SDA theology on Michael the Archangel ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter teadough
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adventists identify “Michael the Archangel” as a name for the a pre-incarnate Son of God. They believe that the term “angel” merely denotes a “messenger,” and could be applied to a divine being serving in such a capacity (e.g., Jesus), as easily as it applied to spiritual beings we typically call “angels” (e.g., Gabriel). Adventists underscore that this does not mean Jesus is anything less than a member of the Holy Trinity, that is, God.
 
adventistnomore said:
Adventists identify “Michael the Archangel” as a name for the a pre-incarnate Son of God. They believe that the term “angel” merely denotes a “messenger,” and could be applied to a divine being serving in such a capacity (e.g., Jesus), as easily as it applied to spiritual beings we typically call “angels” (e.g., Gabriel). Adventists underscore that this does not mean Jesus is anything less than a member of the Holy Trinity, that is, God.
Click to expand...
I am confused. Michael is a messenger but is separate from Jesus,yet,Jesus is still a part of the Trinity but Michael isn’t.

OR “Michael” is just merely an applied term? 🤷
 
This is one reason why when SDAs become Orthodox, they must be received by BAPTISM, rather than Chrismation.
 
I’m waiting for PROTESTANT 101 to post… :rolleyes:
Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 :mad: + :signofcross:
 
teadough said:
🤷 yeah,he was the one who suggested I start this thread.🤷
Click to expand...
Well, lets get it in context here. I did not express an interest in discussing this; only that I did not want to discuss it in a thread dealing with a different topic. I suggested that this would need to be in a different thread; but did not express any interest in such a discussion. “adventistnomore” has given a good preview into what Adventist believe about who Michael is in scripture.

Here is a list of the major objections to what Adventists teach re Michael. The list is quoted from McGregor Ministries, by which Catholics are literally condemned to the denizens of hell, yet many Catholics do quote these objections raised by one of their “enemies;” as if they were veritable “truth.”

To read a detailed response to these objections, click here.

I. Seventh-day Adventists are not clear on the Divinity of Christ.

“May I suggest you look up the 1888 Minneapolis meeting where J. H. Waggoner and A. T. Jones militantly pressed Arian doctrines against the Deity of Christ. (Lorri MacGregor, Letter, July 26, 1988, p. 2).”

“May I also suggest that you examine the writings of Ellen’s husband, James White, who attacked the Trinity. (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p.2).”

**II. If Michael refers to Jesus, you have angels worshipping another angel. **

“If Jesus is the archangel Michael, . . . then we are stuck with angels worshipping an archangel! (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p. 2).”

III. No Scripture says Jesus is Michael.

"No scripture says Jesus is Michael, and so we conclude that Jesus Christ is NOT Michael the Archangel. (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).

IV. Michael is “One of the princes.” Jesus was not "One of anything."

"Michael the Archangel is mentioned in three books of the Bible, Daniel, Jude and Revelation. Daniel 10:13 says “Michael, ONE OF the chief princes” Daniel 10:21 says, “Michael YOUR Prince.” Daniel 12:1 says, “Michael the Great Prince.” Please notice that Michael is just “ONE OF the chief ?princes, " not unique at all. (are there MANY Christs, of which Jesus is ?just one – ridiculous!) (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).” ?

“By calling Jesus “Michael” you are reducing him to a category of “one of ?the chief princes.” Jesus is not “One of” anything. You cannot claim out of one side of your mouth that you believe in the full Deity of Jesus Christ, and then apply Daniel 1-:13 to Him, reducing him to “one of the chief princes.” (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p. 2).”

V. The Archangel did not dare rebuke Satan.

“In Jude 9 we find that Michael the Archangel did NOT DARE REBUKE Satan. Jesus, on the other hand, repeatedly rebuked Satan. (Matt. 17:18, Mark 9:25, etc.) (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).”

Catholics may want to think twice before quoting “truth” from an enemy; however, it is good for them to “test all things;” as we are told to do in Scripture. I hope this post will clear up some of the mystery and falsehoods surrounding this topic. 🙂
 
Protestant101 said:
Well, lets get it in context here. I did not express an interest in discussing this; only that I did not want to discuss it in a thread dealing with a different topic. I suggested that this would need to be in a different thread; but did not express any interest in such a discussion. “adventistnomore” has given a good preview into what Adventist believe about who Michael is in scripture.

Here is a list of the major objections to what Adventists teach re Michael. The list is quoted from McGregor Ministries, by which Catholics are literally condemned to the denizens of hell, yet many Catholics do quote these objections raised by one of their “enemies;” as if they were veritable “truth.”

To read a detailed response to these objections, click here.

I. Seventh-day Adventists are not clear on the Divinity of Christ.

“May I suggest you look up the 1888 Minneapolis meeting where J. H. Waggoner and A. T. Jones militantly pressed Arian doctrines against the Deity of Christ. (Lorri MacGregor, Letter, July 26, 1988, p. 2).”

“May I also suggest that you examine the writings of Ellen’s husband, James White, who attacked the Trinity. (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p.2).”

**II. If Michael refers to Jesus, you have angels worshipping another angel. **

“If Jesus is the archangel Michael, . . . then we are stuck with angels worshipping an archangel! (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p. 2).”

III. No Scripture says Jesus is Michael.

"No scripture says Jesus is Michael, and so we conclude that Jesus Christ is NOT Michael the Archangel. (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).

IV. Michael is “One of the princes.” Jesus was not "One of anything."

"Michael the Archangel is mentioned in three books of the Bible, Daniel, Jude and Revelation. Daniel 10:13 says “Michael, ONE OF the chief princes” Daniel 10:21 says, “Michael YOUR Prince.” Daniel 12:1 says, “Michael the Great Prince.” Please notice that Michael is just “ONE OF the chief ?princes, " not unique at all. (are there MANY Christs, of which Jesus is ?just one – ridiculous!) (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).” ?

“By calling Jesus “Michael” you are reducing him to a category of “one of ?the chief princes.” Jesus is not “One of” anything. You cannot claim out of one side of your mouth that you believe in the full Deity of Jesus Christ, and then apply Daniel 1-:13 to Him, reducing him to “one of the chief princes.” (Lorri MacGregor, Letter July 26, 1988. p. 2).”

V. The Archangel did not dare rebuke Satan.

“In Jude 9 we find that Michael the Archangel did NOT DARE REBUKE Satan. Jesus, on the other hand, repeatedly rebuked Satan. (Matt. 17:18, Mark 9:25, etc.) (Lorri MacGregor, Seventh-day Adventism another Gospel?, p. 2).”

Catholics may want to think twice before quoting “truth” from an enemy; however, it is good for them to “test all things;” as we are told to do in Scripture. I hope this post will clear up some of the mystery and falsehoods surrounding this topic. 🙂
Click to expand...
these examples are confusing. Whoever is making the quotes is saying,almost, the exact same thing to what is being said in bold letters. Who is the SDA and who is making the “false” claims?.
Catholics may want to think twice before quoting “truth” from an enemy;
Click to expand...
I don’t know what to say about this statement. Maybe you can quote some “truth” so Catholics don’t have to think twice.😉
 
teadough said:
these examples are confusing. Whoever is making the quotes is saying,almost, the exact same thing to what is being said in bold letters. Who is the SDA and who is making the “false” claims?.

I don’t know what to say about this statement. Maybe you can quote some “truth” so Catholics don’t have to think twice.😉
Click to expand...
The bolded letters are simply titles given for the quotes, so yes, they would say the same things. I did provide an explanation of where the quotes came from above:
Here is a list of the major objections to what Adventists teach re Michael. The list is quoted from McGregor Ministries, by which Catholics are literally condemned to the denizens of hell, yet many Catholics do quote these objections raised by one of their “enemies;” as if they were veritable “truth.”
Click to expand...
 
Jehovah’s Witnesses, who can be traced back to the Adventist movements of the 1800’s, also believe Jesus is Michael.
 
Protestant101 said:
The bolded letters are simply titles given for the quotes, so yes, they would say the same things. I did provide an explanation of where the quotes came from above:
Click to expand...
So,what you are saying is that SDA’s have always held the exact opposite of what you have quoted?
 
teadough said:
So,what you are saying is that SDA’s have always held the exact opposite of what you have quoted?
Click to expand...
If you can take the time to read the article linked to; it explains all the points made.
 
Protestant101 said:
If you can take the time to read the article linked to; it explains all the points made.
Click to expand...
I have read it. And it is clear that it is a contradiction to what the founding members professed. The only difference is that the article states that SDA’s changed.
 
teadough said:
I have read it. And it is clear that it is a contradiction to what the founding members professed. The only difference is that the article states that SDA’s changed.
Click to expand...
Well; you asked the question; I gave you a current answer. What else do you need?:eek:
 
Protestant101 said:
Well; you asked the question; I gave you a current answer. What else do you need?:eek:
Click to expand...
I guess I have a hard time understanding why you would mention that you are part of the “remnant church”,but at the same time admit that this same church continues to change doctrine.:juggle: Thats all I am saying.
 
teadough said:
I guess I have a hard time understanding why you would mention that you are part of the “remnant church”,but at the same time admit that this same church continues to change doctrine.:juggle: Thats all I am saying.
Click to expand...
OK; that’s not wrong to wonder such things. I know you like to think that Catholics have never “changed doctrines” but all denominations learn new things over time, and “grow” (2 Pet.3:18) in their understanding of doctrine. That’s not wrong either. The Apostles clearly did this, as shown in the Bible; and God’s followers will do the same. it’s only wrong when you discover something new, and you ignore it. That is, if you can make an informed decision about it. “Prove all things…” is the watchword.

Is there something in our current belief re Michael that you disagree with?
 
Protestant101 said:
OK; that’s not wrong to wonder such things. I know you like to think that Catholics have never “changed doctrines” but all denominations learn new things over time, and “grow” (2 Pet.3:18) in their understanding of doctrine. That’s not wrong either. The Apostles clearly did this, as shown in the Bible; and God’s followers will do the same. it’s only wrong when you discover something new, and you ignore it. That is, if you can make an informed decision about it. “Prove all things…” is the watchword.

Is there something in our current belief re Michael that you disagree with?
Click to expand...
You quoted 2 Pet 3:18 and are using one word and taking this out of context of this chapter and the previous. St. Peter is warning people of false teachers and doctrines 2Pet2:1
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Click to expand...
This letter is continued up to where you made your quote by where St.Peter refers to St.Pauls letters by stating 2Pet2:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Click to expand...
I understand what SDA’s say about Michael today. but this is not what has always been taught. Same thing with the Trinity. Did the Catholic Church believe in the Trinity from day 1? Well,no. They,also,did not have 1800 years of apologetics to scan over until they came to this conclusion as with some of the newer churches who have struggle with this doctrine.
 
teadough said:
You quoted 2 Pet 3:18 and are using one word and taking this out of context of this chapter and the previous. St. Peter is warning people of false teachers and doctrines 2Pet2:1

This letter is continued up to where you made your quote by where St.Peter refers to St.Pauls letters by stating 2Pet2:16

I understand what SDA’s say about Michael today. but this is not what has always been taught. Same thing with the Trinity. Did the Catholic Church believe in the Trinity from day 1? Well,no. They,also,did not have 1800 years of apologetics to scan over until they came to this conclusion as with some of the newer churches who have struggle with this doctrine.
Click to expand...
Well; 2 Pet.3:18 is pretty clear:

2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
If you try to say that this does not mean we need to “grow in grace; and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” then you deny what the words of God actually say.

The Catholics were not the originators of the Trinity doctrine either. But since you have read the study re Michael; and can find no fault in it except that it is a different understanding than what earlier Adventists have had, then I would say our current understanding does not at this time need correcting.
 
Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
If you try to say that this does not mean we need to “grow in grace; and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” then you deny what the words of God actually say.
Click to expand...
I would not say such a thing. You and I agree on many things in the Bible. the point I was making is the fact that you took one line of scripture without having any follow up to what was going on in this letter. One of the focal points of the letter was pointed out in my last post
The Catholics were not the originators of the Trinity doctrine either.
Click to expand...
Trinity as in God,Jesus,Holy Spirit being one?

Please tell me who are the originators who said Jesus was God the Father and Holy Spirit?

For the record…I will not be officially Catholic till this Sat.🙂

I have to hit the hay. I am beat.Even if we disagree on things I just wanted to tell you God Bless and Peace be with you. Good night

In Christ, Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top