She was wrong about that, of course, among many other things she was wrong about. She made up stuff as she went, seeing how successful Joey Smith had been a few years before her.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Walter Martin & his assessment of SDA's
- Thread starter pythons
- Start date
- Status
She was wrong about that, of course, among many other things she was wrong about. She made up stuff as she went, seeing how successful Joey Smith had been a few years before her.
Completely false!
Michael is NOT "the" Son of God!
He is a son of God in the same sense WE are, having been created by God as we were. God never told Michael, "Today I have begotten you" nor looked down on him from heaven & said, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased."
While Michael is a very powerful archangel, he is NOT God's only begotten Son. To say he is, is just more Seven-Day-Adlibber nonsense written by EGW.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Explain how she was wrong, even though all of the scholars of the Reformation before her taught it, wrote dictionaries, encyclopedia's, concordances, lexicons, commentaries on it? For if you explain how she was wrong, you will also explain how they were wrong, and Roman Catholicism was right.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Completely True!
Scripture says He is. You did not produce any evidence contrary to that which was provided.
Not so, He is the only-begotten Son of the Most High (Father). He is the original uncreated Heir of all things. We are adopted.
Merely saying so, doesn't make it true. You have to provide evidence for your claim, and also to show how those who did show it was not so, He being the uncreated and eternal Son, were wrong. I provided much evidence. You merely "quoted" you, as good ol' BobRyan would say.
Since they are the same Person, He (Father) did. You merely assumed that Michael is not the Son, and simply assert your apriori sans evidence.
Indeed, all powerful.
"You" again.
You do realize that Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Melito of Sardis, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Hengstenberg, and thousands of others before White demonstrated, by scripture, that He is? It is even in the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the lexicon, the concordance, the commentary of many learned and pious (holy) men of God, who have done more for the cause of God, the forwarding of the Kingdom of Christ Jesus, than all your soapbox foruming (whining) has done. Some even died for their faith, and you can barely admit when you are in gross error, as cited earlier in regards John Gill, etc.
The Bible states that Jesus was and is God, so how can He be both a created archangel and also eternal God?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
True, and acknowledged, and stated and held. He is the Person known as the Son.
Jesus is the uncreated and eternal "Angel of the LORD", that was with Moses at the burning bush and in the pillar of cloud and fire. He is not created. The word "angel" simply means messenger, ambassador or that which carries a message for another. The word "arch" simply means "first, chief, ruler over, leader of others, etc" Jesus is "the highest messenger" of the Father, since Jesus is the Son of the Father, and is the one "Who (the Son) is like unto God (the Father)". The error that many make, is in incorrectly thinking that the word "angel" means a created being. It carries no such definition. It only means messenger. The word deals with 'function or office', not 'nature' (created or uncreated).
Jesus is the eternal "Angel" (messenger). The name "Michael the archangel" is one full of meaning, as all the names of the Son are.
The various dictionaries, lexicons, encyclopedias, and even commentaries note this.
Jesus and Michael are 2 seperate Beings, as the Archangel was and is created by Jesus Himself!
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Study Daniel 10-12 and Revelation 12 carefully. Then widen that study to Jude 1:9 and Zechariah 3, and then finally combine all four accounts in their details. There are also two other texts to combine, but do that first, and then ask for the other two.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Merely saying it over and over as a mantra doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make it any more so, when you say it. As stated, Who is as God (Michael); the highest Messenger (Arch Angel), can only be the Son of the Father, for who else is like unto the Father but the son, being the express image of the Father, and who else is the highest Messenger of the Father but the Son ,whom the Father sent last of all, even definitionally.
pythons
Member
Alofa Atu,
Do the following statements look like they can be reconciled with what the SDA Church today is claiming to be their Doctrine of the Trinity OR would you say the statements contained in this article could be classified as Arian / Semi- Arian. You realize that Ellen White put her stamp on these statements, right?
Do the following statements look like they can be reconciled with what the SDA Church today is claiming to be their Doctrine of the Trinity OR would you say the statements contained in this article could be classified as Arian / Semi- Arian. You realize that Ellen White put her stamp on these statements, right?
The scriptures say that Jesus is God, Hebrews that all f the angels worship Him, and that includes Michael!
Jesus is God Himself becoming a Human, not the archangel becoming human! If Jesus was Michael, when he resurrected as Jesus, is He now Michael or Jesus in Heaven?
Any church teaching that Jesus was an angel, or is not fully God is teaching doctrines of demons, and has the spirit of anitchrist!
Where to start? She was wrong so often it's hard to pick a beginning.
Well, we've been discussing the fact that Jesus is not Michael, as she taught. That's a start.
She taught annihilationism, in the face of Scripture saying the wicked shall be punished FOREVER in the lake of fire.
She taught "investigative judgment began when Jesus entered the heavenly temple in 1844". This is found nowhere in Scripture.
Romans 14 & Colossians 2:16 prove her Sabbath teachings wrong. Although she didn't invent the doctrine, she embraced & taught it. She was wrong there, as she was in many other things.
She said the world would end in 1845, & when that failed, in 1851. When that failed as well, she blamed it on the Adventist church for not being united !
She wrote at the beginning of the Civil War that it was to preserve slavery, while the opposite was true. And she was pro-Union !
She prophesied at that time that Britain would once again declare war upon the US. That, of course, was completely false. While some British entertained the idea of catching the US weakened by the Civil War, they changed their minds after seeing the size & efficiency of the opposing armies, figuring that a British invasion would quickly unite the North & South against her.
She prophesied in 1850 that Old Jerusalem would never be built up. I believe reality has proven thic completely false.
And this isn't a complete list !
MMRRPP 1 WRONG !
please show us any Scripture that says Michael is Jesus! And I posted plenty of evidence for that fact. You just don't wanna believe it, as it proves your cult wrong.
No, Michael is not Jesus.
no, you only showed us evidence of whom Jesus is. And he's not Michael.
No, you seven-day-adlibbers keep saying that. YOU haven't provided any evidence. Just cuz some other human commentators say it doesn't make it so. i believe SCRIPTURE, not your cult leaders.
Yerp !
I don't care WHAT OTHER MEN said it - it's FALSE! Jesus is THE only begotten Son of God, while Michael is a created being, an archangel, called "one of the chief princes", not THE chief prince, by Gabriel, himself a mighty angel, which shows Michael has peers. And I believe Gabriel knows more about Michael than you or your cult's big kahoona.
The spirit that revealed her doctrines to her was not the Holy Spirit, but spirit of antichrist!
Either that, or she made 'em up as she went, as Joey Smith did.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Yes, not in quesstion at all, and stated several times.
No, it doesn't. You actually read into that text, that which isn't there. If you would carefully read Hebrews 1, you would see that when it speaks of "... let all the angels of God worship him", the context is the created angelic beings, see the next verse, "... of the angels he saith, Who maketh ...", and thus only refers to the created angelic hosts, not the uncreated "Angel of the LORD" - the Son, who was at the burning bush with Moses, and int he pillar of cloud and fire, and in as many other places.
You assume Michael to be created, and have demonstrated nothing of the sort from the text, when I provided ample evidence otherwise. You assume all "angels" are created, when it is not so, as also demonstrated now on several occasions. In fact, in Hebrews 1:1-3, we see the highest Messenger sent from the Father - The Son:
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
That speaks of the uncreated "Angel o the LORD", the Son, whom the Father sent last of all, as His most important and highest Messenger, as other texts also speak.
Also, read Hebrews 1:9
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
In that is clearly shows that the created angelic hosts (Gabriel, etc) are the "fellows" in office of messengers, of the Highest Messenger, the Son. The context of vs 9, is the previous verses, which demonstrates that the Son is indeed their "fellow" Messenger.
I told you to study, but you would rather accuse, assume, and remain obstinantly ignorant. Your decision. I would recommend to you, that you rethink your unprayed and unstudied position, and stop reading websites who will lead you astray. Take up the word instead.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
How foolish, for they all (*) do, even the Baptists, Methodists, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, etc, etc, for they all acknowledge the Son as "The Angel of the LORD" (uncreated eternal) in so many OT texts.
You just condemned them all, and even including yourself, for with some simple questioning, you also will admit it.
Jesus is "fully" "God"., Divine, Deity, Eternal, etc. He is the Person of the Son, not the Father, neither the Holy Ghost.
You abuse the word "angel" and attempt to make it carry a definition of 'nature", rather than of the "office". It carries not such definition of 'nature'. I can cite you many such scholarly works which demonstrate this, beyond the scripture itself. Go read Malachi 3:1, in Hebrew or even in the so called LXX as one small example.
First of all, that is not the definition John gives of "antichrist" in his epistles, for therein, it deals with denying the fallen sinful flesh nature, which the true Seventh-day Adventist does teach.
Secondly, Jesus is not a created being, though His human nature is created, texts already cited previous.
Thirdly, the Son is not of the created nature of the angelic hosts (Gabriel, etc):
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Already stated on several occasions.
You simply want to accuse in ignorance, to bolster your erroneous and unstudied position. In fact, I am pretty sure I know who you are.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Not in question, granted, stated.
Quoting "you" again. The word "archangel" simply means Highest Messenger, of which the Son is, being "sent" of the Father with a Message (Gospel).
Joh_12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
And many other such texts.
Mat_21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Heb_1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Jesus is the "Apostle" (one sent) of the Father:
Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Michael means Who is as God, see Hebrews 1:3, The Son being the express image. There are also many texts which say the same, Who is like unto God, in reference to the Son in the OT.
Is Jesus still "David", "Adam", "Immanuel", etc? Of course. He will always be Who is as God (the Father), the Highest Messenger, in all of eternity, being the one who always relays the perfect will of the Father to all the universe.
He didn't resurrect as Michael, He always was and will be Michael. He was simply given other names/titles (He has many crowns, many names), etc. For instance, Jesus, means JEHOVAH saviour/saves. Immanuel means God with us, and so on.
Do not confuse the truth with the WTS/JW errors. They took that which was from the Reformation and comingled it with Roman Catholic theology.
- Status