“These plagues are not universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off. Yet they will be the most awful scourges that have ever been known to mortals.” – The Great Controversy, 629

In the warning of the second trumpet, the one third denotes a partial impact. Otherwise, whole inhabitants would be cut off. An apparent correlation to the second plague obviously voiced in the second trumpet as “the sea became blood” (Rev. 8:8).

Below webpage link is one of the evidence of the "great mountain burning with fire cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;" (Rev. 8:8).
http://www.naturalnews.com/052685_Pacific_sealife_radiation_cancer_tumors.html

Karen, could you suggest a reason that Ellen White quoted Rev 16:13,14 right before saying,
And Satan unites with Protestants and Papists, {Mar 191.2} and what she may mean by And Satan unites with Protestants and Papists, in that context?

Satan unites with all three unclean spirits. That is why the threefold union is called the spirit of devils (Rev. 16:14). The predominant of the three unclean spirits are the Papists and the Protestants, which they influence people with Sunday observance and the immortality in "the spirit of the dragon"(mar 191.2).
The three unclean spirits are uniting in the spirit of the dragon, the Satan because they are fearful of the people who bear the seal of God.

So you think she just failed to include the third unclean spirit?

out of the mouth of the dragon -- spiritualism
out of the mouth of the beast -- the Roman power
out of the mouth of the false prophet -- (apostate) Protestantism

Spiritualism is not the same as Satan,
Just as Christianity is not the same as Christ.

They are two opposite worship systems.

When the two main "Christian" systems (papal & Protestant) incorporate spiritualism in their worship -- they are no longer really Christian even though they maintain the name.

IMHO--A more up to date view:

out of the mouth of the dragon -- Satan posing as Pope John-Paul II
out of the mouth of the beast -- Pope Francis I
out of the mouth of the false prophet -- Pope Benedict Emeritus



President Bush II reached his hand across the gulf to clasp hands with the Roman power Pope John-Paul II in 2004 when GW presented him a gold medal.

President Bush II reached his hand across the gulf to clasp hands with Spiritualism in 2008 when GW presented the Dalai Lama the same gold medal.



This is virtually the same quote as the previous one, but spiritualism and the roman power have been reversed.

After GW reached his hand across the gulf to the Dalai Lama, he again stretched his hand across the gulf to the roman power, Pope Benedict XVI, who was a guest at the White House on April 15.

The three unclean spirits: Satan as John-Paul II, Pope Francis I, & Pope Benedict are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings: 1) of the earth (Obama) and 2) of the whole world (the other world leaders), to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty (Armageddon).

I won't quibble over it, when it happens you'll know it is true. And it will happen soon enough (ISIS is drying up the Euphrates River to prepare the way for Christ's return as I write this post).

The true purpose when the three unclean spirits unit their powers to deceive the world is to get rid of the saints of God. We are told that the Pilate and Herod made friends over the trial of the Saviour. The world’s Redeemer was killed by their unity.

The Satan is instigator of all these evil powers. There also was unity when the two witnesses were killed which denotes the Word of God. Truth torments the wicked very much that they were rejoicing when they thought they got rid of the Bible (Rev. 11: 10).


Thus this is the pattern that the purpose of the unity of the three unclean spirits is to destroy God's people in their agenda of Ecumenical movement.

Thank you. That sounds clear enough to me. Not Buddhists, not Muslims, not Islam, but spiritualism. Though one could argue all of those are spiritualism. But it's more inclusive than such specific an narrow.

But this seems nothing but confusion. Do you disagree with Ellen White?

Does Ellen White say what you think she says?

I'd like to see where you find that she is supposed to disagree with what I shared.

I await your reply from the pen of EGW.