Do Baptists still believe that Michael Archangel, is "Jesus", like others?

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Are you then saying that Charles Spurgeon and John Gill were not historic Baptists which stated that Jesus is Michael?

I am not quite sure what you are asking/saying then, if not, since as I understand it, both Charles Spurgeon [AD 19 June 1834 – AD 31 January 1892; "is known as the "Prince of Preachers". He was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition, defending the Church in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith understanding, and opposing the liberal and pragmatic theological tendencies in the Church of his day." [Link]] and John Gill [AD 23 November 1697 – AD 14 October 1771] were Historic Baptists, which indeed, made such statements, as cited in the OP, which is in total harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist understanding, based upon the Scriptures.

Please clarify. Thank you.

Click to expand...

The question is about whether Gill and Spurgeon are representative of the majority of historical Baptists, I and others have laid out enough evidence I feel to prove that they are not.

Bluelion said:

i must bow out, seems I am battling spirits of my own tonight.

Click to expand...

Praying for you.

tall73 said:

Praying for you.

Click to expand...

Wow tall thank you, I forget our spats after they happen, I think this shows you do to. What a great thing to be able to disagree, maybe make mistakes and yet work everything out in the end and still remain in Christ. Peace be with you.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Are you then saying that Charles Spurgeon and John Gill were not historic Baptists which stated that Jesus is Michael?

Click to expand...

1. Two people's belief does not prove that the Historical Baptists believed the same. That is for you to prove.

2. You are spinning their words to fit your doctrine. Just because by analogy Michael might have been used of the pre-incarnate Jesus does not prove that Michael is Jesus or that Jesus is Michael. Types are just that, types.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Do Baptists still believe that Michael Archangel, is "Jesus" [uncreated eternal God, the Son, For Who is as God, the First/Chief "Angel" [Messenger] of the Father], like many others Scripturally do?

Charles Spurgeon [Baptist]

"Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows." [Charles Spurgeon; Morning and Evening Daily Readings; page 556; Morning Devotion; October 3 on Hebrews 1:14] - October 3 : Spurgeon's Morning Devotional : HEARTLIGHT®

"Michael will always fight; his holy soul is vexed with sin, and will not endure it. Jesus will always be the dragon’s foe, and that not in a quiet sense, but actively, vigorously, with full determination to exterminate evil." [Charles Spurgeon; Morning and Evening Daily Readings; page 673; Evening Devotion; November 30 on Revelaton 12:7] - Spurgeon's Evening Devotional - November 30

John Gill [English Baptist Scholar]

"Another prophecy in Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3. represents the second and personal coming of Christ ; for he is meant by Michael, who is as God, as his name signifies, equal to him ; the great prince, the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers." [A Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987 reprint, page 617; or A Body of Doctrinal Divinity; Book 7—Chapter 5; Of the Second Coming of Christ, and His Personal Appearance; section 1b2] - 5. Of the Second Coming of Christ, and His Personal Appearance.

"Yet Michael the archangel, &c. By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan. 10:21, 12:1; Revelation 12:7. So Philo the Jew {o} calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Jude verse 9] - John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - Jude 1

"Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: by whom is meant not a created angel, with whom his name does not agree, it signifying "who is as God"; nor does it appear that there is anyone created angel that presides over the rest, and has them at his command. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Revelation 12:7] - John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - Revelation 12

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, &c. The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Daniel 12:1] - John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - Daniel 12
​

For the many "others" in reference [which would take too much space here], for Reformation and non, please see section [8] "The Protestant Reformation, The Roman Doctrine, before moving on" - [Link] before answering the question. Thank you!

Click to expand...

This is the first I have ever heard of this, but nothing surprises me anymore as to what people choose to believe. We do need to be cautious today just as those before were called to be cautious. Satan has always set out to deceive man by pointing him to another and he will even try harder as his time grows nearer.

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
(Matthew 24:23 KJV)

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Ok, but will you study the subject out? Will the Baptists [of the present] go to their Bibles, and study the uses of the words [like "Mal'ak" and "Aggelos", "Arche", "Sar", "Michael", "angel", "messenger", "apostle", etc, and even in their context to Jesus], the contexts, etc and asking for the Guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead one into all Truth?

If so, then God bless you.

Click to expand...

That Jesus is Michael or that Michael is Jesus is not a biblical truth.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Ok, would you say with me then, that Two Historical Baptists did believe certain things about the subject and made some pretty interesting comments about the whole thing, and even though Spurgeon did not directly equate, but that John Gill did do so?

Click to expand...

Is possible but improbable. In my opinion, both associated Michael with Jesus as a type not as the same person. This would be consistent with the Christological nature of the OT.

While Spurgeon did not directly equate, his statements, from "types" as you say, said, "Jesus is the True Michael" [see OP], therefore, from type to antitype, Jesus is the greater more real Michael Archangel [Who is as god, the Highest Messenger [of the love of the Father]], according to Spurgeon.

Click to expand...

I have an issue with stating that any other being other, than the triune God, is a god. A non-capitalize god is primarily used biblically to refer to pagan gods and such.

John Gill on the other hand, was direct.

Click to expand...

If that is what he is stating then this would not be the first time that I have disagreed with Gill.

Would you say that is a true understanding of the quotations already presented, in the light of others simply not yet presented?

Click to expand...

It's not my understanding. Spurgeon's quote points to typing while Gill is outside of scripture. Heck, later in his commentary on verse 9 Gill attempts to make the argument that it was not the body of Moses but that of Jesus that they were fighting over.

I will still contend that two people's belief (maybe) do not, in any way, exemplify the historical Baptist belief on this topic.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

So you say. Thank you for your statement, you must now agree with Roman Catholicisms position in it then?

Click to expand...

Is this intended to be an insult? What is the SDA's obsession with the RCC? You know, this IS the Baptist forum where Baptist beliefs are discussed not the RCC beliefs. My belief is in agreement with the Baptist position, independent of the RCC position.

May I ask you/all a few questions?

Why reject the option that Jesus is Michael,<snip>

Click to expand...

Because is bad theology and is not biblical.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Why reject the option that Jesus is Michael, when there is nothing being subtracted from the Deity of Jesus, ...
Why reject the option that Jesus is Michael, ...

Click to expand...

I am responding because you posed these question to "all" here. This is why I reject your argument

BECAUSE - this detracts from the nature of CHRIST by making him equal to, rather than superior to angels and denies the nature of the trinity.

BECAUSE - this is heretical teaching that is not consistent with our beliefs.

BECAUSE - this is based on the teachings of false prophets such as Ellen G. White (AND YES - she does fail as a prophet because of failures of her prophecies Does Mrs. White pass the Biblical Tests of a Prophet?)

BECAUSE - teachings and studies such as this lead away from the truth that God wants us to know and this subject already has been rejected by so many others that are much more qualified than most of the people who post here.

BECAUSE - you began by asking a question on our beliefs and when you didn't receive the response or consideration of the idea that you want - you are now trying to persuade us to accept your argument by Proof Texting of scripture and other texts.

If you want to debate this - then maybe it should be under the Formal Debate, Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion, or the Progressive/Moderate Adventist Faith Group.

I don't speak for the other 5-6 people that have responded to you, but I personally am irritated that you keep trying to persuade us of your position.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Thank you for those that have replied as they have however. As a comment of observation, it seems as if it is true that the Baptists [presently] have abandoned what the Baptists, based upon the Scripture, previously [Historically] taught.

Click to expand...

Which scriptures teach this ?

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Would any mind if I ask some specific questions on Revelation 12 about Michael?

Click to expand...

Why don't you first answer the question of how Jesus could be "one of the chief princes"?

SGC, Hank Hanigraf has been working with the leaders of your church, spelled with a small c because you do not follow Jesus, to help them to teach the followers to become members of the Church. As an SDA you have no right here if you continue seeking to pull the Baptist faithful away and that is what you are attempting, making you a troll. You asked a question, received several Bible based answers, were asked a question and you have, in Troll Fashion, not answered.

You are therefore Trolling and not worthy of further conversation. Conversation is best defined by a term oft avoided but I use it here, attempting to wake you up. Conversation is verbal intercourse and any form of intercourse requires no less that two people giving equally. You are failing the definition so either speak when spoken to or go home and home is, for you, not in the Baptist Forum.