Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

[QuestLove]

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. **

I think maybe you are confusing my post with someone else. I have no opinion on whether Jesus is Michael, Ellen G. White’s infallibility etc.
I was just saying that I hardly hear it among SDAs and I was wondering about it’s origin. And you have explained it.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Yes, I did reply to more than just you.

Glad to have been of help in understanding were SDAs are.

I want anyone to feel free to ask any question.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I did reply to more than just you.

Glad to have been of help in understanding were SDAs are.

I want anyone to feel free to ask any question.

Gregory I am just curious as to why God waited 1800+ years to reveal the truth to his people?

 

[patmiron]

=rabarker;13020855]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?

Your B I L in holding this view is actually denying that Jesus Is God:

Here are a few passages you can share with him:

**Isaiah 9: 6-7

Lk 1:26-36

Lk 2: 11-25**
**
Mt. 3: 11-17 ** “I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? and Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him. And Jesus [GOD THE SON] being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, [GOD THE HS] and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased [GOD THE FATHER]

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

If he wants to debate this, ky suggestion is to just pray for him. Conversions are GOD’S territirity:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Gregory I am just curious as to why God waited 1800+ years to reveal the truth to his people?

Good questions.

I would not say that God waited 1800 years to revel His truth to His people. However, I would say the following:

1. Truth is progressive. In our human condition none of us can fully understand all that God has to say to us. God is limited in communicating to us by pour humanity and therefore speaks to us progressively. Also, God’s message to us may be governed by what is most important for us to know. In those early years after the cross paganism was the major religion in the world and God’s message needed to be basics–Christ is the answer, not your pagan gods. God loves you. you do not have to be afraid of God. Salvation is only in Christ.

As part of this, a Trinitarian concept of God was vital. In my thinking, as long as it is based on a Trinitiarin concept, the application of the name Michael to Christ was not vital and is not today.

1. In the 1800s the U.S. was substantially Christian. At this point in time the emphasis of God would likely be somewhat different from the pagan society in 50 AD.
2. I will suggest that our society today, in the U.S. differs from what it was in the 1800s. It has been called post-Christian by some. Regardless, I can imagine that God would have a somewhat different emphasis today than in the 1800s.
3. I do not believe that SDAs have nothing more to learn spiritually. I know that Catholics believe that God can continue today to impart spiritual truth by the methods that God uses to give them spiritual truth. So, your question, in one sense applies to the RC Church.

Blessings on you and may the Lord be with you and all of you.

NOTE: I am soon off to church and will not respond to messages here for a while.

 

[Pythons]

Gregory:

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.

Yes, Scripture teaches Christ couldn’t have sinned because God will never do any evil.

Zephaniah 3,5
The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will NOT do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

This above renders your theory about the possibility of Christ sinning in a fairly bad position…
…True, Christ had Two Natures, two natures that were perfectly united.
…Not “BLENDED” as Ellen White & the early Arians taught.

As you know Catholics view Church Councils in a different way then do SDA’s…
…Consider Session Two of Chalcedon:

that the properties of the Divine and the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without causing a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh. On which mystery of the faith this Eutyches must be regarded as unhappily having no hold, who does not recognise our nature to exist in the Only-begotten Son of God, either by way of the lowliness of mortality, or of the glory of resurrection. Nor has he been overawed by the declaration of the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John, saying, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which dissolves Jesus is not of God, and this is Antichrist.” Now what is to dissolve Jesus, but to separate the human nature from him, and to make void by shameless inventions that mystery by which alone we have been saved?

&

“because the Catholic Church lives and advances by this faith, that Christ Jesus we should believe neither manhood to exist without true Godhead, nor Godhead without true manhood. But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of him, answered, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature;” I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could give offense: seeing that it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only”.

SEE: newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Like Arians, Eutyches believe the pre-Incarnate Jesus had a Divine Nature but during the mystery of the Incarnation the human nature BLENDED or Mixed with the divine therefore providing for the possibility of Christ to sin. Ironically Ellen White taught the same thing.

Ellen White:
There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’" (Lift Him Up, page 235, paragraph 3.)

Ellen White:
"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person–the man Christ Jesus.

Christians, from what I know, don’t generally have a difference on the subject of the Nature of Christ?
…Arians absolutely do which is why JW’s, Christiadelphians, WWCOG & the offshoots of these groups teach Christ “could have sinned”.
…The mixing or blending of the two natures into a new hybrid natures allows for this potential of sinning.

 

[estesbob]

Good questions.

I would not say that God waited 1800 years to revel His truth to His people. However, I would say the following:

1. Truth is progressive. In our human condition none of us can fully understand all that God has to say to us. God is limited in communicating to us by pour humanity and therefore speaks to us progressively. Also, God’s message to us may be governed by what is most important for us to know. In those early years after the cross paganism was the major religion in the world and God’s message needed to be basics–Christ is the answer, not your pagan gods. God loves you. you do not have to be afraid of God. Salvation is only in Christ.

As part of this, a Trinitarian concept of God was vital. In my thinking, as long as it is based on a Trinitiarin concept, the application of the name Michael to Christ was not vital and is not today.

1. In the 1800s the U.S. was substantially Christian. At this point in time the emphasis of God would likely be somewhat different from the pagan society in 50 AD.
2. I will suggest that our society today, in the U.S. differs from what it was in the 1800s. It has been called post-Christian by some. Regardless, I can imagine that God would have a somewhat different emphasis today than in the 1800s.
3. I do not believe that SDAs have nothing more to learn spiritually. I know that Catholics believe that God can continue today to impart spiritual truth by the methods that God uses to give them spiritual truth. So, your question, in one sense applies to the RC Church.

Blessings on you and may the Lord be with you and all of you.

NOTE: I am soon off to church and will not respond to messages here for a while.

I’m not sure I would worship a god that let his people blindly stumble around for 1800 after the death of his son . Todays society does differ from society in the 1800s or even when Christ walked the earth but the truth doesn’t. The truth does not change ,it does not bend to the mores of the current culture. When Jesus told his disciples the gates of hell will not prevail against his church he didn’t say " well at the Gates will prevail for 1800 years and then will I reveal the truth "

I’m not picking specifically on Seventh Day Adventist here- I see this problem with all of our separated brethren . They’re all founded upon the premise of a seemingly inept god sending his son to the earth to die for us , preaching the gospel to his disciples and then letting the world sink back into ignorance for millennium and a half

 

[Pythons]

Gregory, my apologies for not including this in my last post.

You had raised the point that Seventh-day Adventist teaching pertaining to Jesus as Michael the archangel…
…Just or ‘only’ means that prior to the Incarnation of Jesus God the Son was known by that name & title.
…The following Scripture makes the SDA position difficult to reconcile ( at least to me ).

Daniel 10,13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, ONE OF the chief prince****S, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia

That is a plural - Michael was / is classified as being a prince among other princes…
…Logically this indicates that there were OTHER archangels of the same “rank”.
…Past this there is another extremely salient issue here.

Scripture says that Daniel was in mourning for three full weeks…
…If we apply the Gregorian Calendar that equates to 21 days.
…Where Daniel didn’t eat, drink wine, clean himself, etc.

On the 24th day of the 1st month Daniel has a vision…
…Daniel has difficulty with it & an angel comes and explains a few things.
…Namely that the angel was GOING to come to Daniel on the first day of his “fast”.

Unfortunately however this angel who was coming to see Daniel was DELAYED…
…By the Patron of Persia ( a powerful Demon or even perhaps Lucifer himself ).
…The angel sent to deliver the message to Daniel was held up for 21 days.
…THEN Michael ( one of other Chief Princes ) came to help.

These two angels ( Daniel’s & Michael ) contended against the evil angel for 3 days…
…Weakening it enough so that Daniel’s angel could leave & deliver the message.
…On the 24th day of the 1st month.

Does Michael seriously sound like ‘God’?

I mean no offense but the SDA interpretation of this is literally identical to the t.v. series “Supernatural”…
…Sam & Dean Winchester, two brothers battle monsters & incorporate the help of “archangels”.
…The good archangels can switch sides ( i.e. they can sin & loose their salvation ).
…archangels can also ‘become God’.

youtube.com/watch?v=R5K1A5EFDSo

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Yes, Scripture teaches Christ couldn’t have sinned because God will never do any evil.

Zephaniah 3,5
The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will NOT do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

This above renders your theory about the possibility of Christ sinning in a fairly bad position…

I agree that God will not do evil. But, I see the incarnate Christ as fully human, being able to sin. But, he did not.

If we were to apply your verse to the incarnate Christ, in my understanding it woud say that Christ would not sin, rather than saying that Christ could not sin.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons also said:

Like Arians, Eutyches believe the pre-Incarnate Jesus had a Divine Nature but during the mystery of the Incarnation the human nature BLENDED or Mixed with the divine therefore providing for the possibility of Christ to sin. Ironically Ellen White taught the same thing.

As a blended nature for the incarnate Christ is described above, that is exactly what I would reject. I would NOT teach that the incarnate Christ hat one blended nature.
I would teach that the incarnate Christ had two natures, the divine as he was fully God, and the human as he was made like a human. In my thinking, this was not one blended nature>

I am looking right now at a SDA book that discusses SDA teaching. It does use the term “blending” in regard to the nature of Christ. However, it has not used that word in the manner that you are using it. In several places on the same page and chapter, that book clearly mentions the same two natures that I have mentioned and regardless of its poor choice of words in using that word, it does not suggest that Christ had one blended nature.

I am not concerned about what Ellen white may have taught I have stated that in her earlier years she did not have the same understanding of the Trinity that she had in her later years. She grew in knowledge as any human must.

To say that one has demonstrated an example of Ellen White being wrong in something that she said, is not a point that I am going to argue. She was not infallible. Scripture is the final authority, not Ellen White.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

estesbob said:

I’m not picking specifically on Seventh Day Adventist here- I see this problem with all of our separated brethren . They’re all founded upon the premise of a seemingly inept god sending his son to the earth to die for us , preaching the gospel to his disciples and then letting the world sink back into ignorance for millennium and a half.

I have no problem with your comment. I do not consider you to be picking on SDAs.

I simply do not see this aspect in exactly the same way that you see it.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

That is a plural - Michael was / is classified as being a prince among other princes…
…Logically this indicates that there were OTHER archangels of the same “rank”.
…Past this there is another extremely salient issue here.

You have raised a valid question.

I do not believe that the Bible clearly supports the idea that Michael is a name for Christ. I think it has some support. But, I do not believe that it is conclusive. That is why I do not have any problem with a person who says the SDA teaching that Michael is a name for Christ is wrong.

This is not a major issue for SDAs. I have been dumbfounded by the discussion that has involved me in this forum. I did not expect more than a passing question or two.

The important issue as I understand it is whether or not Christ was a created being. l SDAs say that Christ was not a created being of a lessor nature than God the Father So, When a SDA, who agrees with SDA teachings on the nature of Christ says Michael is a name for Christ, that SDA is NOT saying that Christ is a created being…

 

[GregoryMatthews]

From: *Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, * Raoul Dederen, “Christ: His Person and Work,” 2000, page 168.

. . . the NT teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was at the same time truly divine and truly human, . . . first it must be established that the view according to which in Jesus two natures were united in one person is required by Scripture itself.

This is not a blending into one nature.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons also said:

As a blended nature for the incarnate Christ is described above, that is exactly what I would reject. I would NOT teach that the incarnate Christ hat one blended nature.
I would teach that the incarnate Christ had two natures, the divine as he was fully God, and the human as he was made like a human. In my thinking, this was not one blended nature>

It was Ellen, speaking in the capacity of SDA prophet that said the two natures were blended…
…If I drop apples and cranberries into a blender & push the “blend button”.
…I don’t have apples OR cranberries - I have “cranapple”.

Gregory:

I am looking right now at a SDA book that discusses SDA teaching. It does use the term “blending” in regard to the nature of Christ. However, it has not used that word in the manner that you are using it. In several places on the same page and chapter, that book clearly mentions the same two natures that I have mentioned and regardless of its poor choice of words in using that word, it does not suggest that Christ had one blended nature.

It only means one thing.

Blend:
To Mix two or more things together so that they are INSEPERABLE

Unfortunately, IF, as Ellen White said, Christ’s Divine & Human Nature were BLENDED…
…To provide the mechanism by which it was possible for Christ to sin & eternally cease to exist had He sinned.
…Than by default that’s exactly what she meant.

Gregory:

I am not concerned about what Ellen white may have taught I have stated that in her earlier years she did not have the same understanding of the Trinity that she had in her later years. She grew in knowledge as any human must.

If one gloats they are speaking in the capacity of a “prophet” of God then either the mistakes in teachings…
…Are blamed on God OR, the individual claiming the status of a prophet has lied.
…I’m not sure of any other possibilities - are you?

Gregory:

To say that one has demonstrated an example of Ellen White being wrong in something that she said, is not a point that I am going to argue. She was not infallible. Scripture is the final authority, not Ellen White.

Yes, ok, & that’s all I’m asking you to do here - look at the Scriptures that affirm God knows the end from the beginning…
…God was explicit that His Christ would NOT fail - He said it was absolute Christ would not fail.
…An individual comes along 1800+ years AFTER the death of Christ & claims it WAS possible.
…The denomination the prophet helped found goes on to say that this teaching is VITAL for Christians to believe.

How do I reconcile these theological affirmations with Sacred Scripture & Logic?
…I mean if A = B & B = C we can absolutely say A = C.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons said:

You have raised a valid question.

I do not believe that the Bible clearly supports the idea that Michael is a name for Christ. I think it has some support. But, I do not believe that it is conclusive. That is why I do not have any problem with a person who says the SDA teaching that Michael is a name for Christ is wrong.

This is not a major issue for SDAs. I have been dumbfounded by the discussion that has involved me in this forum. I did not expect more than a passing question or two.

The important issue as I understand it is whether or not Christ was a created being. l SDAs say that Christ was not a created being of a lessor nature than God the Father So, When a SDA, who agrees with SDA teachings on the nature of Christ says Michael is a name for Christ, that SDA is NOT saying that Christ is a created being…

Ok, I understand what you’re saying here, that just because an SDA says Michael = Christ…
…That doesn’t have to mean Christ is less than God.
…But you yourself admit many SDA’s advocate this.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading about the Trinity issue in the SDA Church…
…I’ve spent scores of hours in your Church archives - reading the early material of Ellen and the SDA Pioneers.

The SDA Pioneers, as you have already admitted were very much anti-Trinitarian…
…Yet they had absolutely ZERO problems in calling Jesus ‘God’.
…They believed the pre-Incarnate Christ was a “husk” that God gave individual identity to.
…What “powered” this husk was actually the life force of God The Father.

Thus, when Ellen White said, in speaking of Christ, that “in Him was life eternal” the anti-Trinitarian Pioneers could shout AMEN with vigor…
…They believed that absolutely.

Some examples:

Adventist Signs of the Times, March 21, 1878

Bible question to the editor

Q. But does it not say that the Word was God?

A. Yes, and it says that he was with God. Being the Son of God of course he is properly called God. This is his name, but he was NOT THE VERY and ETERNAL God Himself for it says that he was with God

&

Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept 12, 1893

Was Christ the God of Israel?

Who was this being who thus called Moses to this important mission? Was it God the Father or God the Son? Was it "THE KING ETERNAL, IMORTAL, INVISIBLE, the only wise God" OR was it Immanuel?

The following particular quote from Ellen really jumped out at me.

Ellen White
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one

The Apostles were unified with Christ…
…It was thus that Christ was unified with God.
…Ergo Christ was as much ‘God’ in the literalist sense as the Apostles.
…Ergo Christ wasn’t God in the strict sense.

to say it another way, Christ was “one with God”…
…In the same way the Apostles were one with Christ.
…This is an absolute anti-Trinitarian statement.

It is statements like the above combined with the common knowledge that SDA’s refer to Christ as Michael…
…That causes Christians of other faith traditions to raise their eyebrows when they hear people say Michael = Christ.

That’s all we’re saying - I for one am glad you don’t believe Scripture supports the position Christ was Michael the archangel.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

If one gloats they are speaking in the capacity of a “prophet” . . .

Pythons, my perception of you is that you know Ellen White well enough to know that what you have said above misrepresents her personal position on the matter. All of us at times, probably make overstatements in which we overstate an issue. I have done that at times and then had to apologize when people took me seriously. I do not need an apology, but, I will simply tell you that I believe that you know better.

Pythons said:

I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading about the Trinity issue in the SDA Church…
…I’ve spent scores of hours in your Church archives - reading the early material of Ellen and the SDA Pioneers.

The SDA Pioneers, as you have already admitted were very much anti-Trinitarian…
…Yet they had absolutely ZERO problems in calling Jesus ‘God’.
…They believed the pre-Incarnate Christ was a “husk” that God gave individual identity to.
…What “powered” this husk was actually the life force of God The Father.

I believe what you have said about your knowledge of SDA beliefs said on some levels. However, even though you may have an extensive knowledge, that does not mean that you are correct in everything.

I would have to modify a bit some of your comments. Some of our early SDA leaders are more properly described as semi-Arian. Some were not full-blown Arian. I do not think that this is important enough to debate. A Semi-Arian position is wrong. That is not in question. It is simply a bit more accurate.

Pythons, I would like to continue our conversation which has generally been civil and appropriate even when we disagreed. However, I would ask you to be more careful as to how you represent EGW and our beliefs. If I thought that you were ignorant, I would not be responding in this manner. But, I consider you to, as you said, spent a lot of time in study on this issue.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Thus, when Ellen White said, in speaking of Christ, that “in Him was life eternal” the anti-Trinitarian Pioneers could shout AMEN with vigor…
…They believed that absolutely.

Yes, you are correct, As you have quoted EGW, the anti-Trinitarians could have shouted Amen.

The problem is that you only quoted the first part of a sentence. You did not quote the last half of that sentence.

If you had quoted the entire sentence, you would not have been able to say that the anti-Trinitarians would have shouted Amen. They would have rejected what EGW actually said. Since you have quoted EGW, I would like for your to go back and accurately quote that entire sentence.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, now that I have cooled down a bit, I will quote the sentence:

nd this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11, 12. {FLB 187.1}
Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. “He that believeth in me,” said Jesus, “though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” John 11:25, 26. {FLB 187.2}

The sentence that you only half quoted is: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” No anti-Trinitarian would be able to agree in any sense with that sentence. They would not agree that the life that Christ possessed was unborrowed, underived and original. They would not shout Amen at that sente4nce.

NOTE: That is a very well known sentence in Adventism. It has been published, as I have quoted it here multiple times. you can find it elsewhere.

 

[Pythons]

The sentence that you only half quoted is: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” No anti-Trinitarian would be able to agree in any sense with that sentence. They would not agree that the life that Christ possessed was unborrowed, underived and original. They would not shout Amen at that sente4nce.

NOTE: That is a very well known sentence in Adventism. It has been published, as I have quoted it here multiple times. you can find it elsewhere.

Of course they early SDA anti-Trinitarians ] would have been able to shout amen at that…
…The life “in Christ” wasn’t His on account of His own nature.
…It was an “investiture” - it was un-borrowed in the sense it was “The Father’s” life force.

I’ll demonstrate it from Ellen White herself.

Ellen White, the suffering of Christ
Oh! was there ever suffering and sorrow like that endured by the dying Saviour? It was the sense of his Fathers’s displeasure which made his cup so bitter. It was not bodily suffering which so quickly ended the life of Christ upon the cross. It was the crushing weight of the sins of the world, and a sense of his Father’s wrath. The Father’s glory and sustaining presence had been withdrawn from him, and despair pressed its crushing weight of darkness upon him, and **forced from his pale and quivering lips the anguished cry. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Ellen White
The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, **and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One **encircled both.
text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=PP&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=36&QUERY=%22the+glory+of+the+eternal%22&resultId=7

I’ve already shared those quotes where Ellen White said that “IF” Christ would have sinned that would have been it for Him…
…Christ would have rotted in the tomb & would have been eternally as if He would have never been.
…You do not deny this, right?

Well, Ellen was clear that when Jesus died on the cross that divinity didn’t die ( because that would have been impossible )…
…The Divinity returned to the “self existent, eternal One” who issued it in the first place.
…Thus, “the life in Christ” was un-borrowed, eternal, etc - it was the life of God the Father.
…Who was understood to be a “flesh God”.

It took me a while to get my mind wrapped around the terms but it became very clear after I understood “personality”…
…Ellen & the Pioneers used the phrase “Personality of God” numerous times.
…It meant that God the Father, Christ, Lucifer and the other angels had “bodies of flesh”.
…Complete with rectums and all the organs and parts of a perfect man.

In the Pioneers & Ellen’s view Jesus, when He left Heaven for the Incarnation…
…Sloughed off His “body” & was then born into human flesh.
…Catholics believe Jesus Incarnated in a regular human body but reject the idea that pre Incarnation He had a body of Flesh.

In any event I did a large study into this belief of Ellen White…
…It’s called 'The Personality of God" teaching.
…I’ve got s whole file folder full of it.**

 

[GregoryMatthews]

pythons:

I believe that your two comments were neither fair nor accurate.

You clearly disagree.

I guess that we will have to move on at this point.

As I have said, Over a period of years, Ellen White moved from a personal understanding of the nature of Christ that contained some semi-Arian elements to a more Trinitarian view.

Yes, the SDA Church has also so moved.

However, this issue is really not as clear as some would make it. The reality is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not well understood and early Adventist leaders condemned that doctrine on the basis of false understandings of what was involved.

Joseph Bates (1792 - 1872) condemned the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis that he thought it taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one and the same person. That heresy is sometimes call Modalistic Monarchianism (or just pain Monarchiannism) and has been soundly condemned.

John Loughborough (1832 - 1924) condemned the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis that he thought it taught Tritheism a heresy that considered there to be three Gods.

I could give other examples. The bottom line is that many of the early leaders of what became the SDA denomination had a poor understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Joseph Bates, James White (the husband of Ellen white) and Uriah smith were all major leaders in the early days of the developing SDA denomination. They all had a Christian Connection background. They all were anti-Trinitarian. It can be argued as to the extent that early SDA leaders were semi-Arian or semi-Nicene. But, in any case they were not Trinitarian.

In SDA thinking, there is no magisterium of infallible interpreters whose statements of belief must be considered normative for its members.

As to Ellen white: Her views transitioned over a period of years that stretched from about 1850 to 1906. During that period of time she moved to a Trinitarian position. In Adventist thinking, she was not infallible.

I am quite willing to acknowledge this movement from a position that contained some error to a more biblical position. But, I strongly believe that in the two comments that you made about her, your did not fairly represent her. As you disagree, I guess we shall simply have to move on.

I am quite willing to continue to discuss in the same spirit that we have been generally doing.