• 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!

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Teach Jesus is Mighty God

Status
Not open for further replies.
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
and this guy was a Reformed Baptist teacher! :eek:
Click to expand...
Ok, as someone else already explained, Gill and many reformers, held that Michael was a pre-incarnate appearance of the 2nd person within the Godhead. In the case of Michael, “Angel” meant messenger, not a created being.

Other places in OT where this is thought to have occurred…. Anywhere God appeared as a man….

1. The three “men” who met Abraham before the destruction of Sodom. One was God, the other two angels.

2. The “man” Jacob wrestled near the water, refusing to let go until he was blessed.

3. The “man” upon a horse who stated He was “Captain of the Lord’s hosts” that spoke to Joshua before he went into the promised land.

The JW’s believe the created being Michael “an Angel” volunteered to redeem mankind because God was unable to do so. Because this created being was so faithful, God made him a “god”.

This is NOT the same belief held by Gill and other reformers.

peace to you
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
canadyjd said:
Ok, as someone else already explained, Gill and many reformers, held that Michael was a pre-incarnate appearance of the 2nd person within the Godhead. In the case of Michael, “Angel” meant messenger, not a created being.

Other places in OT where this is thought to have occurred…. Anywhere God appeared as a man….

1. The three “men” who met Abraham before the destruction of Sodom. One was God, the other two angels.

2. The “man” Jacob wrestled near the water, refusing to let go until he was blessed.

3. The “man” upon a horse who stated He was “Captain of the Lord’s hosts” that spoke to Joshua before he went into the promised land.

The JW’s believe the created being Michael “an Angel” volunteered to redeem mankind because God was unable to do so. Because this created being was so faithful, God made him a “god”.

This is NOT the same belief held by Gill and other reformers.

peace to you
Click to expand...

So exactly where in the Bible did they find that the pre Incarnate Jesus Christ was called Michael?
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
So exactly where in the Bible did they find that the pre Incarnate Jesus Christ was called Michael?
Click to expand...
Post #9, 37818 quoted Gill. The meaning of the name “Michael” is “like unto God” or words to that effect.

There are only two “angels” that are named in scripture. Michael in the OT. Gabriel in the NT. Gabriel means “hero of God” or “God is my strength”

I suppose the reformers who believed Michael was a pre-incarnation appearance of the 2nd person of the Godhead reasoned no created being could/or would have been given the name “like God”. Calling a created being “like God” could lead to confusion, Angel worship, polytheism and other issues.

I’d have to do more research to be certain. I am certain they did not have the same beliefs as the JW’s about Michael.

peace to you
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
canadyjd said:
Post #9, 37818 quoted Gill. The meaning of the name “Michael” is “like unto God” or words to that effect.

There are only two “angels” that are named in scripture. Michael in the OT. Gabriel in the NT. Gabriel means “hero of God” or “God is my strength”

I suppose the reformers who believed Michael was a pre-incarnation appearance of the 2nd person of the Godhead reasoned no created being could/or would have been given the name “like God”. Calling a created being “like God” could lead to confusion, Angel worship, polytheism and other issues.

I’d have to do more research to be certain. I am certain they did not have the same beliefs as the JW’s about Michael.

peace to you
Click to expand...
It was a common view at one time (like the Angel of the Lord being pre-incarnate Christ).

It is somewhat problematic given that Michael is equated in a sense to Satan insofar as power, but it was not in the way JW's consider Michael to be Christ (Gill held an elevated view of Michael while the JW's demote Christ).
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
It was a common view at one time (like the Angel of the Lord being pre-incarnate Christ……

(Gill held an elevated view of Michael while the JW's demote Christ).
Click to expand...
That is very well stated. Thanks

peace to you
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
canadyjd said:
Post #9, 37818 quoted Gill. The meaning of the name “Michael” is “like unto God” or words to that effect.

There are only two “angels” that are named in scripture. Michael in the OT. Gabriel in the NT. Gabriel means “hero of God” or “God is my strength”

I suppose the reformers who believed Michael was a pre-incarnation appearance of the 2nd person of the Godhead reasoned no created being could/or would have been given the name “like God”. Calling a created being “like God” could lead to confusion, Angel worship, polytheism and other issues.

I’d have to do more research to be certain. I am certain they did not have the same beliefs as the JW’s about Michael.

peace to you
Click to expand...

False theology!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
It was a common view at one time (like the Angel of the Lord being pre-incarnate Christ).

It is somewhat problematic given that Michael is equated in a sense to Satan insofar as power, but it was not in the way JW's consider Michael to be Christ (Gill held an elevated view of Michael while the JW's demote Christ).
Click to expand...

Even some of the Reformed theologians were teaching false stuff!
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
SavedByGrace said:
Even some of the Reformed theologians were teaching false stuff!
Click to expand...
I'd say all of the Reformers were teaching false stuff insofar as their teachings were reactionary (to RCC doctrines they realized were unbiblical) and traditional (maintaining traditional RCC doctrines unrecognized in the background).

But that doesn't mean their errors crossed the line into heresy (as JW doctrine does).

It is one thing to say Michael was Christ pre-incarnate and another to deny the Trinity.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
I'd say all of the Reformers were teaching false stuff insofar as their teachings were reactionary (to RCC doctrines they realized were unbiblical) and traditional (maintaining traditional RCC doctrines unrecognized in the background).

But that doesn't mean their errors crossed the line into heresy (as JW doctrine does).

It is one thing to say Michael was Christ pre-incarnate and another to deny the Trinity.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, Limited Atonement is a HUGE ERROR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
SavedByGrace said:
Like it or not, Limited Atonement is a HUGE ERROR
Click to expand...
I have no idea what limited atonement has to do with the teaching that Michael is a christophany.

What exactly is the connection?

I do not like or dislike the doctrine of limited atonement. I agree it is an error that has led some far from the gospel.

But we need to be honest here. The doctrine of Limited Atonement is not connected to viewing Michael as a christophany and limited atonement, while unbiblical, is not a heresy (it is a doctrine within orthodox Christianity).
 
M

MrW

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
No, it means that 2 distinct Persons are equally GOD, that is in the Godhead.
Click to expand...

Isaiah 43 says there is one God, and no God beside Him.

JW’s don’t believe in an eternally existent Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, nor a Duality of Persons in the Godhead.

They believe in two Gods—a Big God and a Little God. The Almighty God created their Mighty God—he is not eternally existent.

Two Gods—not one.

And their Holy Spirit is not a Person, but an impersonal “force”, like radar or some other thing they have imagined to compare God with.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
I have no idea what limited atonement has to do with the teaching that Michael is a christophany.

What exactly is the connection?

I do not like or dislike the doctrine of limited atonement. I agree it is an error that has led some far from the gospel.

But we need to be honest here. The doctrine of Limited Atonement is not connected to viewing Michael as a christophany and limited atonement, while unbiblical, is not a heresy (it is a doctrine within orthodox Christianity).
Click to expand...

Hersey is UNBIBLICAL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top