Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Had Jesus failed by default He WOULDN’T have been the Christ…
…Therefore Simeon, according to Ellen White would have been immortal, never to die.
…But then again would that even be true?

---

Catholics who are familiar with what the Council said about Arius & his teachings…
…And are also familiar with Scripture & the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
…Have difficulty accepting Ellen White’s visions as authoritative or even biblically sound.

Combined with her testimony of leaving planet earth & visiting extraterrestrials on their home world…
…It is difficult to seriously consider some of the SDA theology.

I need to leave for a bit. So, I will be very brief:

1. We would soundly disagree with your idea that EGW would say that about Simeon.
2. I understand what you said about EGWs visions not being Biblical. On one level, I would agree with you. but that needs explaination and I will leave that for later, as also some other comments.

Blessings on you.

Thank you for asking.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Combined with her testimony of leaving planet earth & visiting extraterrestrials on their home world…
…It is difficult to seriously consider some of the SDA theology.

I am uncertain as to your exact reference. I suspect that it probably is to one of the two statement that I have referenced below.

The bottom line is that often people make statements about what EGW may have said. While some are accurate, others are only partially true and some are without foundation and therefore cannot be said to be either true or false.

1. The memory of even godly people may not be entirely reliable, hence background information for certain statements attributed to Ellen G. White may prove helpful:

Sabbath Meal at Another Planet: The report, based on the memory of one person, that Ellen G. White stated in a dinner-table conversation that the inhabitants of other worlds are gathering fruit for the Sabbath-day entertainment of the translated saints in route to heaven, is without support. The assertion that the words were stenographically reported also is without foundation.

1. Through the years some Seventh-day Adventists have copied and used choice paragraphs from Ellen G. White articles published in the Review and Herald and other journals. Some have also copied choice statements written by others without noting the authorship and have mistakenly attributed them to Mrs. White. Oft-quoted proverbs and sayings have also been attributed to her erroneously.

Inhabited Planets in our Solar System: Some have mistakenly linked Elder Bates’ remarks to Ellen White’s description of a “place” inhabited by “noble” and “majestic” beings. In Ellen White’s own account of her vision, however, she says only that she was an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of taken to “A PLACE” that was bright and glorious" (emphasis supplied). She does not identify “the place” as Jupiter, Saturn, or any other planet in our solar system. Here is her description: “The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place.” Early Writings, pp. 39, 40.

Where I would have my major issue with you is in your suggestion that this is a part of SDA theology. It is not. Nobody really cares what anyone believes on this point.

Yes, probably there are many SDAs who believe that there are other planets in the Universe, outside of our solar system, that contain intelligent life. But, that is not a part of our theology. Further, the belief that there is intelligent life elsewhere in this Universe is a belief held by many people who are not a part of the SDA denomination.

I am aware that you could criticize EGW for what she actually said and I have quoted. I am not concerned by that. You could be a SDA member and believe anything that you wanted to believe on this issue and it would not affect your standing as a SDA member.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Earlier in response to Pythons, I said:

I understand what you said about EGWs visions not being Biblical. On one level, I would agree with you. but that needs explaination and I will leave that for later, as also some other comments.

A major part of the role that EGW played in the development of the SDA Church was administrative.

She advised us to have a clinical health ministry. She advised us to publish. She advised us to have a level of organization which is called a “Union Conference.” There is much, much more in this regard. There is a sense that the SDA Church today would not be what it is today if it were not for the advisory role that Ellen White played In its development.

In a sense, one could truthfully say that such advice was not Biblical. There is no place in the Bible where it says that we should have a Union Conference. The Bible does not say anywhere that we should build a hospital in Loma Linda. The Bible does not say that we should publish a paper that now has the name: REVIEW. But, Ellen White said all of the above.

A distinction should be made as to what are foundational SDA beliefs. The Sabbath is one. The future Second Advent of Christ is another. We have others. In the developmental days of our denomination we hammered out a basic set of beliefs in what were called five “Sabbath Conferences.” (The time period of those Conferences each included a Sabbath.) We derived those foundational beliefs from an understanding of what the Bible taught. We DID NOT derive them from Ellen White!

There are other teachings within the SDA Church which do not reach the level of foundational beliefs. They are not required for membership. SDA members may disagree with some aspects of them or reject them entirely. In the United States, many SDAs practice some form of a vegetarian diet. This is not required. Many in the U.S. are not vegetarian. In other countries, a vegetarian diet may be held by fewer SDAs than in the U.S. Frankly, I will be the first to say that good Biblical scholarship does not teach a vegetarian diet.

Even in foundational beliefs, there is a diversity of opinion about them. As I have said, the Sabbath is a foundational belief. We differ widely as to how one should live their life on the Sabbath and as how to obtain the blessing that is in the Sabbath. In the SDA Church we give people a wide range of latitude in determining for themselves how they will relate to the Sabbath.

Some people who have studied the SDA Denomination have said that we consist of five (5) different groups (in doctrine and life style). I am not going to get into the specifics of this. I will simply say that as a denomination we have attempted to operate on the “big tent” principle in which we welcome people on a spiritual journey and leave those issue to God to sort out.

On a personal basis, I would divide the SDA denomination into two groups: 1) One group wants to welcome as members people who are on a spiritual journey and have come to us because they believe that we can help them in this journey. 2) A second group believes that membership in the SDA denomination should be reserved for people who have reached a specified level of doctrinal understanding and in their life style.

We do not have uniform agreement on the above.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons: I (We) consider Hebrews 4:15 to be a very important verse on this subject:

Christ, because He was as fully human as He was fully God, WAS tempted “of the Devil” or “by the Devil”…
…There was NOTHING in Christ to respond to these temptations however.
…Exactly as Christ said:

John 14,29
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath NOTHING in me.

So, for the Devil’s works to be successful an individual has to WANT or covet what’s being offered…
…Let’s say your particular kink was “gay sex” or “stealing” & someone offered you participation in those things.
…Because THOSE things are “In you” - you will FEEL THE PULL or “lust” for them.

Someone who is not gay CAN BE TEMPTED externally to participate in buggery…
…But internally they are NOT TEMPTED inside themselves, they do not feel the pull!
…The following Scripture explains better what I’m trying to say.

James 1, 13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his OWN lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

Gregory:

So also is Philippians 2: 6 & 7.
In our understanding, in the incarnation Christ laid aside His divine prerogatives. He became totally dependent upon God the Father (John 5:30). IOW, he did not use his divine powers. In His divinity Christ was omnipresent. In the incarnation He limited his omnipresence to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I could make similar statements about other divine attributes–immutability, self-existence, omnipotence, omniscience and more.

We would not say that the nature of God that Christ had was capable of sinning. Do not attribute that to us, please. But, you may correctly say that being made in the nature of humanity, we believe that Christ in that human nature was capable of sinning.

As part of our thinking, we would ask: 1) How could the temptations be real if there was no possibility of sinning? 2) How could Christ be made in the nature of humanity if unlike us he could not have sinned?

Yes, you can cite Biblical verses that tell us that God’s plan of salvation was certain. I would respond that God in HIs foreknowledge knew that it was a plan that would succeed. But, I would also say that the potential was there for it to fail.

The teaching historically of Philippians 2 is that Christ didn’t use the fact of Him being God as an argument to not fulfill the will of the Father…
…Instead Christ fulfilled the will of the Father as He had eternally done.
…Paul calls Christians to imitate this mind of Christ.

See Chrysostom homily - he address your points very clearly.
newadvent.org/fathers/230206.htm

Gregory:

Just as you tell me that you could list a great number of verses to support your understanding of the Biblical positon, so also could I list other verses that I believe support my (our) understanding of the Biblical position.

In all honesty I have not seen this happen for this particular topic, YET…

Gregory:

But, I do not picture it appropriate for you and I to be standing in the street, with our 6-shooters out, sending Biblical verses down range as we discharge our weapons at each other. It would be, in my thinking, quite inappropriate for me to come here with the motive of either attacking Catholic beliefs or of converting the members of this forum to the SDA position.

Rather, what I think is appropriate is to engage in dialogue in which we understand better what we each believe. It is for that reason that I am here. I have read a number of posts in this forum in which statements have been made about what SDAs believe. I think that it can be helpful to discuss SDA beliefs without attempting to either attack Catholic beliefs or attempting to convert you to our understandings.

In these discussions I fully expect that we will often disagree. But, perhaps (?) we will at times reach a common understanding of where our differences lie.

I think you propose a good chronology for this discussion…
…I look forward to talking about it with you.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons: The more I read, the closer I think you and I are, even if not exactly at the same place. IOW, you have said much with which I agree.

You sent me to a passage by Chrysostom. There is much in that passage which which I agree. I especially liked the following:

Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature. And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also does, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he says, “He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.”

I also agree with the following statement where you said:

Christ, because He was as fully human as He was fully God, WAS tempted “of the Devil” or “by the Devil”…

…There was NOTHING in Christ to respond to these temptations however.

You and I were born in a state of sin and with a pre-disposition to sin. Christ was no so born. But, in my thinking, that does not mean that Christ could not have sinned.

Adam was created outside of any pre-disposition to sin. He was not created in a state of sin. Yet he sinned. Going back to the angel, Lucifer, who as an angel led a rebellion in heaven, he was neither created in a state of sin, nor with a pre-disposition to sin. Yet, he sinned.

In my thinking, Christ could have sinned, even though He neither had a pre-disposition to sin, nor was He created in a state of sin. But, Christ did not sin.

Yes, I value our conversations and hope that they continue.

 

[Miriam1947]

The difference is that the majority of people believe that Michael is a created being, an angel, and therefore, Michael is not Christ.

Seventh-day Adventists, who may believe that Christ is Michael, have taken a minority position, but one that says that Michael, is not a created being an angel. I have not discussed their thinking on this point as I am not posting in this forum in an attempt to convince anyone. Rather, I prefer to simply state, when asked, what our belief is.

The issues as to whether or not Christ was a created being, and therefore not fully God is an important issue. We are in agreement on that point as we are Trinitarian and NOT Arian.

Once that is understood, the issue of whether or not Christ is Michael is of little importance, in my thinking. If we are wrong on that, no big deal. If we are correct on that, no big deal. Membership in the SDA denomination is NOT determined by what one thinks on that issue.

You’re free to believe anything you want as I guess we all are. The biggest problem that I have with Seventh-day Adventists is their absolute hatred of the Catholic Church. I watch 3ABN, I hear what they say and they are so wrong about the Catholic Church and say things that are so disgraceful and bigoted.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

I understand where you are coming from.

3-ABN is not formally a SDA ministry. It is an independent ministry that is not controlled by the SDA Church. Over the past decade, it has been associated with scandal, both financial and more. In the spirit of honesty, some of the charges that have been made against 3-ABN and one of its founders are false. NOTE: In the spirit of transparency, I am considered by 3-ABN to be one of its three biggest critics in the present day. The present President of 3-ABN can hardly have a civil conversation with me as evidenced by a very short conversation with him a few weeks ago. I could say much more, but I do not want to turn this thread into a focus on 3-ABN.

I am a bit surprised at your mention of 3-ABN. The SDA Church has many independent ministries that are not controlled by the denomination. They are independent in financing, in administration and in how they conduct their ministry. But, 3-ABN is very moderate in their approach to the Catholic Church in regard to other critics that attack the Catholic Church under the name of the SDA Church and that we would not even call an independent ministry of the SDA Church.

These critics, which the SDA deny are Seventh-day Adventist, are the ones that pay for billboards that proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist, the beast of Revelation, and more. In considering this issue, you and I will need to consider how the SDA Church has reacted to such. In the United States, people are considered to have the legal freedom to say almost anything. IOW, they have the legal freedom to promote such billboards. As these groups are NOT formally part of the SDA Church, we are very limited as to what we can do about their purchase of those billboards.

However, we do have one avenue of approach. The term “Seventh-day Adventist” and other associated forms have been registered as a trademark and are copyrighted. This means that we can litigate against those who use those words without our permission. We regularly litigate against such when they refuse to stop using what we have registered as a trademark. The group that called themselves The Creation SDA Church is only one example of such litigation.

One problem is that some of these groups have refused to obey court orders to stop using our trademarked property. In some cases the SDA Church has had to resort to asking the court to send officers to physically remove prop0erty that contained our trademarked names.

You have raised a valid question which I will have more to say about, but I want to keep his post somewhat short. In fairness to us, I will suggest that as a denomination we are willing to spend sums of money to stop people form using our names in such and under circumstances where there is not possibility of recovering our costs.

 

[chero23]

I understand where you are coming from.

3-ABN is not formally a SDA ministry. It is an independent ministry that is not controlled by the SDA Church. Over the past decade, it has been associated with scandal, both financial and more. In the spirit of honesty, some of the charges that have been made against 3-ABN and one of its founders are false. NOTE: In the spirit of transparency, I am considered by 3-ABN to be one of its three biggest critics in the present day. The present President of 3-ABN can hardly have a civil conversation with me as evidenced by a very short conversation with him a few weeks ago. I could say much more, but I do not want to turn this thread into a focus on 3-ABN.

I am a bit surprised at your mention of 3-ABN. The SDA Church has many independent ministries that are not controlled by the denomination. They are independent in financing, in administration and in how they conduct their ministry. But, 3-ABN is very moderate in their approach to the Catholic Church in regard to other critics that attack the Catholic Church under the name of the SDA Church and that we would not even call an independent ministry of the SDA Church.

These critics, which the SDA deny are Seventh-day Adventist, are the ones that pay for billboards that proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist, the beast of Revelation, and more. In considering this issue, you and I will need to consider how the SDA Church has reacted to such. In the United States, people are considered to have the legal freedom to say almost anything. IOW, they have the legal freedom to promote such billboards. As these groups are NOT formally part of the SDA Church, we are very limited as to what we can do about their purchase of those billboards.

However, we do have one avenue of approach. The term “Seventh-day Adventist” and other associated forms have been registered as a trademark and are copyrighted. This means that we can litigate against those who use those words without our permission. We regularly litigate against such when they refuse to stop using what we have registered as a trademark. The group that called themselves The Creation SDA Church is only one example of such litigation.

One problem is that some of these groups have refused to obey court orders to stop using our trademarked property. In some cases the SDA Church has had to resort to asking the court to send officers to physically remove prop0erty that contained our trademarked names.

You have raised a valid question which I will have more to say about, but I want to keep his post somewhat short. In fairness to us, I will suggest that as a denomination we are willing to spend sums of money to stop people form using our names in such and under circumstances where there is not possibility of recovering our costs.

My ex is SDA, we dated for over 4 years. We read the Bible together. I have a section at the bottom of my post, its a book that i did for our study. Theirs a section there about Jesus being Michael? With quotes from EGW

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Miriam1947 You have raised a valid question to which I will respond. As I like to keep things short, I am responding with some short posts.

There are passages in the Biblical book of Revelation, and other places, that the SDA Church has typically applied to doctrines/teachings of the Catholic Church. If I were to attempt to minimize those doctrinal differences it would be valid to question whether or not I was being honest. They exist. I certainly do not expect that my presence here will result in their gong away.

There is a reality that some of our members had taken our very real doctrinal differences and applied them personally to the members and leaders (such as the Pope) of the RC Church. There is a growing feeling within our church, that such a personal application should not be done.

As SDAs we do not believe that salvation is limited to any one denominational group. The saved include, Catholics, Adventists, Baptists, Methodists and others. Further as we believe that salvation is on an individual basis, rather than a group basis, we do not believe that any denomination, to include Adventists, will have all of their members spending eternity with Christ. We do not believe the every Adventist, Catholic, Baptist or Methodist will be eternally saved.

What I have said in the above paragraph is in full accord with what Ellen White has said. I say that as I would otherwise expect a question on that issue.

At the present time, probably a majority of SDAs, do apply certain verses in the Bible to the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church. However, there is a growing minority view that this application may be in error.

The best known advocate of this change is probably the now deceased SDA scholar, Samuele Bacchiocchi. Bacchiocchi is noteworthy for the fact that he graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, I believe in 1977. NOTE: His academic work was in the area of Church History. But, this is probably not the place to get into a discussion of his many writings and their influence on the SDA Denomination.

My major point is: Seventh-day Adventists do have some very strong doctrinal differences with Catholic doctrines/teachings. These differences have sometimes moved over into an application to the member of the Catholic Church. I wish that this had not been done.

Personally, I will suggest that there is a factor that has influenced this. I am not stating it as an excuse. Rather, I am stating it as what I see as a factor. Terms such as “Holy Father” are probably not understood by many people. Catholics often apply terms to their priests that SDAs would believe should only be applied to Christ. NOTE: In one of my military assignments I was a very close assistant to a senior Catholic priest. My office was next to his and I interacted with him every working day. I am well aquainted with how he was addressed by our Catholics.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Mariam1947, you mention hatred of the Catholic Church. I will comment on that from a general sense.

The late 1800s and extending into the 1900s there is a great body of literature that has attacked the Catho0lic Church. I could not begin to approach this subject, in a post in this forum. It is simply there and probably part of the social structure of the United States.

In the mid 1900s a book American Freedom and Catholic Power (I believe written by Paul Blanchard) was published. (In 1949 and again in 1958.) As a young person, I read that book. I considered it to be without foundation and I dismissed it as simply a product of what today I would call the conspiracy people. These are the same people who allege that Jesuit priests have infiltrated many Protestant denominations to include the Adventists. Some of these nuts would probably allege that I am a Jesuit! Well, there are simply some who have no sense of what is truth.

As a teen, who read widely, I was well aware of the garbage that was circulated about the Catholic Church, its priests, nuns, convents, and hidden prisons that no one knew about. These did not come from the Adventists. These were simply a part of the social, religious structure of that day and time. I dismissed it all as without foundation.

Then there came a published of a type of comic book tract that was largely against the Catholic church, as well as some Protestants. In a position that I held as an Army chaplain I advocated against the distribution of that material in Army chapels. That was accomplished, although primarily by others. NOTE: I do not even want to mention the name of that publisher as that material is still available today even if in a much reduced form.

Yes, there is a long history of the Catholic Church being vilified. If I was in control, I would change the discussion to that is doctrinal differences, which I think is appropriate. I would not have the focus that has been had in the past. but, I am not in control of what others do.

I guess that is about all that I can say.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Chero23, I have downloaded you book. Obviously I have not had the time to read its almost 200 pages.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

As you all know, Pope Francis is planning to visit the United States in September. Some of you reading this thread may wonder how the SDA Church is going to react to his visit. One answer is found in the following post:

adventistreview.org/church-news/story3145-adventists-gear-up-for-popes-u.s.-visit

I do not expect that you will agree with everything that is said in the above article. I do expect that you will take exception to the wording of one statement from a publication of some years back, if you think it applied to the Catholic Church. But, it did not apply to the Catholic Church.

But, I am here in an attempt to respond honestly, and the above is a current example of the response of the Church to the Pope’s visit. I will suggest that it, in general, represents an attempt to respond to Catholic issues in a more positive manner than has been done in the past and by others.

If you do not see it that way, O.K. At least I am giving you a current response.

That article above has a quotation from the SDA Book Christ’s Object Lessons, which was written by Ellen White. The quotation comes from page 299.

In that quotation, she was NOT addressing the Catholic Church. Here is what she said:

The people of the world are worshiping false gods. They are to be turned from their false worship, not by hearing denunciation of their idols, but by beholding something better. God’s goodness is to be made known.

 

[Miriam1947]

GregoryMatthews, I appreciate your post.

A question for you. 3ABN has a viewing schedule which includes the following programs:

***It is Written, Revelation of Jesus Christ, Anchors of Truth, Eleventh Hour Evidence, Maranatha Mission Stories and updates on Adventist church plantings and care for the poor as well as information about Adventist schools.

---

There are many other programs as well.
How does a viewer know what is Adventist and what is just 3ABN opinion?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Ah, there is no easy answer to your question.

In a previous post, I mentioned that the SDA Church today is thought by some to be divided into five (5) different groups as far as doctrine and life-style is concerned.

The mission of 3-ABN is to present a view of Adventism that they understand and support. That view lies at the more conservative end of the Adventist spectrum. In doing its work, 3-ABN attempts to cooperate with the official denomination. But, the manner in which it does it is such that essentially the denomination can only give it advice which 3-ABN does not have to follow. In some situations it works closely with the denomination. In other ways, it does its own thing. As part of doing its own thing, 3-ABN selects whom they want to be their speakers.

Amazing Facts is a semi-independent ministry with Doug Batchelor as speaker. It is clearly at the conservative end of the Adventist. spectrum. Batchelor is a fully accredited SDA clergy-person. His ministry is only semi-independent. He has tied it to the SDA denomination in a manner that if the Church were to chose to do so it could shut it down and it could remove Batchelor. Further, the church has enough control that it would likely be able to preemptively see pending financial and/or other scandal and take steps to resolve the issues.

Maranatha is an independent organization that is considered to be a good, helpful organization that works very well with the denomination.

It Is Written is also a semi-independent organization with a long history and represents the conservatie element in the denomination.

Faith For Today and The Voice of Prophecy are ancient organizations that can essentially be considered to be a part of the Adventist Church.

The Adventist Church has an official TV Channel that competes with 3-ABN. That is Hope Channel. If you get Direct TV, you can access that channel on 386. It operates 24 hours a day 365 days a year (366 in a Leap year). It also operates in other countries and with additional programing in some U.S. cities. It has other methods of access that do not require a subscription to Direct TV.

I do not know enough about some of the programing that you mentioned to make much of a statement about them.

Both 3-ABN and Hope TV have programing that they produce.

I realize that I have not given you a good answer to your question. But, this is what I have to give you at this point in time.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

I previously mentioned The Creation Adventist Church. The SDA Church has just filed further litigation against it for its use of a SDA trademark.

You can read about this at:

atoday.org/adventist-denomination-again-goes-to-court-to-force-congregation-to-stop-using-name.html

NOSTE: If you access the above website you will be on an Adventist Today website. AT is an independent organization that is substantially composed of Seventh-day Adventists.
As such, it cannot be considered to represent the official position of the SDA Church although some people wo write for AT that do represent the official position of the SDA Church.

The same may be said for Spectrum and the Association of Adventist Forums.

 

[Pythons]

Hi Gregory, we’re off to a good start & I’ve given you some Scriptures to consider…
…You’ve given me some I’ve commented on - I have a few more.

Isaiah 46,8
Remember this and consider, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done,saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.

My position is that God indeed does know what’s going to happen before it happens…
…And that Christ would fulfil the purpose of the Father is affirmed nearly 100 times in the Bible.
…It seems with all the evidence the only reason you would have to reject this is because Ellen White repudiated it.
…Could this be accurate?

 

[QuestLove]

My Brother-In-Law is a Seventh Day Adventist and has been visiting us for the last couple months. He converted to Seventh Day Adventist about 15 years ago so we’ve been having a few discussions regarding his beliefs. The latest discussion was about Jesus being Michael the Archangel. He referenced Daniel 8:11-25, 10:13-21, 12:1, Jude 1:9, 1 Thes 4:16, and Joshua 5:14-15 as “proof”.

The only thing I could not easily counter is Daniel 12:1. He says I’m making too many assumptions that can’t be proven.

Any suggestions?

Was he a JW previously? Because I know they believe this.
This is not a belief of mainstream SDA as far as I know.

 

[chero23]

Chero23, I have downloaded you book. Obviously I have not had the time to read its almost 200 pages.

That book has the official teaching of the church in each section by what the catechism of the Catholic Church says. Then you’ll see the verses from Scripture. Then it ends with what some of the early church fathers said about the issue.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

QuestLove, you ask about your brother-in-law and his belief in Christ as Michael the Archangel:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is Trinitarian. As such it believes that the 2nd person of the Godhead was incarnated in human form to be our Savior/Redeemer. That person was fully God, without beginning and of the same substance as God the Father. IOW, that person was NOT a created being.

NOTE: As I said, we are Trinitarian. In my wording above, I am NOT stating that there are three gods. There is one God in the person of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

There is a trend of thinking within the SDA Church that the Biblical term Michael applies to Christ. In brief, that thinking is based upon the following ideas:

1. The term “archangel” references the one who is in charge of the angels. It does not reference a “Chief angel.”
2. Michael is typically described in the Bible as being in direct conflict with Satan. This is better understood as a conflict that involved Christ as God, and not just a created angel. See Jude 9, Revelation 12:7, Daniel 12:1 & Daniel 10: 13 & 21.
3. At the 2nd Advent the dead are raised to life by God, Christ, the Son of Man. see John 5:28.
4. I Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that the Lord (God, Christ) raises the dead at the 2nd Advent with the voice of the Archangel.

NOTE: This is a brief statement as to our Biblical understanding on this issue.

I will be the 1st person to tell you that I do not believe that the Bible is conclusive. I understand why others believe that the name Michael does not apply to Christ.

Frankly, the important issue to me is whether or not Christ is a created being. As SDA teaching is that Christ was not a created being, I Do not consider the issue of whether or not Michael is a name for Christ is important.

The issue of Michael as a name for Christ is not an important issue for SDAs. I have probably spent more time discussing this in this forum than I have spent in the last 20 years discussing it with SDAs!

You would have not trouble being a SDA and believe that the name Michael did NOT apply to Christ.

So, you tell me that Ellen White believed that the name Michael applied to Christ. O.K. Ellen White never claimed to be infallible and she was NOT infallible. Could she have been wrong on this point? Yes. Was she? you decide. It is not my mission in life to convince you on this subject.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Hi Gregory, we’re off to a good start & I’ve given you some Scriptures to consider…
…You’ve given me some I’ve commented on - I have a few more.

Isaiah 46,8
Remember this and consider, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done,saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.

My position is that God indeed does know what’s going to happen before it happens…
…And that Christ would fulfil the purpose of the Father is affirmed nearly 100 times in the Bible.
…It seems with all the evidence the only reason you would have to reject this is because Ellen White repudiated it.
…Could this be accurate?

With the various people in this thread posting the issue addressed seems to me to move around a bit. The title of this thread has a focus on the meaning of the name Michael as it is applied to Christ. Yet, other issues have bee introduced. I think that you are responding to my comment as to whether or not the incarnated Christ could have sinned. but, if I ever misunderstand the thrust of a question, please call me back to task.

Let me first respond to your comment about Ellen White. As I have stated, Ellen White grew in her understanding of the Trinity. She was not infallible. In the later years of her life, she had a better understanding of the Trinity than she did in the early years.

If were to base my view of the Trinity on Ellen White, I would have to decide whether to base it on some statements made in those early years or on later years.

The fundamental issue as to whether or not the incarnated Christ could have sinned involves an understanding of the nature of the incarnated Christ. As I have said, there is disagreement in the Christian world on this point.

If you were to tell me that God could not be tempted, I would agree. You have told me that and I have agreed.

You have told me that there was noting in the nature of Christ that had a bent toward sinning. I agree.

We also agree on the issue that God has knowledge of the future and had a plan of salvation that God knew would succeed.

I happen to believe that due to the fact that the incarnated Christ was also fully human, there was the potential for Christ to sin, even though he did not. I will suggest that this is supported by the Biblical story of Adam, who sinned in spite of the fact that as created he did to have any bent to sinning. Neither did Lucifer in the story of his rebellion in heaven who was not created with a bent to sin, yet he sinned.

So, we agree on much, yet differ on this one point.