why? Because from Jerome’s perspective, he could not see all the signs of the Antichrist’s coming, as they had yet to be revealed in history. The capital of the empire had been removed to Constantinople, and the Gothic barbarian kings* were already well entrenched in ongoing battles and wars to decide who would rule over the territories not long since vacated by Rome, but the three horns to be subdued were still in power. When they were subdued, it would then be known by whose power they were done away, and the identity of Antichrist would be revealed.
You need to understand that prophecy unfolds along a timeline, and Daniel's prophecy of chapter 7, began to unfold in his lifetime and is a summary of world events all the way down to the second coming. The 10 horns represented those Germanic nations that fought over the remains of the empire, which were being decided in Jerome's lifetime in the the 5th century. The Little horn, the eleventh horn that Daniel said would grow up in among the ten, the Antichrist, was what he and the other early church fathers dreaded. This little horn would be instrumental in uprooting 3 of the original horns.
History informs that such a description of events did indeed take place. (How could they not? This was prophecy!) There were indeed ten nations that finally settled upon the former western Empire in the emperor's absence. From great Britain to Italy, those
mostly Arian nations were thorns in the side of the Roman bishop for many decades, the ones in Italy in particular because they demanded obedience to their king which duty the bishop was loathe to grant. Therefore in league with Justinian, the Emperor ruling on Constantinople, the Roman bishop managed to have those pesky nations that refused to accept the Nicean Trinity to be destroyed, and in doing so relieved the Roman bishop of any opposition in his quest to rule with both civil and religious arms.
In your love for truth @BreadOfLife I could easily give much more detail of the wars and identity of the players involved in these remarkable events. Many historians have recorded these momentous events for posterity and for our understanding. Even your own cardinal Manning spoke of them ...
"Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.
The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).
Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul. While naturally writing from his Catholic perspective and attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friend are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 13th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Has the Catholic church changed regarding religious freedom? Various pronouncements by recent popes suggest she has changed since the days of the dark ages, and if true, that can only be a good thing. What concerns me though is the fact that persecution by Catholics against those who disagreed with papal authority and doctrine, was not just the incidental practice of a few bad apples.

Described as one of Catholicisms greatest theologians, a 'doctor' of the church, Thomas Aquinas, dubbed a saint, wrote the following which suggests strongly that persecution against heretics, rather than the rare occasion, was in fact church policy, and remained so for a very long time.

“With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by the secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.”
Oh boy....here we go again. More Anti-Catholic dribble.

Aquinas wasn't a pope and had nothing to do with writing Catholic doctrine. What you have presented is the writings of one mans opinions. Kind of like the crass dribble of opinions you put on your website: That power is the Vatican, and it is through her agents, the Jesuits, that she is controlling the present “controlled crisis” and it will be those same Jesuits who will turn against the true followers of Jesus when the time is right. Are you ready for this? Are you a true follower of Jesus, or will you join in the coming Vatican sponsored UN globalist agenda and persecute those who disagree with your agenda? Posted on November 29, 2015 by brakelite

Your ignorant opinions are not binding on all Protestants just like Aquinas opinions are not binding on all Catholics.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation: examples of what was added to what Scripture says, centuries later. (There are a lot more.)
Sola Scriptura and sola Fida invented 500 years ago. Gay marriage, gay pastors and abortion is now, within the last 20 years, condoned in some Protestant churches and they use scripture to support their beliefs. Soooo who is really adding to scripture????

Protestants take 7 books out of the bible that have been there for 1,500 years and accuse the RCC of adding books. How bizarre?

Protestants ignore scripture
and tell Jesus he is lying when he says "This is my body...." and Protestants say it isn't His body, its just a symbol? Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of me..." and Protestants don't do it. How sad :(

Look at the log in your own eye before you TRY to find the log in your brothers eye.


Mary
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is what you call debunking? Seriously? SDAs are merely the last in a long line of historical and scriptural witnesses to the absence of Christ in the papal church. That is not to say that Christ is not in dime individual members of that church, which is why Jesus says, "come out of her my people". But SDAs were not the first to identify the Vatican system as Antichrist. And not without good reason.
BoL, you have always been zealous for what you believe is truth. I commend you for that. I may not agree with the manner you present yourself, I believe it dishonors not only your own church, but also the God you claim to represent. Nevertheless, that you cherish truth is a good thing, and not to be diminished. I do have a question however. I'm your quest for truth and in your zeal to preserve it, how deep have you studied the book of Daniel and it's harmonious relation to Revelation? From what you have presented above, it appears to me that your understanding of the prophecies of Daniel is very shallow, and your seem to ignore what your own church fathers understood and taught. Take for example Jerome.
(died 420): “He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”

(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome’s testimony is interesting. He admits and agrees with other early church fathers of his era that Rome was the restrainer, and had been removed in his (Jerome’s) lifetime. Yet it had not yet been made apparent who the power was that could definitively be called the Antichrist. Why? Because from Jerome’s perspective, he could not see all the signs of the Antichrist’s coming, as they had yet to be revealed in history. The capital of the empire had been removed to Constantinople, and the Gothic barbarian kings* were already well entrenched in ongoing battles and wars to decide who would rule over the territories not long since vacated by Rome, but the three horns to be subdued were still in power. When they were subdued, it would then be known by whose power they were done away, and the identity of Antichrist would be revealed.
You need to understand that prophecy unfolds along a timeline, and Daniel's prophecy of chapter 7, began to unfold in his lifetime and is a summary of world events all the way down to the second coming. The 10 horns represented those Germanic nations that fought over the remains of the empire, which were being decided in Jerome's lifetime in the the 5th century. The Little horn, the eleventh horn that Daniel said would grow up in among the ten, the Antichrist, was what he and the other early church fathers dreaded. This little horn would be instrumental in uprooting 3 of the original horns.
History informs that such a description of events did indeed take place. (How could they not? This was prophecy!) There were indeed ten nations that finally settled upon the former western Empire in the emperor's absence. From great Britain to Italy, those
mostly Arian nations were thorns in the side of the Roman bishop for many decades, the ones in Italy in particular because they demanded obedience to their king which duty the bishop was loathe to grant. Therefore in league with Justinian, the Emperor ruling on Constantinople, the Roman bishop managed to have those pesky nations that refused to accept the Nicean Trinity to be destroyed, and in doing so relieved the Roman bishop of any opposition in his quest to rule with both civil and religious arms.
In your love for truth @BreadOfLife I could easily give much more detail of the wars and identity of the players involved in these remarkable events. Many historians have recorded these momentous events for posterity and for our understanding. Even your own cardinal Manning spoke of them ...
"Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.
The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).
Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul. While naturally writing from his Catholic perspective and attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friend are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 13th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
You talk about the “absence of Christ” in the Catholic Church – which is preposterous – yet you make NO mention of the fact that YOUR sect was founded by a gaggle of FALSE PROPHETS. Do I need to remind you about William Miller and his false prophecy about Christ’s return in 1844 known as “The Great Disappointment”??

Ellen G. White was a charlatan who prophesied the world would END in 1843, 1844, 1845 and 1851: "Now time is almost finished, (1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn in months." (Early Writings, p.57).

False Prophecy . . .
"I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: Some food for worms, some subject to the last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." (Vol.1, p.131).

NOTE: This statement was made in 1856 and everyone present in that meeting is now DEAD. Obviously, this was a false prophecy.

False Prophecy . . .
"Thousands have been induced to enlist with the understanding that this war to exterminate slavery, but now that they are fixed, they find that they have been deceived, that the object of this war is not to abolish slavery, but to preserve it ." (Vol.1, pp.254,258).

NOTE: We know now that the Civil War in the USA did indeed abolish slavery. Mrs. White was WRONG again . . .

False Prophecy . . .
"This nation will yet be humbled into the dust . When England does declare war , all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war." (Ibid, p.259).

It NEVER came. Here, again, her prophecy was a complete failure. Our nation was NOT humbled into the dust. England did NOT declare war.

And you have the nerve to spew FALSE charges at ANY other Church??
I’ll say ONE thing for you – you certainly are gullible . . .
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Ellen G. White was a charlatan who prophesied the world would END in 1843, 1844, 1845 and 1851: "Now time is almost finished, (1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn in months." (Early Writings, p.57).

False Prophecy . . .
"I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: Some food for worms, some subject to the last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." (Vol.1, p.131).

NOTE: This statement was made in 1856 and everyone present in that meeting is now DEAD. Obviously, this was a false prophecy.
Concerning a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' " All who were alive then are now dead. Does this prediction mean that Mrs. White is a false prophet?

Numerous statements made by Ellen White in the decades following the 1856 vision demonstrate her clear understanding that there is an implied conditional quality to God's promises and threatenings--as Jeremiah declared--and that the conditional feature in forecasts regarding Christ's Advent involves the state of heart of Christ's followers. The following statement, written in 1883, is especially relevant on this point:

"The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional. . . .

"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.

"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years" (Ms 4, 1883, quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695, 696).

"Thousands have been induced to enlist with the understanding that this war to exterminate slavery, but now that they are fixed, they find that they have been deceived, that the object of this war is not to abolish slavery, but to preserve it ." (Vol.1, pp.254,258).

NOTE: We know now that the Civil War in the USA did indeed abolish slavery. Mrs. White was WRONG again . . .
This was not a rophecy. IT was a commentary on a current event...something she perhaps knew more about than you, considering she lived through it. Ellen White said the object of the war was to preserve slavery. That that particular object was not met, does not mean EGW was wrong. In fact, in one sense, who in America today are free? On another note, I don't think you want to go any deeper into the politics behind the civil war, unless you care to discuss the source of the South's funding?

False Prophecy . . .
"This nation will yet be humbled into the dust . When England does declare war , all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war." (Ibid, p.259).
Here is the context of her comment:

"England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).

Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.

A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen.

An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:

"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.

It is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."

With the clause "when England does declare war," understood as synonymous with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however, whose full potentialities many might not realize.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Concerning a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' " All who were alive then are now dead. Does this prediction mean that Mrs. White is a false prophet?

Numerous statements made by Ellen White in the decades following the 1856 vision demonstrate her clear understanding that there is an implied conditional quality to God's promises and threatenings--as Jeremiah declared--and that the conditional feature in forecasts regarding Christ's Advent involves the state of heart of Christ's followers. The following statement, written in 1883, is especially relevant on this point:

"The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional. . . .

"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.

"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years" (Ms 4, 1883, quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695, 696).


This was not a rophecy. IT was a commentary on a current event...something she perhaps knew more about than you, considering she lived through it. Ellen White said the object of the war was to preserve slavery. That that particular object was not met, does not mean EGW was wrong. In fact, in one sense, who in America today are free? On another note, I don't think you want to go any deeper into the politics behind the civil war, unless you care to discuss the source of the South's funding?


Here is the context of her comment:

"England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).

Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.

A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen.

An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:

"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.

It is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."

With the clause "when England does declare war," understood as synonymous with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however, whose full potentialities many might not realize.
Nice TRY, junior - but even ONE false prophecy makes your man-made sect a FALSE religion . . .