You bet. Jesus is God and Michael is an angelic being. Now if you want to discuss term used in the OT (angel) when describing an Christophany then you must remember that Christ appeared to 'men' AS an angel but unlike angels who would not receive worship, He in fact did. Secondly, on that subject, we do not find anywhere in the NT where Jesus the Christ is seen by men as an angel. Thirdly, on the same, Jesus being exhaulted above all creation and name and having all power/authority in heaven and earth need never and would never state in His defence against the Satan - The Lord rebuke you (IOW - God Himself rebuke you).
I think your problem might be that you are trying to pry too deep into a meaning that does not exist. Angel simply means "messenger", and Jesus was God's ultimate messenger to save humanity. So I'm not seeing your rationale, sorry. I think your mindframe is preventing you from harmonizing with many aspects of Christianity when you so adamantly and staunchly believe that such a teaching of Michael being Christ is "heretical" (I'm assuming this is your stance). I think you'd be much better off if you would just be nuetral about it. This is my humble opinion.
Sorry brother, but I have studied fully their doctrinal stances (this one included) and do so continually, since I teach in churches about the cults and their views as well as what other denominations hold to and believe. And their view is entirely in error and that mainly due to many other of their views which lead them into this error. Secondly, this view is not necessarily a SDA view though it is a predominant view in their teachings.
Well I'm glad that you admit that this is not necessarily an SDA view.
But I think it would be a stretch to consider them a cult. The true definition of a cult is when you can only be saved if you are a member of their church, and not outside of their church. SDA's believe that people will be saved from all over the world, regardless of what denomination you belong to. The Catholic Church on the other hand has stated in the past that you can only obtain salvation through them.
Baptists and Adventists have many familar historicist roots, so Baptists and Adventists shouldn't be so critical of one another, IMO.
Also (if I might politely ask).. if you are "Non-Denominational" then why are you posting in a baptist only section??
Because I believe in baptism by emersion, and I also hold to many original historicist Baptist roots. Unfortunately, however many Baptists today have subscribed to Futurism. But I'm happy to hear that there are a great number of Baptists that have not let go of Historicism.
True but one must remember also that the Seventh Day Adventists are considered and indeed are a cult and are classified as such in most every work that discusses the distinction between Christianity and cults. Thus what is truth is not to be dermined how well someone ties to rationalize certian things but whether the scriptures indeed show forth this as being Truth.
Fact.. it does not.
Once again, I would have to disagree with you. They've gone off track in a good number of areas, but not near enough to be considered a cult. I've been studying theology enough over the last 12 years to know this.
Umm, not to be critical but it is very easily disputed and the theory has been refuted many time over.
But you just said Truth is Truth regardless of if it is taught in 'tradional Theological Seminaries"!
I also find you comment to 'Victorious' a bit self-exhaulting and lacking greatly in understanding much about Baptist Seminaries or even Baptists in general. It is a simple fact that biblcially Michael can not be Jesus, thus there is no principle in relation to it.
Could you please prove it to me? From all my research, I have not found any good reason NOT to consider Michael as another name for Jesus.
Regarding Victorious, my only concern was that in many cases we tend to "exalt" seminaries above the word of God. We are commanded to
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39), and to
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15). If we rely solely on what seminaries teach us rather than studying for ourselves to see
"whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11), we are going directly against the inspired counsel.
Unfortunately, many ministers who are educated in the seminaries have the tendency to shy away from any teachings that might conflict with what they have been taught, for fear they will face opposition. Maintaining popularity and being in "good and regular standing" with the populous is ever so prominent in this day and age in order to keep their pay check alive.
Agreed, IF it's biblical. But what makes something biblical? It isn't that it is in scripture but what scripture specifically teaches about that subject.
By all means, we're agreed here.
According to Paul, we are to contend (fight) for the faith/truth and if we find that what we understand is not truth then we need to change it. But if not then we are to stand our ground and thus there are times for 'kittens' - debates, and there are times battle - heresies. This is particular topic is seen by many to be one of the those 'battles' because it deals with the biblical nature of Christ and the position and authority he actually holds. To state that Christ would not contend with Satan but declared - God rebuke you, establishes without question that this being did not have the authority to prevail yet. But when he is given that authority (such as in the Revelation) he does so without sending Satan back to God because his orders come straight from God Himself.
"Contending over the body of Moses" is just an expression, and for you to take it to the level that you do is simply to take away from the reality that Satan and Christ have been at war over the human race since the fall of man. Did you forget about when Satan and the Lord disputed over the fate of Job? With your reasoning, the Lord should not have engaged in any dispute or debate with Satan, rather rebuked him immediately. Read Job chapters 1 and 2. In like manner, the Lord and Satan disputed over the body of Moses, but unquestionably, the Lord won this debate, just like he won the debate over Job. Without question, there is no implication that Michael did not have authority to prevail. He could have prevailed any time. Rather, the disputation was so that Satan would have no reason to accuse Moses of any wrong doing, so the Lord, to vindicate Moses, would naturally take the time to make known to Satan that Moses is worthy of redemption.
Forgive me for perhaps missunderstanding you, but let me ask you, did you actually read the article I linked to? If not, let me quote it to be specific. It would be futile for me to reword it:
Rebuking the Accuser
There is one more important reference in which the angel of the Lord appears in the Old Testament. The prophet Zechariah was given a vision of Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord. Satan is standing at his right hand to resist him. Here we see two adversaries contending over a sinful human being. Joshua's filthy garment symbolizes his sin. (Zechariah 3:3).
In this narrative, the name changes quickly from "the angel of the Lord" (verse 1) to "the Lord" (verse 2), indicating again that they are the same. Then the Lord makes an interesting statement. "And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan" (Zechariah 3:2). There is only one other place in Scripture, Jude 9, where this sentence is found—and Michael the archangel speaks it!
In the short epistle of Jude, we witness a vignette similar to Joshua and the angel in Zechariah. "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 1:9). The situations are amazingly parallel: Christ and Satan are contending over the fate of two of God’s great human leaders (a living one in the case of Joshua, and a dead one in the case of Moses). The debate is ended abruptly when Jesus says, "The Lord rebuke thee."
This passage raises another valid question. Some people are confused by part of this verse in Jude 1:9 where Michael rebukes the devil. They wonder: If Michael is really another name for Jesus, then why does he invoke the name of the Lord when rebuking Satan? Why not do it Himself as He did when tempted in the wilderness. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan" (Matthew 4:10).
In studying the Scriptures and language of Jesus, we quickly see it was a very common practice for Jesus to speak of Himself in the second person, as in Luke 18:8: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" And if there is still any lingering question, we have this other clear Scripture in Zechariah 3:2, where the Lord does the same thing Michael does in Jude. He invokes His own name when rebuking the devil. "And the LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you, Satan!'" Perhaps these Scriptures are examples of God the Son, appealing to the name of His Father in rebuking Satan.
Is it really so hard to grasp the simplicity of this?
