So Adventists don't think Jesus is an angel but that the Jesus was disguised as the archangel? I would disagree (if I am correct about Adventist beliefs) with their interpretation, but is this a heresy? Why? Did early Adventists believe Jesus was fully divine? Did the doctrine of Michael evolve into being a mere "title" of Christ as SDA Shawn Boonstra is telling to his audience?
Right now there is a discussion going on amongst the former SDAs about what the nature of Christ and their Clear Word Bible's teaching on Michael the Archangel. Some and posting quotes from Ellen White about Jesus being a created being. But the 28 fundamentals of the SDA church states that they believe in the full divinity of Christ (as does Shawn in the clip.
throwing in as part of the discussion, but I have no idea if it is historically correct.
2 comments:
I have recently RUN AWAY from Armstrongism after discovering the long history of false prophets that led to Herbert W. Armstrong and his false teachings i.e. Miller, White, G.G. Rupert....
I just formed The True Doctrine of Christ Foundation to discover for myself what the Truth is DIRECTLY from the words of Christ and the Apostles....and I am finding the truth is often the opposite of what I have been told.
I would enjoy linking you to my website that is under construction now.
My blog is; www.thetruedoctrineofchrist.blogspot.com and linked through Banned.
Keep up the good work!
Michael Maynard, Founder, Writer
The True Doctrine of Christ Foundation
Mr. Boonstra is not accurate when he claims the Scriptures don't mention any other archangels. The Book of Daniel (which Boonstra quotes) is explicit that there are additional Princes that are "CLASSED" like Michael.
Daniel 10, 13
Douay Rheimes
"And behold Michael, ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES".
King James
"but lo Michael, ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES"
Message Bible
"But then Michael, ONE OF THE CHIEF ANGEL-PRINCES"
For Seventh-day Adventists familiar with Ellen White Shawn Boonstra's musings on what he thinks the Bible says about arch-angels is worthless as Ellen White was explicit that "LUCIFER" was also an archangel & in additional to Michael & Lucifer there were additional arch-angels.
"Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence". Ellen White / Signs of the Times September 14, 1882
Again, the point is pounded home in 1941
"The first rebellion, or sin, which is transgression of the divine law (i John 3:4), originated in a leader of the angels, one high in the administration of God's government. It was an archangel who, through pride in his brilliancy, fell, and so committed himself to an age-long controversy with his Maker"
http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/STAUS/STAUS19410908-V56-36__C.pdf#search=%22
Ellen White
"Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}
There are many additional affirmations Ellen made pertaining to archangels (plural). In the end it's fairly easy to demonstrate what the SDA's meant about this subject. Lucifer "could have sinned" and indeed Lucifer DID SIN. The same rubric was applied to Christ - the SDA's maintained "HE COULD HAVE SINNED" and subsequently lost His salvation & had that happened "GOD" would have annihilated Christ eternally and made it as if He never existed in the 1st place.
In fact every translation
Post a Comment