1. 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!

Salvation from...MICHAEL???

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Victorious, Feb 27, 2009.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Good point Amy. My take on the passage from Revelation is as follows:

    Revelation 12:7-11, KJV
    7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
    8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
    9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
    10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
    11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.


    In this passage we have a preview of the ultimate defeat of Satan. However, for the present Satan is wounded but not yet destroyed. This passage pictures a battle between Michael and his angels and the dragon ... and his angels with the result that the dragon is cast out of heaven to the earth. This passage is reminiscent of the words of Jesus Christ to the seventy disciples on their return:

    Luke 10:17-18, KJV
    17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
    18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.


    The victory of the disciples over demons was a prelude to the victory attributed to Michael and his angels. In reality that victory was won, not by Michael, but by Jesus Christ. [Recall the words of Jude regarding the archangel Michael when confronted by Satan: 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, KJV]]The battle between Michael and Satan is, therefore, a symbolic representation of the victory of the Incarnate Son over Satan through His earthly ministry, His sacrificial death on the cross, and His victorious Resurrection. In the last week before the cross Jesus Christ prophesying again of His death taught:

    John 12:31, KJV
    31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

    The phrases ‘cast out’, ‘cast down’, and ‘fall from heaven’ are all metaphors for the further limitations on Satan’s power through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In His reply to the Pharisees who accused Him of casting out demons by Beelzebub, Jesus Christ further indicates limitations on the power of Satan:

    Matthew 12:28-29, KJV
    28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
    29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
     
  2. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    [/quote] Here's a problem - some say Jude 9 was taken from this verse:

    "The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" (Zechariah 3:2 NASB)
     
  3. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here's a problem - some say Jude 9 was taken from this verse:

    "The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" (Zechariah 3:2 NASB)
    [/quote]

    And yet this is not about disputing the body of Moses, and Michael did say in Jude, "the Lord rebuke you" rather than rebuking Satan himself. So I don't see how people get Zech mixed up with Jude 9.
     
  4. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    And yet this is not about disputing the body of Moses, and Michael did say in Jude, "the Lord rebuke you" rather than rebuking Satan himself. So I don't see how people get Zech mixed up with Jude 9.[/quote]

    I know, but some commentators have made that comparison. I'm in agreement with you... just sayin'.
     
  5. blackbird

    blackbird Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thank you, Sister Amy for shedding much light on the situation

    Identifying Michael as the Lord Jesus dabbles into the false realm of LDS and JW's
     
  6. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    That reminds me of a record album (back when they made records with music on them) that had a song on it titled "The Thousands Angels". They used the song title as the title of the album, but they spelled it "angles" instead of "angels". :laugh:
     
  7. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    The thought of the day

    It would seem that many great commentators and preachers of the past did equate Jesus with Michael. It seems to be the teaching of the day although they were obviously wrong. Jude 9 clearly differentiates between Michael and the Lord as one poster said. Many other scriptures mentioned on this forum discredit the Jesus/Michael interpretation.

    On Spurgeon's part, I am convinced he is using this as a metaphor and equating it with the "Angel of the Lord" or "Messenger of the Lord" from the Old Testament. Also, Jesus is the Lord of Hosts - a name never associated with Michael.

    So, when dealing with the false teachings of SDA's and JW's, I will simply admit that the teaching in that day was false on this issue and give scripture to prove it.
     
  8. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What a sad day indeed. You found out I can't spell very well. Isn't it awful what we can do to the English Language with out even trying?:laugh:
    MB
     
  9. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sounds SDA

    Um....are you Seventh Day Adventist, Jim?
     
  10. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, he's not.

    Back to the topic.
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Absolutely, 100% and unequivocally true. :thumbs:
     
  12. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    Excuse me?
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That does not make him Jesus by any stretch of imagination.

    Nothing there that shows Micheal as Christ nor does it create a difficulty for Micheal to simply be an angel of God.

    Wait a minute. You just said there is no doubt.
     
  14. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    117
    Howdy

    I do believe that there is no doubt that the Angel of the Lord is in the Old Testement is Jesus. Notice in Judges 13 that he was asked for His name and only said"Why do you ask seeing it's so Wonderful?". Moses asked his name too and was told I Am that I Am. New testement reviels more saying his name would be Wonderful counsuler..ect. John 8 states Jesus said before Abraham was born..I AM. But never Michael......Not even a hint.:type:
     
  15. Victorious

    Victorious Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree wholeheartedly. I never thought he was, but your point is very good.
     
  16. Lysimachus

    Lysimachus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0

    Alright folks, as I was perusing through various posts, I stumbled on this one, and I have to admit, I was a bit shocked and saddened that this subject of whether Michael the Archangel is Christ or not is actually causing division among Christians.

    Let me ask you all something. Is it really that serious of an offense if someone chooses to believe that Michael is Jesus? Really now?

    Now just to make a point clear before I go further. I am not a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist church, so please do not try accusing me later that "this is the reason I'm defending Michael being Christ". I'm simply a non-denominational Christian that observes, listens, studies, and learns. I gather truth wherever it may be found.

    But on this particular subject, I have to admit, I believe the Seventh-Day Adventists have every right and every good reason to believe that Michael is the Archangel. Why? Because I decided, on my own, to read the their full documentation about it. I wonder how man here actually have taken the time to read their FULL position on the matter?

    Like I said, we have to weed out the error, and latch onto the truth. Regardless what denomination the data may be coming from.

    With this in mind, I have to give Doug Batchelor credit for writing such a profound article on the subject. The scriptural evidence is undisputable in my humble opinion:


    Here is the FULL article for those of you wish to understand the full position on the matter:
    http://www.amazingfacts.org/Resources/Download/PBLib/BK-WMA.pdf


    And to you Victorious. Are you sure that you are not having a hard time accepting that this might be true because of your deep-rooted tradition? Based on the fact that your "traditional theological seminaries" are educating your husband might not agree with this principle? You do realize that the "majority" is usually in the wrong, right? Matthew 7:14 -- "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Just because you've been raised to think a certain way doesn't mean it is right. In all honesty, it seems to me that the link you gave in your first post should have been enough evidence to convince you.

    If it's truth, it's truth! Why have kittens over it? It's not worth it. Let's get over these "kittens" we're always having, and just face the fact that as we study, we're going to find new things out! Lay prejudice aside...even if they are Seventh-Day Adventists. Who cares what denomination it's from? If it's Biblical, it's Biblical! And that's it!

    :)

    P.S. The term "Michael" means "Prince". What was Jesus? The "Son of God". This would make him a "Prince". If you are a king, and you have a son, he is the "prince". Not the general of the commanding armies. Even God himself is called an Angel! (read the article)
     
    #36 Lysimachus, Apr 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2009
  17. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    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).

    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.

    Also (if I might politely ask).. if you are "Non-Denominational" then why are you posting in a baptist only section??

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    #37 Allan, Apr 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2009
  18. jofuss

    jofuss New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael = “who is like God”
    Arch = “chief”
    Angel = “messenger from God.”
    Michael the Archangel is a messenger of God who is like unto God Himself.

    Every Christian on Earth understands Christ came to this planet and was born as a man. They seem to have no problem understanding that Jesus Christ came as a MAN to introduce His Father to mankind. Why is it they have such a hard time believing that HE would come as a Angel so as to introduce His Father to the angels?

    The Bible and especially the OT is literally drenched with the term Angle of the Lord. Interesting thing is that it applies this name to God!

    I'll just give two such passages:

    1) Genesis 48:15-16, "And he blessed Joseph, and said, GOD, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The ANGEL WHICH REDEEMED ME from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

    Can an Angel redeem? No, of course not. Can God? Yes, only God can do this. The interplay between the terms, “God” and “angel” make it completely clear that Jacob understood on his death bed, that the Angel he saw face to face was indeed the redeeming God Himself - Jesus Christ.


    2) Judges 13:20-22 "For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have SEEN GOD."

    There is no way around this one. It's so blunt! Manoah realizes it is indeed the “Angel of the Lord” and then he declares plainly that he felt he was about to DIE because they had seen GOD. Why didn’t they die though? Because it was in fact Jesus Christ they looked upon. Jesus was the “Angel of the Lord” that ascended before their eyes that day.

    Remember John 5:37 says "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."

    Since Jesus bluntly proclaimed that no man has EVER seen His Father, this means that ALL of the events in the Word of God where we see the “Angel of the Lord” could in no way be the Father. It had to be Jesus Christ.

    One last thing. The word “archangel” is only used twice in the entire Bible.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

    Jude 1:9 "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."

    Make special note that it is the “voice of the archangel” raising the dead in 1 Thessalonians. Then notice there is only one other place in the entire Bible that the term “archangel” is used, and it is associated with the name Michael.

    Since the word "archangel" is only used TWICE in the entire bible, and one of those times is in accordance with the name Michael, common sense affords us the reality that the archangel of the Bible is named Michael. Plus, see this biblical fact…

    John 5:26, 28, 29 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. … Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth"

    Common knowledge among all of Christendom is that Jesus Christ is the ONLY ONE that can raise the dead. It is also biblical fact that John 5:28 is stating that it is the voice of the Son of God that will be heard when all those that are in the graves stand up. 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 says the archangel does this. Jude says that this archangel has a name. And that name is Michael.

    Or look at it this way... Mere Angels cannot raise the dead, only Christ Jesus can do that. So the voice of the archangel in 1 Thessalonians MUST be the voice of Jesus Christ the redeemer! I truly believe the Word of God can't state that fact any clearer.

    I'm not SDA or JW or such. But the fact that they proclaim something similar does not mean that it is error. Truth and error are judged by one standard - the Word of God, not by who professes to believe in it!
     
  19. Me4Him

    Me4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus appeared many times in the OT as the "Angel of God/Lord", and said he was "God",

    Ex 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush:

    Ex 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

    Has Michael ever said he was God???

    but here's something few have noticed, "HIS NAME" in the OT was never revealed.

    Ge 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

    30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

    18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

    The Name Jesus wasn't revealed until the angel told Mary what to name him.

    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
     
  20. Lysimachus

    Lysimachus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    By all means, we're agreed here.

    "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:

    Is it really so hard to grasp the simplicity of this?
     
    #40 Lysimachus, Apr 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2009
Loading...