So new Pope...

[hch]

"Satan has long been preparing for his final effort to deceive the world. The foundation of his work was laid by the assurance given to Eve in Eden, “Ye shall not surely die.” “In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” [Genesis 3:4, 5.] Little by little he has prepared the way for his master-piece of deception in the development of Spiritualism. He has not yet reached the full accomplishment of his designs; but IT WILL BE REACHED IN THE LAST REMNANT OF TIME. Says the prophet: “I saw three unclean spirits like frogs; . . . they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” [Revelation 16:13, 14.] EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD, THROUGH FAITH IN HIS WORD, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE SWEPT INTO THE RANKS OF THIS DELUSION. THE PEOPLE ARE FAST BEING LULLED TO A FATAL SECURITY, TO BE AWAKENED ONLY BY THE OUTPOURING OF THE WRATH OF GOD. {GC88 561.2} [Caps added for emphasis.]

_________________________

"Ignorance is sin, when knowledge can be obtained" (HR, September 1, 1866 par. 3).

[phkrause]

I beg the differ, but the Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded in 1863.

That what I said!!!!!

[phkrause]

Lest we mix apples and oranges. The Adventists got 1843 & 1844 wrong. The Adventists were those that were called out of the churches to declare the Advent message. And these Adventists were the pioneers of the SDA church that came later.

No that would be the Millerites..

[phkrause]

The Adventists got 1843 & 1844 wrong.

It cannot be said that SDA's got 1843 or 44 wrong.

Can't have it both ways????? So which is it? They did or they did not??

[Tom Wetmore]

"hch" seems to be quibbling over the shorthand use of the word "Adventist" to refer to the SDA Church, and is apparently inclined to use it only it in a broad general sense of referring to advent believers. However, it is widely recognized that the use of the word "Adventist" (note as a capitalized word) is referring to the SDA denomination and not to a broad category of those who believe in the Second Advent of Christ from many faith groups.

And if one considers the 19th Century usage of "Adventist" one cannot find a consistent usage in reference to a defined group or movement. Even among the Millerites and post disappointment believers that began organizing and ultimately chose "Seventh-day Adventist" as their name in 1863, they were known by various descriptive terms, "adventists" being only one of several.

[phkrause]

From what I've read the Advent movement started after the disappointment of 1844. Miller himself was not impressed so others came out of other denominations, etc.

[hch]

I beg the differ, but the Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded in 1863.

[hch]

Lest we mix apples and oranges. The Adventists got 1843 & 1844 wrong. The Adventists were those that were called out of the churches to declare the Advent message. And these Adventists were the pioneers of the SDA church that came later.

[hch]

The Adventists got 1843 & 1844 wrong.

It cannot be said that SDA's got 1843 or 44 wrong.

[hch]

"hch" seems to be quibbling over the shorthand use of the word "Adventist" to refer to the SDA Church, and is apparently inclined to use it only it in a broad general sense of referring to advent believers. However, it is widely recognized that the use of the word "Adventist" (note as a capitalized word) is referring to the SDA denomination and not to a broad category of those who believe in the Second Advent of Christ from many faith groups.

And if one considers the 19th Century usage of "Adventist" one cannot find a consistent usage in reference to a defined group or movement. Even among the Millerites and post disappointment believers that began organizing and ultimately chose "Seventh-day Adventist" as their name in 1863, they were known by various descriptive terms, "adventists" being only one of several.

Tom,

Quibbling?

This is a nice hypothesis that you have. Thanks for trying to figure it out. And there is some truth in it.

As I showed in an earlier post, looking at the usage of "Adventists" in the 19th century (1888 Great Controversy) an Adventist at that time was someone who believes in the Advent prior to the name Seventh-Day Adventist being coined. Thus making statements about Adventists does not always relate to Seventh-day Adventists. And confusion follows when SDA's misapply a modern usage to a term that is being used in a way that predates the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[pierrepaul]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

I pray he will be the next Martin Luther from within the Catholic Church.

That is an interesting thought. What if indeed this pope did turn into a major protestant reformer of the Catholic Church? What would that do for our eschatological ideas of the papacy, the Catholic Church, etc.?

Jonah prophesied the destruction of Nineveh which didn't come to pass as the people repented. The prophecies against Rome similarly need not come to pass.

[Textus Receptus]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

"hch" seems to be quibbling over the shorthand use of the word "Adventist" to refer to the SDA Church, and is apparently inclined to use it only it in a broad general sense of referring to advent believers. However, it is widely recognized that the use of the word "Adventist" (note as a capitalized word) is referring to the SDA denomination and not to a broad category of those who believe in the Second Advent of Christ from many faith groups.

And if one considers the 19th Century usage of "Adventist" one cannot find a consistent usage in reference to a defined group or movement. Even among the Millerites and post disappointment believers that began organizing and ultimately chose "Seventh-day Adventist" as their name in 1863, they were known by various descriptive terms, "adventists" being only one of several.

Tom,

Quibbling?

This is a nice hypothesis that you have. Thanks for trying to figure it out. And there is some truth in it.

As I showed in an earlier post, looking at the usage of "Adventists" in the 19th century (1888 Great Controversy) an Adventist at that time was someone who believes in the Advent prior to the name Seventh-Day Adventist being coined. Thus making statements about Adventists does not always relate to Seventh-day Adventists. And confusion follows when SDA's misapply a modern usage to a term that is being used in a way that predates the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Agreed

[Gordon1]

Jonah prophesied the destruction of Nineveh which didn't come to pass as the people repented. The prophecies against Rome similarly need not come to pass.

Possibly, but that would require mega confessions + repentance + restitution.

Selling off a lot of property.

And rewriting of Revelation, etc.

[olger]

pope Francis yesterday:

His messages of compassion for the weakest members of society tied closely to his messages about the natural world, as he said that respect for "each of God's creatures" means treating both people and the environment in the same compassionate manner. People who ignored "God's plan inscribed in nature," he said, leads to destruction and hardened hearts."

After reflection - this statement looks like it could lead to the U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature. That treaty, introduced by Bolivia in 2011 was debated in April of that year, I believe.

It is only a matter of time until Francis will take up the Global Warming cause. It sure looks that way.

rejoice always,

`G

[Tom Wetmore]

That bit of conjecture should fit well into the conspiracy theory fodder mill...

[olger]

We shall see.

g

[BobRyan]

From what I've read the Advent movement started after the disappointment of 1844. Miller himself was not impressed so others came out of other denominations, etc.

Ellen White writes against "nominal Adventists" by that she means Millerites who had not accepted the 3 Angel's messages including the Sanctuary, the Sabbath and I.J in heaven.

So definitely true that pre-1844 Millerites were being called Adventists.

As Walter Martin notes in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" the biggest objection to Millerite Adventists and Seventh-day Adventists was per-millennialism in the first of half of the 1800's.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: hch

The Adventists got 1843 & 1844 wrong.

It cannot be said that SDA's got 1843 or 44 wrong.

Can't have it both ways????? So which is it? They did or they did not??

He is technically correct. The term Adventist in the early 1800's applied to anyone that believed in a pre-mill soon coming of Christ. That view was considered unpopular and therefore "wrong" by popular Christianity of the day.

Ellen White's references to "Nominal Adventists" is a reference to non-SDA Millerites and related offshoots.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The Adventist Church was founded in 1863. So I'm curious as to how they got 1844 wrong or right?????

Here is another good point -- today's term "Adventist" refers specifically to Seventh-day Adventist and not to other pre-mill soon-second-coming groups like Baptists and Methodists and Evangelicals in general.

in Christ,

Bob

[Textus Receptus]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

I pray he will be the next Martin Luther from within the Catholic Church.

That is an interesting thought. What if indeed this pope did turn into a major protestant reformer of the Catholic Church? What would that do for our eschatological ideas of the papacy, the Catholic Church, etc.?

I wouldn't even entertain the idea that eschatology would change. We have a sure word of prophesy. Not to mention, even if Jesuit Francis did challenge the Catholic church, I think the Jesuits would have something to say about that. Dare I say, an untimely removal. That said, even if he ostensibly appeared to reform, it would be for the benefit of Rome. Perhaps to provide the illusion that the Roman church as changed, to only gain the symphathies of the protestants?

[Ted Oplinger]

It would seem that every few decades, along comes a reform-minded Pope.

Pope Francis I is really not saying anything more than what Wycliffe demanded of the church 800 years ago - that the church should be a poorer church, and not be so invested with worldly wealth (and with that wealth, power).

However, I note that history shows reform-minded Popes typically have a short tenure in the office....that said, the Papacy has over the last 60 years done much to promote the illusion they are reformed and not the same church that the Reformers broke from. They have even gone as far a promoting sainthood for Martin Luther as a man ahead of his time - as one who tried with all effort to reform the church, but was simply misunderstood in his day.

The Ecumenical movement has reaped great rewards for the RCC - she has not had to make great concessions, while the Protestants have conceded much which the Reformers stood for - indeed, many died for - in the effort "to all get along together in the spirit of Christ".

Blessings,

[Tom Wetmore]

I wouldn't even entertain the idea that eschatology would change. We have a sure word of prophesy. Not to mention, even if Jesuit Francis did challenge the Catholic church, I think the Jesuits would have something to say about that. Dare I say, an untimely removal. That said, even if he ostensibly appeared to reform, it would be for the benefit of Rome. Perhaps to provide the illusion that the Roman church as changed, to only gain the symphathies of the protestants?

How about this possibility -

Originally Posted By: pierrepaul

Jonah prophesied the destruction of Nineveh which didn't come to pass as the people repented. The prophecies against Rome similarly need not come to pass.

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: Textus Receptus

I wouldn't even entertain the idea that eschatology would change. We have a sure word of prophesy. Not to mention, even if Jesuit Francis did challenge the Catholic church, I think the Jesuits would have something to say about that. Dare I say, an untimely removal. That said, even if he ostensibly appeared to reform, it would be for the benefit of Rome. Perhaps to provide the illusion that the Roman church as changed, to only gain the symphathies of the protestants?

How about this possibility -

Originally Posted By: pierrepaul

Jonah prophesied the destruction of Nineveh which didn't come to pass as the people repented. The prophecies against Rome similarly need not come to pass.

The fact is that Jonah told the people that if they didn't repent and get back to God their city would be destroyed, so he did not really give any prophecy that did not come true.

[Gordon1]

It is only a matter of time until Francis will take up the Global Warming cause. It sure looks that way.

Can one buy carbon credits for stake-burning?

[Textus Receptus]

The fact is that Jonah told the people that if they didn't repent and get back to God their city would be destroyed, so he did not really give any prophecy that did not come true.

Nineveh was a conditional prophesy. This was a totally different circumstance. There are many discussion you can find online as to why this is so so I will leave this up to you. As for the Catholic Chuch,(not its parish but the system) God has given us a sure word that The Whore of Babylon will never change her heart. The bible has given us the begining to the end. It is dangerous to attempt to put a human understanding to what was divinely inspired.

"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." Revelation 18:7.