Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest William

Is the archangel Michael the same as Jesus Christ?

Recommended Posts

Guest William

Question

Is the archangel Michael the same as Jesus Christ?

 

Answer

No, Michael and Jesus are not one and the same. The suggestion that they are one in the same is based on a poor understanding of Hebrew as well as on some very incorrect interpretations of particular passages.

The name "Michael"

For instance, one of the most common arguments is that the name "Michael" means "who is like God" or "he who is like God." This is completely false. Rather, the name means "Who is like God?" It is a question, not a statement. The Hebrew word my (which forms the "Mi" in "Michael") is an interrogative pronoun; it asks the question "who?" It is never used as a relative pronoun (as in "the one who," "the one that" or "the one which"). The relative pronoun in Hebrew is asher — which is not a component of Michael's name.

Even if "Michael" meant "he who is like God" — and again, it most assuredly does not — the argument that names regularly identify the character of the one named is also false. It is true that God's names identify his character, but creaturely names that refer to God do not attribute divine attributes to the ones so named. Rather, they are intended as memorials that honor God. The Bible is full of names that do this, such as "Elijah," which is composed simply of two names for God: "El" (usually translated "God") and "Yah" (a short form of "Yahweh," the name commonly translated as "Lord" or "Jehovah"). Elijah's name does not indicate that Elijah is both El and Yahweh. Rather, it is a memorial that means "Yahweh is God." In fact, "Michael" is also a memorial. The rhetorical question "Who is like God?" assumes the answer "No one is like God," so that it means "God is Supreme."

Besides, even if "Michael" meant "he who is like God," and even if this meant that Michael himself was "like God," this would not imply that Michael was Jesus. On the contrary, it would demonstrate that Michael was not Jesus. After all, Jesus is not merely like God — Jesus is God.

The term "prince"

Michael is called a "prince" (sar in Hebrew). This term typically refers to leaders, military counselors, angels, chiefs, etc. In the ancient Hebrew worldview, and in reality, God assigns angels to govern and influence human governments (cf. e.g., 1 Kings 22). These angels are referred to as "princes." In Daniel 10:13, we learn that the prince of the pagan nation Persia opposed the angelic messenger sent to Daniel. In other words, the prince of Persia was a fallen angel.

We are also told that Michael is the prince set in charge of Daniel and his people, the Israelites (Dan. 10:21; 12:1). In this context, the reason that only Michael comes to the aid of the messenger is that only Michael has been assigned by God to help the messenger, probably because the messenger is currently in the service of Michael's people (particularly Daniel). God's angels are not omnipresent, and there is an ongoing spiritual war in which they have assigned posts. They cannot simply pick up and move to a new battleground when the mood strikes them. They cannot leave their posts in order to aid random messengers in foreign battlefields.

That Jesus is a prince is not a point of dispute — he is the supreme prince. But there are many princes (cf. "one of the chief princes" in Dan. 10:13). He is also a king and a man, but that does not imply that Old Testament human kings with divine components in their names are actually manifestations of Jesus.

God and the angel of the Lord

It is sometimes also argued that Michael is the angel of the Lord, and that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ or a similar manifestation of God. Let's deal first with the identification of the angel of the Lord with Christ/God.

The argument that the angel of the Lord is a manifestation of God himself has some merit, though I believe it also has problems. First, the argument tends to rely on there being only one angel of the Lord, whereas Scripture does not explicitly say whether or not there are multiple angels of the Lord. Sometimes the angel is described as a physical manifestation of God himself (e.g., Exod. 3:6), but sometimes the angel is clearly distinguished from God's physical manifestation (Exod. 14:19). Since the angel of the Lord cannot be both God and not God, this inclines me to conclude that one of the following is true: (1) there is more than one angel of the Lord, one of which is God and the others of which are not; (2) the angel of the Lord is God, and the passages seeming to show that he is distinct from God have been misunderstood; (3) the angel of the Lord is not God, and the passages seeming to show that he is God have been misunderstood.

Now, in the ancient world, kings would often appoint emissaries that spoke on their behalf and with their authority. For instance, God commonly appointed prophets to speak on his behalf. Often these prophets spoke as if they were God, proclaiming such things as "I am the Lord" (e.g., Lev. 18:2; 19:2-3). It is not unreasonable to think that the angel of the Lord was a non-divine being who sometimes spoke in this manner.

Further, the Bible does not shy away from saying that God manifested himself in physical form, such as a pillar of cloud/fire (Exod. 13:21) or a man (Gen. 3:8; 18:1ff.; Isa. 6:1). There would seem to be no reason for the biblical writers to speak so cryptically as to refer to a physical manifestation of God as a "messenger" or "angel" rather than describing him plainly as "God."

In some passages, the angel appears to be quite distinct from God himself (Exod. 14:19; 23:20), so that the text appears rather plainly to portray the angel as being someone other than God himself. Granted, theologically speaking, God could have been manifested in both, but this makes little literary sense of the accounts. For instance, what motivation could Moses have had to portray God in such a way? And why would God speak of the angel in the third person? At the same time, if the angel was never God, why leave us with the impression that it was okay for Moses to think that he was (Exod. 3:6)?

In the New Testament, the data is not much different. For instance, in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, God descends with the voice of the archangel. This does not mean that archangel's voice will come out of God's mouth; it means that he archangel will give the battle cry and call to arms at the head of God's army when both God and his army descend to earth.

My best guess is that the angel of the Lord was usually or always a distinct entity from God himself. The most troublesome passage is Exodus 3:6, but even that might be explained in the following way: the angel of the Lord (not God) set the bush ablaze, then, once Moses responded, God manifested himself in the bush as well. I'm not convinced that this is correct, but it is not an unreasonable reading. In no event do I think it is possible that the angel was always God — the passages showing him to be distinct are too many and too blatant.

Michael and the angel of the Lord

This conclusion is largely based on the assumed role Michael plays in Daniel 10-12 and Revelation 12:7, and on that played by the angel in such passages as Joshua 5-6 (assuming this to be the angel of the Lord, though he is not called that here). This is not an unreasonable suggestion. Their roles are similar enough to think that perhaps they are the same. But the Bible never makes their identification explicit, and the possibility that they are two distinct beings is equally likely. On the one hand, they have similar jobs, but on the other hand, they have different names/titles.

Most importantly, Michael is never confused with God. Nowhere in Scripture does anyone mistake him for God, and nowhere does he speak in a way that might cause him to be confused with God.

Michael and Jesus

As much as we might wonder at the precise identity of the angel of the Lord, and whether or not his name was Michael, there can be no doubt that Michael was not Jesus. Perhaps the best text to illustrate this is Jude 1:9. There we are told that Michael did not dare to accuse Satan, but deferred to the Lord. In essence, Michael said, "I don't dare rebuke you, Satan. I leave that to the Lord, and I ask him to do it." Jesus, on the other hand, rebuked Satan personally and directly — even before he had defeated Satan on the cross (Matt. 4:10). Jesus had the authority and prerogative that Michael lacked.

 

REFORMEDANSWERS.ORG

Is the archangel Michael the same as Jesus Christ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
atpollard

I always thought that Hebrews covered the question all by itself in the First chapter ...

 

[Heb 1:1-14 NASB]

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

 

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

 

6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

 

7 And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

 

8 But of the Son [He says,] "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

 

10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

 

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"?

 

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
On 8/15/2019 at 9:21 AM, William said:

Question

Is the archangel Michael the same as Jesus Christ?...

 

Hey brother William, just joined the forums, and came across this thread after reading the TOS (Terms of Service), wherein it is written:

 

"... We are an orthodox Protestant community whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. ..."

 

And on this particular doctrine, you are in disagreement with both Martin Luther, and John Calvin (as well as Philip Melanchthon, Genevans, and many others), as they all taught the Son of God is Michael.  Did you know that?  It's even listed on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Protestant_views

 

Have you seen those historical citations of their studies?  They actually address a lot of the concerns and texts raised in this thread already.  I would not cite any man as authority, but simply pointing out the historical Reformational position.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
5 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Hey brother William, just joined the forums, and came across this thread after reading the TOS (Terms of Service), wherein it is written:

 

"... We are an orthodox Protestant community whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. ..."

 

And on this particular doctrine, you are in disagreement with both Martin Luther, and John Calvin (as well as Philip Melanchthon, Genevans, and many others), as they all taught the Son of God is Michael.  Did you know that?  It's even listed on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Protestant_views

 

Have you seen those historical citations of their studies?  They actually address a lot of the concerns and texts raised in this thread already.  I would not cite any man as authority, but simply pointing out the historical Reformational position.

To some the Reformation began and ended with Martin Luther. 

 

However, the Wikipedia source or citation doesn't work in reference to Martin Luther. And I see nothing mentioning John Calvin. 

 

Please provide your sources and references. 

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor

If angels are created, Christ created them since He created everything. We don’t need to scour documents of old men in history. Who cares what they thought. We have scripture. Forget their creeds, councils, tenets, We are the Church of Christ, the body of Christ. We trust the Word, not interpretations of others. They may be used only as tools or starting points for study if you will. Scripture is the final authority written by the Spirit of God. All else is individual viewpoints.

“Study to show YOURSELF approved…”

So the question is, Who created EVERYTHING?

John, 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians, 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

 

John, 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
1 hour ago, islandrazor said:

If angels are created, Christ created them since He created everything. We don’t need to scour documents of old men in history. Who cares what they thought. We have scripture. Forget their creeds, councils, tenets, We are the Church of Christ, the body of Christ. We trust the Word, not interpretations of others. They may be used only as tools or starting points for study if you will. Scripture is the final authority written by the Spirit of God. All else is individual viewpoints.

I would like to clarify,

 

One of the first things Liberalism does when infiltrating the church is ridding of the Ecumenical creeds which keep the body from swaying throughout time in cultural shifts. We personally would like to keep the same mistakes away from this board and use the Ecumenical creeds as a litmus test for orthodoxy. 

 

While Scripture is the primary authority Creeds and Confessions are secondary and arguably scholarly commentary is 3rd [Pastors, Teachers, Evangelist]. Both secondary and third should point to the 1st. In other words the secondary and third are wrong if they are not based on the primary. 

 

If you haven't noticed @islandrazor, we're all looking at the same Scriptural evidence, same way really that scientist can look at fossil evidence. Though the same evidence is being examined quite different interpretations exists. 

 

Lastly, it is greatly disrespectful and dishonoring to those forebrethren which came before us to simply dismiss their contributions. The development of Apostolic doctrine has progressed for millenniums. Simply abandoning the development is just begging to repeat the same errors the church faced when orthodoxy was questioned or opposed.  

 

For example, the Nicene Council was called to answers questions and address Arianism. How much time have you spent on that subject? Just curious, wondering what makes your post so much more developed than a creed which has existed for a millennium and half? Do you find any errors in the Nicene Creed? Do you understand that creeds and confessions are a profession of what denominational body believes? I use denominations because all denominations agree to the essential truths from Scripture as conveyed in the creeds. It is the body of Christ's profession. To reject the ecumenical creed is a red flag and usually places an individual outside orthodoxy into the categories of cult or sect. 

 

Perhaps studying the biblical practice of creeds, confessions, and councils may be fruitful? 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Becky

Php_1:27  Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; 
Luk_11:17  But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 
We are brothers with the church fathers. Or we should be,. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Becky

The church fathers are from before Christ . They were not perfect guys.. They missed up Moses hit the Rock twice. King David was a cheater and murder ... Before conversion Paul was a real bad guy Peter does not like chicken to this day. These guys and those who came after them and before us are part of the body of Christ .  Jesus prayed 

 

Joh 17:20  Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 
Joh 17:21  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
Joh 17:22  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 
Joh 17:23  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor
1 hour ago, William said:

I would like to clarify,

 

One of the first things Liberalism does when infiltrating the church is ridding of the Ecumenical creeds which keep the body from swaying throughout time in cultural shifts. We personally would like to keep the same mistakes away from this board and use the Ecumenical creeds as a litmus test for orthodoxy. 

 

While Scripture is the primary authority Creeds and Confessions are secondary and arguably scholarly commentary is 3rd [Pastors, Teachers, Evangelist]. Both secondary and third should point to the 1st. In other words the secondary and third are wrong if they are not based on the primary. 

 

If you haven't noticed @islandrazor, we're all looking at the same Scriptural evidence, same way really that scientist can look at fossil evidence. Though the same evidence is being examined quite different interpretations exists. 

 

Lastly, it is greatly disrespectful and dishonoring to those forebrethren which came before us to simply dismiss their contributions. The development of Apostolic doctrine has progressed for millenniums. Simply abandoning the development is just begging to repeat the same errors the church faced when orthodoxy was questioned or opposed.  

 

For example, the Nicene Council was called to answers questions and address Arianism. How much time have you spent on that subject? Just curious, wondering what makes your post so much more developed than a creed which has existed for a millennium and half? Do you find any errors in the Nicene Creed? Do you understand that creeds and confessions are a profession of what denominational body believes? I use denominations because all denominations agree to the essential truths from Scripture as conveyed in the creeds. It is the body of Christ's profession. To reject the ecumenical creed is a red flag and usually places an individual outside orthodoxy into the categories of cult or sect. 

 

Perhaps studying the biblical practice of creeds, confessions, and councils may be fruitful? 

First, to quote me, “They may be used only as tools or starting points for study if you will. Scripture is the final authority written by the Spirit of God.”

I intend no disrespect, I simply do not place individual interpretations of God’s Word anywhere near the Word regardless of who said what."

One of the first things Liberalism does when infiltrating the church is ridding of the Ecumenical creeds which keep the body from swaying throughout time in cultural shifts. We personally would like to keep the same mistakes away from this board and use the Ecumenical creeds as a litmus test for orthodoxy. 

 

Never saw myself as liberal, in fact I find it offensive if that is the inference.

 

While Scripture is the primary authority Creeds and Confessions are secondary and arguably scholarly commentary is 3rd. Both secondary and third should point to the 1st. In other words, the secondary and third are wrong if they are not based on the primary. 

 

We agree.

 

If you haven't noticed @islandrazor, we're all looking at the same Scriptural evidence, same way really that scientist can look at fossil evidence. Though the same evidence is being examined quite different interpretations exists.

We would not be here discussing anything on this forum if we were not looking for scriptural evidence in/and the feedback of others. This is the very nature of a forum. Me again, “All else is individual viewpoints.”

Lastly, it is greatly disrespectful and dishonoring to those forebrethren which came before us to simply dismiss their contributions. The development of Apostolic doctrine has progressed for millenniums. Simply abandoning the development is just begging to repeat the same errors the church faced when orthodoxy was questioned or opposed.

 

I appreciate “forebrethren” as brethren, and their faithfulness to Christ. Having said that, while I respect the men, I do not find that this automatically includes their conclusions. Nor does it necessitate blind adherence to said conclusions.

 

For example, the Nicene Council was called to answers questions and address Arianism. How much time have you spent on that subject? Just curious, wondering what makes your post so much more developed than a creed which has existed for a millennium and half? Do you find any errors in the Nicene Creed? Do you understand that creeds and confessions are a profession of what denominational body believes? I use denominations because all denominations agree to the essential truths from Scripture as conveyed in the creeds. It is the body of Christ's profession. To reject the ecumenical creed is a red flag and usually places an individual outside orthodoxy into the categories of cult or sect. 

 

Quoting me Again, “What I’ve ascertained is this… No disrespect, but Scripture states all that.

Christ clearly was on earth. And while on earth He prayed and spoke with God, who clearly was in heaven. Christ on earth said, He would send the Spirit of God who was in heaven to men on earth when He went back to heaven. There are so many scriptures that speak of the individual aspects of God, Christ and Holy Spirit. We’ve read them. Why early church leaders found it necessary to proclaim these statements which are not actual scripture I can only speculate. I won’t.”


 

Perhaps studying the biblical practice of creeds, confessions, and councils may be fruitful?

 

Perhaps.

If you will notice I posted 3 creeds and just above them, here is yet another quote of mine. “At any rate I have no quarrel with the following.”

 

Now if any of the above in your opinion places me in a cult, or that is inferred then absolutely ban me. You, I presume are the gatekeeper, the originator of this forum. If you simply find our disagreements on doctrine and my perspective offensive, do as you will. And William whatever you decide, Aloha and keep the faith.

In Christ

Now, back to the post you are replying to. Did Christ create angels?


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William

I brought up the tactic of Liberalism which is to reject the Ecumenical creeds. With, Liberalism can't take root as long as the body of believers are unified. Without, Liberalism can interpret in any which way. We emphasize Creeds in our Statement of Faith to keep us free of Liberalism. The early Ecumenical creeds followed the principle of Sola Scriptura. Now what is theological liberalism? I'd like to ask you what exactly do you take offense to?

3 hours ago, islandrazor said:

Why early church leaders found it necessary to proclaim these statements which are not actual scripture I can only speculate. I won’t.”

So you have no idea as to why various Councils were called and resulting Creeds and Confessions came into existence?

3 hours ago, islandrazor said:

Now if any of the above in your opinion places me in a cult, or that is inferred then absolutely ban me. You, I presume are the gatekeeper, the originator of this forum. If you simply find our disagreements on doctrine and my perspective offensive, do as you will. And William whatever you decide, Aloha and keep the faith.

In Christ

Now, back to the post you are replying to. Did Christ create angels?

Now, if you don't mind I refer back to the Nicene Creed which I profess. The Nicene Creed conveys the essentials of the faith [truths of Scripture] which addresses whether Christ was a created being like Michael. If you find the Nicene Creed offensive or disagree with it I'll repeat asking you again what is false in the Nicene Creed?

 

Furthermore, why do you think it necessary to throw up your membership when disagreeing on a subject?

 

Nicene Creed:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

 

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

 

Athanasian Creed:

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
5 hours ago, William said:

To some the Reformation began and ended with Martin Luther. 

 

However, the Wikipedia source or citation doesn't work in reference to Martin Luther. And I see nothing mentioning John Calvin. 

 

Please provide your sources and references. 

The Reformation did not begin or end with Martin Luther, but I acknowledge his prominent and crucial role therein.  Others were briefly mentioned, such as Melanchthon and the Genevans, and those just a very small sampling.

 

Wikipedia only allows secondary or tertiary sources, and not primary sources to be used, and is therefore a very limited form of useful information.  The sources listed are all secondary, which is fine, but I happen to have the primary sources.

 

As for Jean (John) Calvin, he is listed in the wikipedia references in points (5) and (9):

 

Wikipedia says:

 

"... Protestant denominations[specify][vague][who?] generally recognize Michael as an archangel.

 

Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars[specify][vague][who?] usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[13] Such scholars include but are not limited to:

 

1.  Martin Luther[53][54]

 

2.  Hengstenberg with others[55][56][57]

 

3.  Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn][58]

 

4.  Jacobus Ode, Campegius Vitringa, Sr.[59][60][61]

 

5.  Philip Melanchthon, Broughton, Junius, Calvin, Hävernick[62]

 

6.  Polanus, Genevens, Oecolampadius & others[63], Adam Clarke[64]

 

7.  Bishop Horsely[65][66]

 

8.  Cloppenburgh, Vogelsangius, Pierce and others (Horsely)[67]

 

9.  John (Jean) Calvin[68][69]

 

10.  Isaac Watts, John Bunyan, Brown's Dictionary, James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary[70]

 

11.  and many others[71]

 

12.  for even before them, the Jewish commentators, such as Wetstein, Surenhusius, etc.[72]

 

In the 19th Century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon[73][74] stated that Jesus is "the true Michael" [75][76] and “the only Archangel”,[77] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[73] ..."

 

So, if you would like the primary citations, I can give that:

 

Martin Luther (AD 10 November 1483 – AD 18 February 1546) was a German monk [Order of St. Augustine], Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of the 16th-century movement in Christianity known later as the Protestant Reformation, "the Dr. Luther" of the Lutheran movement.

 

[German] D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe; D. Martin Luthers Deutsche Bibel 1522-1546, Elfter Band Zweite Halft Die Ubersetzung des Prophetenteils des Alten Testaments (Daniel bis Maleachi). Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger / Weimar; 1960.

 

Full Text of Page 108:

 

"... [Page 108; 1541 Translation; Page 109; 1545 Translation] 1541 ... Er nennets gepflanzt, Denn der Bapst hat ein Paradis aller luft zu Rom, oder in der Kirchen, gemacht, da er aller Welt, Gut, Gewalt und Ehre, frey nach seinem willen braucht.

BVR selbigen zeit, wird sich auffmachen der grosse Furst Michael, der fur die Kinder deines Volks stehet, Denn es wird ein solche trübselige Zeit sein als nicht gewest ist, sint das Leute gewest sind, bis auss diese zeit.

WIE wol Michael eins Engels name ist, doch verstehen wir hie, gleich wie auch Apoc. XII. den hErrn Christum selbs da durch, Die hie niden auff Erden mit seinen Engeln, das ist Predigern, streittet wider den Teufel, durchs Evangelium, Denn er nennet in den grossen Fursten. DERselbige hat sich nu auffgemacht, und stehet fur die Christen, und tröstet sie, mit dem Wort der Gnaden. DENn his da her ist die grewlichst zeit gewest, als auff Erden ie gewest ist, WIE Christus diese wort auch füret, Matth. [Bl. XIII.] XXIIII. Und wo diese Tage nicht verkürzt weren und auffgehöret hetten, So were sein Mensch selig worden, auch die Edomiten, Moabiten, Ammoniten nicht. DENN es schon angefangen in Welschenlanden, zu Rom und mehr Orten. Das man Epicurisch aus dem Glauben ein gespött gemacht, und die Kinder auch nicht mehr teusset. Also were beide Tauffe, Sacrament, und Wort alles aus gewest, und sein Mensch mehr selig worden. ...

... 9: Dan[iel]. 12,1 14: Off[enbarung]. 12,7. 19: Matth[ew]. 24,21f." [Page 108; 1541 Translation; Page 109; 1545 Translation] - https://archive.org/stream/s12werkediedeuts11luth#page/108/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/s12werkediedeuts11luth#page/109/mode/1up

 

 

As for Jean Calvin (see page 369 specifically):

 

John [Jean] Calvin "(born Jehan Cauvin: AD 10 July 1509 – AD 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Calvin

 

Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, Volume II., aka, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, by John Calvin, now first translated from the original Latin, and collated with the French version, with dissertations, new translation of the text, and copius indicies, By Thomas Myers, M.A., vicar of Sheriff-Hutton, Yorkshire. Volume Second. 1853.

 

"... [Page 253] He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me. Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people. ..." [Page 253] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/253/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 258] the Christ, because this interpretation is better suit to that Michael who has already been mentioned, and will be again at the end of this chapter. ..." [Page 258] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/258/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 266] Michael, whome some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ. ..." [Page 266] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/266/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 368] By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the church. …

 

... That foul hypocrite, Servetus, has dared to appropriate this passage to himself; for he has inscribed it as a frontispiece on his horrible comments, because he was called Michael! We observe what diabolical fury has seized him, as he dared to claim as his own what is here said of the singular aid afforded by Christ to his Church. He was a man of the most impure feelings, as we have already sufficiently made known. But this was a proof of his impudence and sacrilegious madness - to adorn himself with this epithet of Christ without blushing, and to elevate himself into Christ's place, by boasting himself to be Michael, the guardian of the Church, and the mighty prince [Page 368-369] of the people! ..." [Pages 368-369] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/368/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/369/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 369] Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (ver. 28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince. As it has had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect [Page 369-370] people, he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. Christ confirms the same assertion, as we just now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all his elect were given him by his father, and none of them should perish, because his father was greater than all; no one, says he, shall pluck my sheep out of my hand. My father, who gave them me, is greater than all; meaning, God possess infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world, and he has committed it to me, or has deposited it in my hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince. ..." [Pages 369-370] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/369/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/370/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 371] At length he adds, At that time thy people shall be preserved. By this expression the angel points out to us the great importance of the protection of Michael. He promises certain salvation to his elect people, as it he had said, although the Church should be exposed to the greatest dangers, yet with respect to God himself, it should always be safe and victorious in all contests, because Michael should be superior to every enemy. ..." [Page 371] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/371/mode/1up

 

I also have Melancthon, Genevans' and many others.  For instance, Melito of Sardis stated that the Son was "among the angels, archangel".

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
40 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

As for Jean Calvin (see page 369 specifically):

 

John [Jean] Calvin "(born Jehan Cauvin: AD 10 July 1509 – AD 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Calvin

 

Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, Volume II., aka, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, by John Calvin, now first translated from the original Latin, and collated with the French version, with dissertations, new translation of the text, and copius indicies, By Thomas Myers, M.A., vicar of Sheriff-Hutton, Yorkshire. Volume Second. 1853.

 

"... [Page 253] He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me. Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people. ..." [Page 253] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/253/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 258] the Christ, because this interpretation is better suit to that Michael who has already been mentioned, and will be again at the end of this chapter. ..." [Page 258] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/258/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 266] Michael, whome some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ. ..." [Page 266] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/266/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 368] By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the church. …

 

... That foul hypocrite, Servetus, has dared to appropriate this passage to himself; for he has inscribed it as a frontispiece on his horrible comments, because he was called Michael! We observe what diabolical fury has seized him, as he dared to claim as his own what is here said of the singular aid afforded by Christ to his Church. He was a man of the most impure feelings, as we have already sufficiently made known. But this was a proof of his impudence and sacrilegious madness - to adorn himself with this epithet of Christ without blushing, and to elevate himself into Christ's place, by boasting himself to be Michael, the guardian of the Church, and the mighty prince [Page 368-369] of the people! ..." [Pages 368-369] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/368/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/369/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 369] Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (ver. 28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince. As it has had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect [Page 369-370] people, he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. Christ confirms the same assertion, as we just now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all his elect were given him by his father, and none of them should perish, because his father was greater than all; no one, says he, shall pluck my sheep out of my hand. My father, who gave them me, is greater than all; meaning, God possess infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world, and he has committed it to me, or has deposited it in my hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince. ..." [Pages 369-370] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/369/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/370/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 371] At length he adds, At that time thy people shall be preserved. By this expression the angel points out to us the great importance of the protection of Michael. He promises certain salvation to his elect people, as it he had said, although the Church should be exposed to the greatest dangers, yet with respect to God himself, it should always be safe and victorious in all contests, because Michael should be superior to every enemy. ..." [Page 371] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/371/mode/1up

I see nowhere in Calvin's commentary that Jesus Christ is the equivalent to an angel [created being] though in typical Calvin fashion he acknowledges popular opinions of the day but Calvin refers to the guardianship of the church which is enjoined upon Christ as His duty. 

 

Am I missing something?

 

Likewise:

40 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

In the 19th Century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon[73][74] stated that Jesus is "the true Michael" [75][76] and “the only Archangel”,[77] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[73] ..."

If we take Spurgeon's statement to mean the angel Michael as in "he who is like God" then Spurgeon contradicts by saying that Jesus is God. Rather Spurgeon answers the question "Who is like God?". His answer, Jesus is God, the Son, and co-equal to the Father. "The only Archangel"? Is there more than one Archangel? Or is Spurgeon referring to the superiority of the office of Christ Jesus in His guardianship over the church?

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
10 minutes ago, Becky said:

@ShinyGospelShoes Do you believe Jesus is a created being ? Do you believe God is a created being? 

Jesus, aka, the only begotten Son of God the Father is eternal, uncreated Creator in tandem "with" the Father, and even Holy Ghost/Spirit (Genesis 1:1, Elohiym; John 1:1, Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:1-3, Proverbs 8:22-36, etc).

 

"God" cannot be a "created being", for that would be a contradiction in terms, as God is by definition, eternal, not created.

 

However, that does not preclude the Person/Being of the Son from taking upon Himself the "form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7), though He was in the "form of God", even the "express image" of His Father from  eternity.

 

The human flesh of Jesus' body is created/made, which was the likeness of sinful flesh (fallen), as per (and so many others; John 3:6):

 

Gal_4:4  But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

Heb_10:5  Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

 

Rom_1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

I hope that answers the questions as you have asked them.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
24 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

However, that does not preclude the Person/Being of the Son from taking upon Himself the "form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7), though He was in the "form of God", even the "express image" of His Father from  eternity.

Are you making the case for the pre-incarnate Christ? 

 

If so I find more convincing arguments for the "The Angel of the Lord". 

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
56 minutes ago, William said:

I see nowhere in Calvin's commentary that he is equivocating Christ to an angel [created being] though in typical Calvin fashion he acknowledges popular opinions of the day but Calvin refers to the guardianship of the church which is enjoined upon Christ as His duty. 

 

Am I missing something?

Hi brother William.  You have a misunderstanding of the word "angel" as the scripture defines, and even as the Reformation (among others) understood and even now understand.  The word "angel" does not carry the inherent meaning of created at all.  The word "angel", whether in Hebrew, Syriac (Mal'ak) or koine Greek (aggelos), or even English ("angel", a transliteration of the koine Greek) simply means "messenger, ambassador, or that which carries a message".  The definition of created or uncreated and eternal are not a part of its definition.  Luther, Calvin, and so many others understood this, if you will continue to read the sources I have cited.  They even refer to "the Angel of the LORD" in the bush (Exodus 3) as the Son of God the Father (and Calvin even cites Hengstenberg on this as such).  They also acknowledge in Malachi 3:1 that the "mal'ak" (Hebrew) or "aggelos" so called (septuaginta) of the covenant refers to the Son of God the Father there also, or in Zechariah 3.  They do not say that the word "angel" means created.

 

Again Jean Calvin, Complete Commentary on the Bible:

 

"... [Exodus 3:2] And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him ... For thus we must believe that God, as often as he has appeared of old to the holy patriarchs ... But let us inquire who this Angel was?  since soon afterwards he not only calls himself Jehovah, but claims the glory of the eternal and only God. ... and [37] especially from the first chapter of Zechariah, that there is one head and chief of the angels who commands the others, the ancient teachers of the Church have rightly understood that the Eternal Son of God is so called in respect to his office as Mediator ... the messenger of his Father ..."

 

"... [Zechariah 3:2] If we regard this angel to be Christ, the idea is consistent with he common usage of Scripture ..."

 

"... [Malachi 3:1] the Lord ... and hence speaks distinctly of Christ, who is afterwards called the Angel or Messenger of the covenant. ..." - https://books.google.as/books?id=41B2CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

As for Calvin, the statement on page 369 is clear:

 

"... [369] Michael ... I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ ..."

 

In page 253, Calvin refers to Hebrews 1:9, in that the Son is one who is "among" His fellows (as Head over the heavenly body, in other words an "Angel", not created, yet the Highest Messenger of the Father as the eternal Son), yet infinitely superior to them.

 

"... [253] Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head..."

 

Calvin is even indignant at 'Michael' Servetus for having taking the name "Michael" upon himself as from Revelation 12 and other places and appropriating it to himself, and identifying himself as the person so mentioned in the prophecy, and Calvin in response, declares that it is essentially "diabolical" to do since the "epithet" (name) belongs to "Christ".

 

Having read the entire History of the Reformation by J. H. Merle D'aubigny, I can attest to Calvins' distaste (to be kind) for what Servetus did, though in the end he tried to get him pardoned from the more political council in Geneva.

 

I do not know how much more clear statements one may receive about Calvin's position on the matter.  Again, I am not citing Calvin as Authority, any more than any of the others.  I am simply pointing out the position they held unto their end.

Edited by ShinyGospelShoes

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
19 minutes ago, William said:

Are you making the case for the pre-incarnate Christ? 

 

If so I find more convincing arguments for the "The Angel of the Lord". 

I was answering the question about the nature of Christ Jesus, the God/Man.

 

The Son is the "Angel of the LORD" in those cases appropriate in scripture, for the phrase does not always mean so (since in Luke 1:11,38, 2:9, refers to Gabriel contextually).

 

I am not advocating that the Son ever took upon him the nature of the unfallen heavenly hosts (see Hebrews 2:16).  I only Amen'ed the scripture in which it states that the Son before taking upon Himself the "form of a servant" was in "the form of God".  Yet, even so, the Son is the highest Messenger of the Father, see Hebrews 1:1-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
1 hour ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Hi brother William.  You have a misunderstanding of the word "angel" as the scripture defines, and even as the Reformation (among others) understood and even now understand.  The word "angel" does not carry the inherent meaning of created at all.  The word "angel", whether in Hebrew, Syriac (Mal'ak) or koine Greek (aggelos), or even English ("angel", a transliteration of the koine Greek) simply means "messenger, ambassador, or that which carries a message".  The definition of created or uncreated and eternal are not a part of its definition.  Luther, Calvin, and so many others understood this, if you will continue to read the sources I have cited.  They even refer to "the Angel of the LORD" in the bush (Exodus 3) as the Son of God the Father (and Calvin even cites Hengstenberg on this as such).  They also acknowledge in Malachi 3:1 that the "mal'ak" (Hebrew) or "aggelos" so called (septuaginta) of the covenant refers to the Son of God the Father there also, or in Zechariah 3.  They do not say that the word "angel" means created.

I must admit that I'm irritated by the suggestion that I am wrong [twice now] without you making a convincing case. Not that I can't stand correction but I find that in this case you now post a couple of verses which support your view but you fail to take into account the 100 mentions in the OT or the 165 times angels are mentioned in the NT [systematic]

 

For example angels were created prior to God’s creation of the earth Job 38:7; Psalm 148:2-5. 

 

Without getting into an entire Angelology no angel is like God in ways such as ominpresence Daniel 9:21–23 [angels are localized beings having to travel to and from]. 

 

So then, "Who is like God?" And how? You answered the question through Calvin's commentary:

 

Quote

 

"... [Page 266] Michael, whome some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ. ..." [Page 266] - https://archive.org/stream/commentariesonda02calvuoft#page/266/mode/1up

 

How one goes from an angelic being to Christ escapes me as Calvin clarifies as to the title which does not belong to any angel but to Christ. In other words Michael either does or does not refer to an angelic being else Michael is a title which refers to Christ.  

1 hour ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

In page 253, Calvin refers to Hebrews 1:9, in that the Son is one who is "among" His fellows (as Head over the heavenly body, in other words an "Angel", not created, yet the Highest Messenger of the Father as the eternal Son), yet infinitely superior to them.

I fail to see how what I stated was "wrong" when you posted this in response. Clearly Calvin refers to the church guardianship and goes so far as equating the duty of an angel to the office of Christ [superior]. But in [253] Calvin makes a clear distinction between "angels" and Christ. 

 

1 hour ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:
1 hour ago, William said:

Are you making the case for the pre-incarnate Christ? 

 

If so I find more convincing arguments for the "The Angel of the Lord". 

I was answering the question about the nature of Christ Jesus, the God/Man.

 

The Son is the "Angel of the LORD" in those cases appropriate in scripture, for the phrase does not always mean so (since in Luke 1:11,38, 2:9, refers to Gabriel contextually).

 

I am not advocating that the Son ever took upon him the nature of the unfallen heavenly hosts (see Hebrews 2:16).  I only Amen'ed the scripture in which it states that the Son before taking upon Himself the "form of a servant" was in "the form of God".  Yet, even so, the Son is the highest Messenger of the Father, see Hebrews 1:1-3.

I asked for clarification because I could read your response couple of ways. So your point was addressing the Hypostatic Union? For a moment I doubted as to whether you were insinuating that Christ took upon various "forms" such as that of an angel making the case that Michael was the preincarnate Christ. Thank you for clarifying. 

 

You'll have to excuse the shake down or nit picking going on currently because we are often time attacked by advocates of Arianism which also reject the Nicene Creed if not directly then by reinterpreting the creed in novel ways.  

 

Of course, we could avoid all the nit picking if you just acknowledged that you're indeed Trinitarian. 

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
26 minutes ago, William said:

I must admit that I'm irritated by the suggestion that I am wrong [twice now] without you making a convincing case....

It was not my intention to irritate you.  Only to clarify the facts of the matter.  I would like to thank you for your time.  It is best to not continue this conversation at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
8 hours ago, Becky said:

Hi sister Becky,

 

May I ask you a question in return, now that I have answered your question?

 

How would you describe those Reformers, Theologians, Scholars, Scientists, Bible Translators, Concordance, Lexicon, Encyclopedia and Dictionary writers, who did teach (unto their death) that Michael is the Son of God (eternal Deity), Would you describe them as having a cultish doctrine, an erroneous doctrine, an heterodox doctrine, a correct doctrine? (see below*)

 

Secondly, do you see the WTS/JW as perverting the true Reformation doctrine, and going back to Romanistic doctrine?

 

Thirdly, even if you presently disagree with the following persons in their conclusion, how do you view those who agree with them?  In other words, do you view them as Christian, cultic, heterodox, orthodox, etc?

 

(*)For instance, a short list (full quotations in their original sources where possible upon request):

 

 

Appendix 2 – The Short Historical List of those who taught Jesus is Michael the archangel and/or the Angel of the LORD

 

[*This list is by far from complete, though representative, and may be added to by any who will continue to diligently search the historical records in various languages and places. By no means, is any source listed herein, rare though they be, that actually denies the Eternal Deity and Godhood of Jesus in any way, agreed to, nor herein promoted as correct or to be advocated, but is rather than scripturally heretical and to be roundly shown to be in error in the love of Jesus.]

 

 

Melito of Sardis (wrote AD 165 – AD 175, died c. AD 180 – Jesus is “among the angels, archangel”

Roman Catholic Encyclopedia: Jesus is the Angel of the Great Counsel, the Angel of the LORD, etc

 

Augustine of Hippo (AD 13 November 354 – AD 28 August 430) Jesus is the “Angel of the Testament”, etc

Irenaeus (AD early 2nd century – c. AD 202) Jesus is the one that came down and spoke to the Patriarchs under the designation “Angel”.

Titus Flavius Clemens (Greek: Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς; c. 150 – c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria – Jesus is the “Angel of the Great Counsel”.

Justin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. AD 100 – AD 165) – Jesus is called “Angel”, etc

Eusebius (AD 260/265 – AD 339/340); also called Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius Pamphili, - Jesus is called the “Angel of the mighty counsel”.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (c. AD 160 – c. AD 225 AD) – Jesus is the ‘Angel’ that spake to Moses from the midst of the bush.

Roman Catholic New American Bible with Footnotes [along with Douay Rheims], 1986: - Jesus is the “Lord’s Angel”, and “Angel of the LORD”, and etc.

 

Charles Buck (AD 1771 – AD 11 Aug 1815) Jesus is called “Angel” and “Archangel”.

John Butterworth, minister (born AD 1727- died AD 1803) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Alexander Cruden (AD May 31, 1699 – AD November 1, 1770) – Jesus is called “Angel”.

Thomas Taylor (AD 15 May 1758 – AD 1 November 1835) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Patrick Fairbairn (AD 28 January 1805 – AD 6 August 1874) – Jesus is “Michael”.

William Baxter Godbey (AD June 3, 1833 - AD September 12, 1920) cites Dr. Clarke that Jesus is “Michael”.

Matthew Pool[e] – (AD 1624 – AD 1679) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Sir William Smith (AD 20 May 1813 – AD 7 October 1893) – Jesus is “Michael” and cites others Luther, Hengstenberg, etc.

Thomas Coke (AD 9 September 1747 – AD 2 May 1814) – Jesus is “Michael”.

John Guyse (AD 1680 - AD 1761) – Jesus is “Michael”, and called “Angel”, etc

Elhanan Winchester (AD 1751 in Brookline, Massachusetts – AD April 18, 1797) – Jesus is “Michael”.

George Sale (AD 1697, Canterbury, Kent, England – AD 1736, London, England) ; George Psalmanazar (AD 1679? - AD 1763); Archibald Bower (AD 17 January 1686 – AD 3 September 1766) ; George D. Shelvocke (baptised AD 1 April 1675 - AD 30 November 1742) ; John Campbell (AD 1708 - AD 1775); John Swinton (AD 1703 - AD 1777) – Jesus is “Michael”.

The Church of England Magazine. Under the superintendence of the clergymen of the United Church of England and Ireland. Vol. IV. No. 85; January 6, 1838. By James Burns. – Jesus is “Michael”.

Robert Hawker (AD 1753 – AD 1827) – Jesus is “Michael” and “Archangel”.

Samuel Horsley (AD 15 September 1733 – AD 4 October 1806) – Jesus is “Michael”.

The London Encyclopedia, or Universal Dictionary … 1839. – Jesus is “Michael”.

The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible; Volume 4; M-P, Revised, Full-Color Edition; - cites that many Protestants, Hengstenberg, etc that Jesus is “Michael”.

Zondervan NIV Study Bible (Fully Revised): Wide Margin Loose-Leaf Edition; copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. – Jesus is the “angel of the Lord”, etc.

Hermann Witsius (Herman Wits or in Latin Hermannus Witsius) (AD 12 February 1636 – AD 22 October 1708) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Reinerus Vogelsangius (AD 1610 - AD 1679) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Johannes Cloppenburg (AD 1592 - AD 1652) - Jesus is Michael the “Angel of the Lord”.

Ralph Griffiths (AD c.1720 – AD September 28, 1803) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Campegius Vitringa Sr., or Kempe Vitringa[1] (born at Leeuwarden, May 16, 1659; died at Franeker, March 31, 1722) – Jesus is “Michael” the “Archangel”.

Martin Luther (AD 10 November 1483 – AD 18 February 1546) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Philipp Melanchthon (AD 16 February 1497 – AD 19 April 1560) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Johann Wigand (ca. AD 1523 - AD 21 October 1587) – Jesus is “Michael”.

David Chytraeus or Chyträus (26 February 1530, Ingelfingen – 25 June 1600, Rostock) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Giovanni Diodati or Deodati (AD 6 June 1576 – AD 3 October 1649) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Andrew Willet (AD 1562 – AD 4 December 1621) - Jesus is “Michael”.

William Miller (AD February 15, 1782 – AD December 20, 1849) - Jesus is “Michael”.

 

Ellen G. White (AD November 26, 1827 – AD July 16, 1915) – Jesus is “Michael”

Carl L. Beckwith, - Jesus is “Michael”.

Robert W. Bertram (AD 27 March 1921 - AD 13 March 2003) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Dr. Frances N. Lee (AD 1934 - AD Friday 23rd December, 2011) - - Jesus is “Michael”.

David Harold Chilton (AD 1951 – AD 1997) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Milton Spenser Terry (AD 1840 - AD 1914) - Jesus is “Michael”.

George Whitefield - December 27 [O.S. December 16] 1714 – September 30, 1770) speaks by symbol, Jesus is our “Michael”.

James Petigru Boyce (AD 1827 – AD 1888) citing John Pye-Smith, Jesus is “probably” “Michael”.

The Rev Dr John Pye-Smith FRS, FGS (AD 25 May 1774 - AD 5 February 1851) - Jesus is “probably” “Michael”.

Christmas Evans (AD 25 December 1766 – AD 19 July 1838) – Jesus is “Michael”.

The Christian Gleaner and Domestic Magazine
The Christian Gleaner and Domestic Magazine for 1825, Volume II; London; published by B. J. Holdsworth, 18, St. Paul's Churchyard. – Jesus is “Michael”.

Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (AD October 25, 1811 – AD May 7, 1887) - Jesus is “Michael”.

John Gill (AD 23 November 1697 – AD 14 October 1771) – Jesus is “Michael”.

Charles Spurgeon (AD 9 June 1834 – AD 31 January 1892) Jesus is the “True Michael”.

Matthew Henry (AD 18 October 1662 – AD 22 June 1714) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Thomas Adams (AD 1583 – AD 1653) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Heinrich [Henry] Bullinger (AD 18 July 1504 – AD 17 September 1575) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Isaac Watts (AD 17 July 1674 – AD 25 November 1748) - Jesus is “Michael”.

William Kinkade (AD 22nd Sept. 1783 - AD 20th Sept. 1832) [became Arian later; Heresy] - Jesus is “Michael”.

Jonathan Edwards (AD October 5, 1703 – AD March 22, 1758) - Jesus is “Michael”.

1560/1599 Geneva Study Bible- Jesus is “Michael”.

John [Jean] Calvin (born Jehan Cauvin: AD 10 July 1509 – AD 27 May 1564) - Jesus is “Michael” and does not disagree with others who see the same.

Francois Du Jon aka Franciscus Junius (born François du Jon, AD 1 May 1545 – AD 13 October 1602) - Jesus is “Michael”.

John Wesley (AD 28 June [O.S. 17 June] 1703 – AD 2 March 1791) - Jesus is “Michael”.

John Brown of Haddington (AD 1722 – AD 19 June 1787) - Jesus is “Michael”.

James Wood (AD 1751 – AD 1840) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Ernst Wilhelm Theodor Herrmann Hengstenberg (AD October 20, 1802, Fröndenberg – AD May 28, 1869, Berlin- Jesus is “Michael”.

Wikipedia, The Online Encyclopedia – Michael (Archangel); subsection - “Protestant Views” – cites John A. Lees, and Hengstenberg, Jesus is “Michael”.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, comment on section “Michael” by John A. Lees. - Jesus is “Michael”.

John Bunyan (AD 28 November 1628 – AD 31 August 1688) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Henry Ainsworth (AD 1571 – AD 1622) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Thomas Watson (c. AD 1620 – AD 1686) - Jesus is “Michael”.

James Glasgow D.D. (AD 27 May 1805 – AD 1890 ) - Jesus is “Michael”.

James Hastings (AD 1852 – AD 1922) and George Cunninghame Monteath Douglas (AD 1826 – AD 1904- Jesus is “Michael”.

Thomas Hobbes Scott (17 April 1783 – 1 January 1860) - Jesus may indeed be “Michael” as “many” others say.

Hezekiah Holland (born ca. AD 1617, living AD 1660) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Adam Clarke (AD 1760 or AD 1762 – AD 1832) - Jesus is “Michael”.

George Balderston Kidd (Cottingham, near Hull, AD 28 July 1794 – AD 1852) - Jesus is “Michael”.

James Durham (AD 1622 – AD 1658) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Bryce Johnston (AD 1747 - AD 1805) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Vine's Expository Dictionary, by William Edwy Vine Section: "archangel” – the “archangels” “voice” is the “voice” of Jesus.

Thomas Haweis (AD 1 January 1734 - AD February 11, 1820) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929; Editor, Edwin Lewis (AD 1881 – AD 1959) was an American Methodist theologian primarily associated with Drew University in New Jersey. Others involved - Frederick Carl Eiselen; David G. Downey. - Jesus is “Michael”.

Johann [John] Peter Lange (AD 10 April 1802 in Sonneborn (now a part of Wuppertal) – AD 9 July 1884), and Elijah Richard Craven (AD Mar. 28 1824, in Washington D.C. - AD Jan. 5 1908, in Philadelphia, Pa) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Thomas Robinson (AD 1813/14 - AD 1890) - Jesus is “Michael”.

Johann Friedrich Haug ((AD * 1680, AD † 18. May 1753) and The Berlenburger Bibel [aka 'Berleb. Bible', 'Berleburger Bibel', etc.] is in the years AD 1726 - AD 1742) - Jesus is “Michael”.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Becky
3 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Hi sister Becky,

May I ask you a question in return, now that I have answered your question?

How would you describe those Reformers, Theologians, Scholars, Scientists, Bible Translators, Concordance, Lexicon, Encyclopedia and Dictionary writers, who did teach (unto their death) that Michael is the Son of God (eternal Deity), Would you describe them as having a cultish doctrine, an erroneous doctrine, an heterodox doctrine, a correct doctrine? (see below*)

I have never studied the works of the reformers. Simply comparing the creeds to Scripture i do not find fault in the creeds posted here. 

All the copy n paste really ? 

As if E.G. White is not cultish? 

Share this post


Link to post
Antus67

 

 

Scripture gives us the names of two good angels, who play important roles in human history. One of these two angels is Michael. While we are not given the name of every angel, the fact that he is called out by name in Scripture is quite significant. The name Michael means, “Who is like God.” In the Bible, he is called “one of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13) and "the great prince” (Daniel 12:1). Most angels in the Bible are portrayed as messengers, but Michael is described in all three books as contending, fighting, or standing against all evil spirits and principalities.

 

Michael is usually shown with a sword, or carrying the scales of justice. Renaissance paintings show him wearing armor. These are all symbols of his strength, courage, truth and integrity. Michael is engaged in a ceaseless war against the forces of evil. His most famous example of this occurred when he cast Lucifer and his followers out of heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
51 minutes ago, Becky said:

I have never studied the works of the reformers. Simply comparing the creeds to Scripture i do not find fault in the creeds posted here. 

All the copy n paste really ? 

As if E.G. White is not cultish? 

Fair enough.  I was simply asking about how you personally feel about their prayerfully studied and theological position on the subject of the OP - Michael.

 

Actually, the work is mine own, and though copy/pasted from mine own hard drive, it first had to be manually typed and stored.  Also, whether CnP'ed is non-sequitur to the facts that said persons held and taught and wrote about their stated, and prayerfully studied position on Michael.  Do you hold to the same standard when others cited Hengstenberg, or Luther, or Calvin in their own works?  Do you say that they copy/pasted also?  There are several examples of them all borrowing from one another.

 

As for E G White, she is not the subject, nor center of attention, any more than any of the others.  She was a leader of a movement as Luther, Wesley, Calvin and others.  So I do not see any difference in that respect.  The only reason she is listed among all the others, is she held to the same position as they on the subject of the OP.  The rest of the theological position of White is not being brought into the picture in this thread.

 

I personally have not found her to be cultish, but that is for another thread I would think, and I do not intend to go any further here about it.  Thus I did ask about that ("cultish"), yet specific to the topic - Michael.  So, do you see White as "cultish" in this doctrine, and the others not as cultish in this doctrine, or all as cultish in this doctrine or none as cultish in this doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes

Here is Melanchthon (original language):

 

 

Philipp Melanchthon (AD 16 February 1497 – AD 19 April 1560), born Philipp Schwartzerdt, was a German reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of educational systems. He stands next to Luther and Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism. Along with Luther, he is the primary founder of Lutheranism.

 

[Latin] In Danielem Prophetam Commentarius, editus a Philippo Melanthone, Anno 1543. - http://books.google.com/books?id=1llSAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

"... [Page 122] Eadem de Gog & Magog apud Ezechielem & in Apocalypsi di[c]untur. Ezechiel ait, God & Magog, factis ingentibus vastationibus, tandem in montibus Israel perituros esse.

Esti de iudicio ultimo Christi intelligi potest, tamen arbitror significari praelia quae piis erunt in hac ultima mundi senecta cum ..., qui vincentur in montibus Israel, id est, seu in locis ecclesiae in qua uere sonat Euangelium, vel a populus uere inuocantibus deum in fide filii eius Iesu Christi. Non enim vincetur ... nisi per filium dei dimicantem pro sua ecclesia, ut infra clare inquit Daniel. capite 12. Stabit Michael, is est, Christus dux magnus pro filius populi. Sed & apud Daniele & apud Ezechielem magne vastationes denunciantur, quas ut deus mitiget, toto pectore petamus. ..." [Page 122]

"... [Page 136] Porro hic locus admoneat nos de praesentia Christi, Quod videlicet filius Dei semper assuerit Patribus quodque vere nunc quoque Ecclesiae adsit, exaudiat & gubernet inuocantes ipsum, Sicut dicit in Euangelio, Ecce, ego vobiscum sum, &c.

Item, Ubicunque duo aut tres congregati sunt in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum. [Page 136-137] Item, Ascendit, ut set dona hominibus, &c.
Gene. 48. inquit Iacob de Christo, Angelus qui eripuit me ex omni malo, benedicat Pueris, &c.

Et Joh. 1. dicitur, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, &c

Et hic interest colloquio Angelorum apud Danielem.

Et Paulus inquit, Omnes bibebant de spirituali petra eos comitante, Petra autem erat Christus.

Sic nos statuere debemus adesse Christum, exaudire, iuuare, & gubernare nos, Idque vocat scriptura regnu Christi: sed infirmitas humanae mentis non potest sic intelligere Regum Christi cogitat de eo, tanquam de absente: non agente aliquid nobiscum. Sed his tenebris humanae rationis repugnandu est, & iuxta testimonia pro millionum, &c iuxta haec exempla credendum, Quod vere adsit nobis, exaudiat, & iuuet inuocantes ipsum.

Haec breviter adieci de Interprete vaticinii, que vocat Palmoi, id est, admirabilem quendam, sicut alibi Christus vocatur admirabilis consiliarius. [Page 137-138]

Est & illud considerandum, quod adese filius Dei, cum sit mentio summae calamitatis, ut significet se in illa iPsalms calamitate futurum esse in excubiis, Sicut infra inquit, In illo tempore Michael, qui stat pro Filiis populi, &c. Haec est magna consolatio, praesertim hoc tempore, scire, quod Christus sit in excubiis pro nobis. ..." [Pages 136-138]

"... [Page 214] Alii aliter de sententia huius capitis disputant, sed iudico hanc esse simplicissma enarroationem. Adfuit autem bono angel dux Michale, quem cum him & infra uocet ducem po- [Page 214-215] puli dei, intelligo esse ipsum filium dei, λόγοις, ut a Ioanne nominatur. Hunc ducem & supra scribit interesse colloquio in capite octavo, ubi angelus ab illo domino petit interpretationem visionis.

Adesse cum & in hoc colloquio, ac Danielis labra attingere, & consternatum recreare, adparet. Semper enim adfuisse filium dei ecclesiae, eamque, defendisse contra furorem diaboli, certum est. Ideo Ioannes inquit, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Loquitur enim non tantum de conditione rerum, sed etiam de gloriosis liberationibus, ecclesiae. Texit populum in mari rubro, & in deserto, Defendit Iosue, Gedeonem, Samuelem, Davidem, Eliam, Elisaeum, & alios fideles gubernatores sui populi.

Ideo inquit Iacob, Benedicat his pueris angelus, qui me eripuit ex omnibus malis. Haec uerba conueniunt ad filium dei, qui uere liberat ab omnibus malis, uidelicet a peccato, ab ira dei, a morte aeterna, ab insidiis diaboli. Non enim sine eaussa nominatim dicitur, ab omnibus malus. Haec gloria non potest tribui ministris angelus, qui etiamsi protegunt corpora piorum, tame nec peccatum nec aeternam mortem tollere possunt. ..." [Pages 214-215]

"... [Page 370] TERTIA consolatio, quod in his tantis periculis habitura sit ecclesia defensorem filium dei. Ideo hic in textu dicitur, Illo tempore stabit Micael dux magnus pro filiis populi sui.

Hac voce omnes pii se confirment, quam quidem & Christus ipse nobis inculcat, inquiens, Ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem mundi. In tanta dissipatione, in tanti aerumnis, pii videntur deserti a deo. ..." [Page 370]

"... [Page 371] Dixi autem supra, semper adfuisse filium dei ecclesiae suae. Ideo hic vocatur dux magnus Micael, sic enim nominat filium dei. Adpellatio nota est. Quis sicut deus, id est, quantus est hic, qui est sicut deus, qui est imago aeterni patris, potens, misericors, liberator, vindex. ..."
[Page 371]

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News