Are Jehovah’s witnesses actually Christian?

[ViaCrucis]

I don’t know if this is the right place to post the Thread. But anyway Are Jehovah’s witnesses actually Christian according to God? I think so even though i don’t like their shunning practices but do you think they Are Christian?

They stand in diametric opposition to some of the most elementary doctrines of the Christian faith. Thus from the perspective of the historic Christian Church, they stand outside of the faith as heretics, those who have separated themselves from the true faith as confessed down through the ages from the beginning.

A Lutheran and a Jehovah's Witness cannot even confess the same Lord Jesus Christ, for the Lutheran receives that Christ is true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same Being with the Father; but the Jehovah's Witness states that Christ is a sub-divine creature. Because of this there is no confession between the two, and therefore no fellowship or communion can exist between us in matters of faith. And while I've used Lutheran here as an example because both of us are Lutheran, it would be just as valid to put any other historically orthodox Christian denomination or tradition here: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, et al. For all the above confess the one and same Jesus Christ, eternally-begotten Son of the Father made flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. But, again, the Jehovah's Witness says another thing entirely.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I had no idea. A pole? Nailed to a pole or...?

They aggressively insist that the Greek word stauros can only refer to an upright stake or pole, and not to a cross. As they insist the cross is an evil pagan symbol (and thus one of their "evidences" that historic, orthodox Christianity has gone all apostate and what not).

In spite of the fact, of course, that the word stauros was regularly used to describe the instrument for crucifixion regardless of its shape, hence we have writers who use stauros who specifically use it to designate the T-shaped cross. As we know the Romans employed various forms of the crux/stauros, from a simple upright pole or gibbet, or to a gibbet affixed with a crossbeam, or to two crossed poles. Basically the cross shapes used were |, T, t, and X; and Christians have historically described Christ's instrument as being either a T or t-shaped cross. On account that the Gospels speak of Christ carrying His cross, which would have likely just been the cross-beam, not the gibbet. It was a lot more efficient to keep the gibbet up and re-use it, the victim would then carry their cross-beam (if they had one). It would be impractical to have the victim carry the entire cross (gibbet and crossbeam), or to carry just the gibbet. The Romans were cruel, but they were efficient in their cruelty.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[revybub]

No they are not Christian. They do not believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the flesh. Blessings.

bingo

 

[The Liturgist]

Ok then.
I made the post, not the Roman Catholic Church
holding to the 3 ecumenical creeds automatically makes one a Christian?
if both these groups profess heresies, and the JW profess heresies, what's the difference between the 3 groups?
so how much difference in needed? In terms of salvation, is being a little different better than being a lot different?

The problem with your argument and others like it is that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East (who receive members from each other without even Chrismation, on the basis of profession of faith, or at least are supposed to, according to ancient canon law, and the Roman church regards the sacraments of the Eastern churches and, I think, the Polish National Catholic Church as valid, and the Eastern Orthodox will usually receive Roman Catholic priests who convert by vesting, rather than re-ordination, and the reverse is certainly true as Rome accepts the Holy Orders of the Eastern churches), while not generally accepting Lutheran or Anglican ordinations as valid (although the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, whose Ukrainian Canadian primate, Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral, sadly reposed in the Lord last month, may his memory be eternal, as recently as the 1940s received Anglican priests by vesting), do generally accept their baptisms, the exceptions being some Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions who are not in communion with the canonical churches they derisively refer to as “World Orthodoxy”, and some Ethiopian Orthodox.

On the other hand, the baptisms of Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are positively not accepted, not to mention the Oneness Pentecostals (who aside from being Sabellian also ignore the Dominical commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost), and other related cults, like Christian Science and the Unitarians.

Now in the Early Church, Arians were received by Profession of Faith, however, my understanding (which may be in error) is that Arians did baptize using the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19, the nature of the Arian heresy being a rejection of the Christian understanding of Who and What the Father, Son and Holy Ghost actually were. More importantly, it must be remembered that the majority of Christian bishops in the East were deposed and in many cases exiled by Emperor Constantius, and the official religion of the Roman Empire from the start of his reign until the coronation of Emperor Theodosius I was Arianism rather than Christianity. As such, a large number, perhaps half, at least a quarter, of the newly converted Christians of the Roman Empire were lead astray and actively embraced the Arian religion. This was a staggering number of people, whose souls the Christian Church wanted to rescue, hence, it was made as easy as possible for them to convert back. This also came in handy when Christian rule was restored and the trickle of people disapostatizing turned into a torrent.

Now, at present, given that thankfully these cults are relatively small compared to the Nicene Christian denominations, there is no need for such an act of pastoral oikonomia.

For the record, I really like the ChristianForums.com definition of the Christian religious identity.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe what the Church and Scripture teaches. Water Baptism is what makes one a Christian.

According to your posts, you believe one can be a Christian without water baptism. So do the JW. I don't see why your response are so defensive.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. I would assume however that you make exceptions for the Baptism of Blood, where someone desiring to baptized into the Church is martyred for expressing such a desire (this is unfortunately not uncommon in the Middle East), or the Baptism of Desire, where someone dies after having been initiated as a catechumen? In the Orthodox Church, catechumens receive regular Orthodox funerals. If these and other related doctrinal positions which I believe are official in the Roman Catholic Church and which I believe in are taken into account, then we are on the same page.

In fact I take a dim view of both the Salvation Army and many varieties of Quakers for not celebrating Baptism or the Eucharist. Most Christians agree these are ordinances. I can think of no good reason for the Salvation Army, given its Methodist origins and given that Wesley believed that Holy Communion should be received at least once a week and that Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, not to celebrate these sacraments. I understand the theological reason why traditional Quakers did not baptize or celebrate the Eucharist, which is a misguided belief on an “inward communion,” but I also disagree with it and attribute to it the increasing number of Friends whose beliefs seem to be the same as the Unitarian Universalists. The exception of course is to be found in the Evangelical Friends, who do celebrate baptism and the Eucharist while retaining the distinctive Waiting Worship.

 

[concretecamper]

Ok, I see where you are coming from. I would assume however that you make exceptions for the Baptism of Blood, where someone desiring to baptized into the Church is martyred for expressing such a desire (this is unfortunately not uncommon in the Middle East), or the Baptism of Desire, where someone dies after having been initiated as a catechumen? In the Orthodox Church, catechumens receive regular Orthodox funerals. If these and other related doctrinal positions which I believe are official in the Roman Catholic Church and which I believe in are taken into account, then we are on the same page.

Yes, Baptism of Blood is closely related to Baptism of Desire and it applies only to catechumens who have yet to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

What concerns me about our brothers and sisters in Christ is that those protestant denominations that don't view Baptism as a necessary Sacrament do not have the proper intent when being Baptized. Without the proper intent, the sacrament is invalid.

 

[concretecamper]

For the record, I really like the ChristianForums.com definition of the Christian religious identity.

IMO, that definition misses the mark.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, Baptism of Blood is closely related to Baptism of Desire and it applies only to catechumens who have yet to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

What concerns me about our brothers and sisters in Christ is that those protestant denominations that don't view Baptism as a necessary Sacrament do not have the proper intent when being Baptized. Without the proper intent, the sacrament is invalid.

I agree with your concerns about people not regarding Baptism as necessary. This was not the traditional view in Protestantism.

Now, regarding the Baptism of Blood, the Coptic Orthodox Church recently recognized as a martyr a Ghanaian man who was held at gunpoint with a group of 20 Coptic contract workers. He may or may not have been a Christian, but upon seeing the Copts beheaded, either declared “I am Christian” or “Their God is my God” and received a crown of martyrdom. There have been other cases where people have been martyred who have not formally been inducted into the Catechumenate and are venerated as saints. One particularly notable example would be the Holy Innocents (admittedly a special case, but still, worth considering).

Of course this does not in any way diminish your argument about the vital importance of Baptism. These are all special cases. The Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire are rare. For someone who has developed faith in the Lord, they should hasten to the font.

However, I do believe God is infinitely loving and merciful, and so, for example, while I think emergency baptisms ought to be performed on any infant whose health is in danger, I reject the concept of Limbo or the even more unpleasant Augustinian notion that infants who die unbaptized are damned. Given miscarriages, abortions and so on, this seems difficult, and also contrary to the Age of Account we see in the Old Testament.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like St. Augustine, but I feel he is over-read at the expense not only of the Greek and Syriac fathers, but also other Latin fathers whose work in many cases was more interesting and more doctrinally consistent with the consensus patrum. For just a few Latin Fathers that I think we should read more of, in lieu of St. Augustine, I would suggest St. Isidore of Seville, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose of Milan (who did baptize St. Augustine and also wrote some of the earliest Latin hymns and introduced Eastern style antiphonal hymns (of the sort Tradition tells us were developed by St. Ignatius of Antioch after he dreamt of two choirs of angels singing alternately), so as to keep the spirits up of the laity during the legendary vigil successfully held in a basilica in Milan to keep Emperor Theodosius from handing it over to the Arians as s conciliatory gesture. And then I would go on to suggest the great and gifted St. Vincent of Lerins, who eloquently defined Catholicity in one of the most memorable quotes of any Church Fater:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Churchthroughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holyancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Then we have the greatest Pope since St. Clement I, Pope St. Gregory the Great, not only a famous writer of spiritual dialogues (the Greek Orthodox venerate him as St. Gregory Diologos), but a great composer and hymnographer (Gregorian Chant is named in his honor), and as an immensely talented liturgist who wrote the core text of the Presanctified Liturgy used in the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day on weekdays in Lent and Holy Week, except Maundy Thursday and Great and Holy Friday, and which was also used as the core text of the Mass of the Presanctified served on Good Friday in the Roman Catholic Church until 1955, when Pope Pius XII completely rewrote it.

Finally, I especially think people should read St. John Cassian more; his work has become terribly neglected in the West, whereas in the East his Conferences are still regarded as vital works fit for reading in the Trapeza, and the Orthodox also rely on his refutation of Pelagius instead of the more problematic Augustinian refutation; St. John Cassian does not postulate that original sin is transmitted from the parents to their offspring by concupiscence, but is instead ancestral, and this avoids a large number of theological complexities while obliterating Pelagius even more thoroughly by attacking his pernicious humanist doctrine of do-it-yourself-salvation using additional arguments and perspectives against the notorious heretic.

 

[The Liturgist]

IMO, that definition misses the mark.

I am not arguing that it is a perfect declaration of Orthodoxy, but rather that by combining the Nicene Creed with a prohibition on certain other common heresies of the moment, for example, denying the apostolate of St. Paul, it creates a workable definition of who is a Christian vs. who is a member of a heretical sect the nature of which can be agreed on by all concerned.

I myself have found it useful in defining normative Christianity. The problem is, we do have schisms; I would like these schisms to be healed (I am in a sense an ecumenist, (although I don’t think the World Council of Churches is well equipped to facilitate ecumenical renewal; on the contrary, their initiatives seem to be causing division, and I think the RCC was right not to join them, and the Church of Georgia was right to leave in 1998).

 

[concretecamper]

I am not arguing that it is a perfect declaration of Orthodoxy, but rather that by combining the Nicene Creed with a prohibition on certain other common heresies of the moment, for example, denying the apostolate of St. Paul, it creates a workable definition of who is a Christian vs. who is a member of a heretical sect the nature of which can be agreed on by all concerned.

I myself have found it useful in defining normative Christianity. The problem is, we do have schisms; I would like these schisms to be healed (I am in a sense an ecumenist, (although I don’t think the World Council of Churches is well equipped to facilitate ecumenical renewal; on the contrary, their initiatives seem to be causing division, and I think the RCC was right not to join them, and the Church of Georgia was right to leave in 1998).

St Paul give a great definition of Christian and it includes Water Baptism. Any definition that excludes the necessity of it is lacking and it has eternal consequences.

I may have missed your point. I'm not referring to heresy or schisms. Heresy or Schism doesn't make a Christian a non-Christian

 

[Sophrosyne]

JW's also don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus of which Thomas testified of it as true.

 

[The Liturgist]

St Paul give a great definition of Christian and it includes Water Baptism. Any definition that excludes the necessity of it is lacking and it has eternal consequences.

I may have missed your point. I'm not referring to heresy or schisms. Heresy or Schism doesn't make a Christian a non-Christian

I think we are on the same page, again provided special circumstances recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox churches concerning martyrs and people who die intending to be baptized who cannot be convicted of spiritual sloth are taken into account.

 

[The Liturgist]

JW's also don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus of which Thomas testified of it as true.

Indeed, that makes them Docetic and Arian at the same time. Its like they’re trying to accumulate as many heresies as possible.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Indeed, that makes them Docetic and Arian at the same time. Its like they’re trying to accumulate as many heresies as possible.

The "prophets" of these groups must have been very charismatic to draw large enough groups of people to sustain the mess over time.

 

[concretecamper]

I think we are on the same page, again provided special circumstances recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox churches concerning martyrs and people who die intending to be baptized who cannot be convicted of spiritual sloth are taken into account.

baptism by blood or desire MUST be accompanied by an explicit desire for baptism.

 

[The Liturgist]

baptism by blood or desire MUST be accompanied by an explicit desire for baptism.

Absolutely! We are of one accord. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

(Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, both now and ever, and unto the ages of all ages, Amen).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

They also believe the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ, which your denomination also maintains, but which is rejected by most other churches as we have discussed..

Early Adventists also largely denied the Trinity prior to the reforms of Ellen G. White, who to her credit insisted the Trinity doctrine be adhered to.

So in some respects, J/Ws look like non-Sabbatarian early Millerite Adventists, including with their inaccurate predictions of specific dates on which the world would end, and now that tney have moved past doing that, they resemble some Adventists who reject Ellen G White’s teaching on the Trinity.

Of course the big difference is that the Adventist church was never a high control group practicing shunning like the J/Ws, and even before the reforms of Ellen G. White there were Trinitarian Adventists, and Adventist pastors have always been free to preach what they want rather than sermon produced centrally. And the Adventists favor the KJV and other reputable translations.

So really it looks to me like the J/W leadership actually intentionally ripped off early Adventism, perhaps with the hopes of converting Adventists who were unhappy with the reforms introduced by Ellen White, which did not happen, but it did provide them with a seemingly novel scriptural interpretation which they essentially stole from your tradition.

Note this post is not intended to criticize the SDA movement or even the early Adventist movement; while we obviously disagree on the identity of the Archangel Michael, the SDA denomination is a normal Christian Church, whereas J/Ws are an evil cult which has stolen some ideas from the early Millerite Adventists, and some ideas were also stolen from Mormonism, who I was once told the SDAs were actively trying to convert to Christianity through ecumenical dialogue in the 1990s (I wish that had worked but unfortunately the Mormon leadership unlike the SDA leadership is not motivated by Truth but by Greed).

By the way I recently attended an Adventist hospital after an atheist assaulted me, and it was the best hospital visit I have had in years.

Your post here is very misleading and perhaps you have a misunderstanding as to what we believe in regards to Christ as "Michael the archangel" but allow me to explain why if it might be helpful so there is no misunderstandings.

Firstly, SDA's do not believe Jesus is an Angel God and the God of creation with the father who created all things in heaven and earth. So to claim that SDA's have the same believe as JW here is misleading because JW do not believe Jesus is God. SDA's believe that "Michael the archangel" is a term that refers to Jesus not because he is a created angel because he is not he is God and in charge of the angels. This understanding comes from the Hebrew and Greek word meanings which simply means "Michael" - who is like God; "archangel" - chief messenger in charge.

Now that this is out of the way so there is no misunderstandings as to what we believe. You might find this interesting...

MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

Protestant views Michael (archangel) - Wikipedia

Statue at St. Michaelis Church, Hamburg

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[54][55]
2. Hengstenberg with others[56][57][58]
3. Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn][59]
4. Jacobus Ode, Campegius Vitringa, Sr.[60][61][62]
5. Philip Melanchthon, Broughton, Junius, Calvin, Hävernick[63]
6. Polanus, Genevens, Oecolampadius & others[64], Adam Clarke[65]
7. Bishop Horsely[66][67]
8. Cloppenburgh, Vogelsangius, Pierce and others (Horsely)[68]
9. John (Jean) Calvin[69][70]
10. Isaac Watts, John Bunyan, Brown's Dictionary, James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary[71]
11. and many others[72]
12. for even before them, the Jewish commentators, such as Wetstein, Surenhusius, etc[73].

In the 19th Century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon[74][75] stated that Jesus is "the true Michael" [76][77] and “the only Archangel”,[78] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[74]

Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.[79] Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.[80][81]

(Note: The above was the original article from wiki. It has since changed and been deleted the early list of protestant reformers that believed Michael the Arch Angel referred to Jesus. The article seems to have been re-written). The original wiki article can be found here linked

Michael continues to be recognized[specify][vague][who?]among Protestants by key churches dedicated to him, e.g., St. Michaelis Church, Hamburg and St. Michael's Church, Hildesheim, each of which is of the Lutheran Church and has appeared in the Bundesländer series of €2 commemorative coins for 2008 and 2014 respectively.

In Bach's time, the annual feast of Michael and All the Angels on 29 September was regularly celebrated with a festive service, for which Bach composed several cantatas, for example the chorale cantata Herr Gott, dich loben alle wir, BWV 130 in 1724, Es erhub sich ein Streit, BWV 19, in 1726 and Man singet mit Freuden vom Sieg, BWV 149, in 1728 or 1729.

Seventh-day Adventists

See also: Seventh-day Adventist, beliefs about Michael and Pre-existence of Christ

Seventh-day Adventists, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[82]

Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.[83]

Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.[84] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"]

In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.[85] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")[86] And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.[85] Because of this belief that the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one in the same, many mainstream theologians and academics[specify][vague][who?] in the field of Judeo-Christian history place Seventh Day Adventists in a unique category as a branch of, yet outside, mainstream Christianity.

………….

The references above from Wiki were the common view from the reformers and were a common belief during the reformation period and is biblical. It came about from an evaluation of the Hebrew and Greek "Michael the archangel" JUDE 1:9; DANIEL 10:21; 1 THESSALONIANS 4:16. It is not saying that Michael the archangel is a litteral created winged angel as most know the term. It means a messenger like God who is the chief of the angels or messengers from God. All those reformers and those listed in the OP believe that JESUS is God and the Chief of the angels and host of heaven.

MICHAEL;מיכאל ; mı̂ykâ'êl From H4310 and (the prefixed derivation from) H3588 and H410; who (is) like God ?; Mikael, the name of an archangel and of nine Israelites: - Michael.

ANGEL; מלאך; mal'âk; From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

ARCHANGEL; ἀρχάγγελος; archaggelos From G757 and G32; chief of the angels: - archangel.

Blessings.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your post here is very misleading and perhaps you have a misunderstanding as to what we believe in regards to Christ as "Michael the archangel" but allow me to explain why if it might be helpful so there is no misunderstandings.

Firstly, SDA's do not believe Jesus is an Angel God and the God of creation with the father who created all things in heaven and earth. So to claim that SDA's have the same believe as JW here is misleading because JW do not believe Jesus is God. SDA's believe that "Michael the archangel" is a term that refers to Jesus not because he is a created angel because he is not he is God and in charge of the angels. This understanding comes from the Hebrew and Greek word meanings which simply means "Michael" - who is like God; "archangel" - chief messenger in charge.

Now that this is out of the way so there is no misunderstandings as to what we believe. You might find this interesting...

MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

Protestant views Michael (archangel) - Wikipedia

Statue at St. Michaelis Church, Hamburg

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[54][55]
2. Hengstenberg with others[56][57][58]
3. Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn][59]
4. Jacobus Ode, Campegius Vitringa, Sr.[60][61][62]
5. Philip Melanchthon, Broughton, Junius, Calvin, Hävernick[63]
6. Polanus, Genevens, Oecolampadius & others[64], Adam Clarke[65]
7. Bishop Horsely[66][67]
8. Cloppenburgh, Vogelsangius, Pierce and others (Horsely)[68]
9. John (Jean) Calvin[69][70]
10. Isaac Watts, John Bunyan, Brown's Dictionary, James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary[71]
11. and many others[72]
12. for even before them, the Jewish commentators, such as Wetstein, Surenhusius, etc[73].

In the 19th Century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon[74][75] stated that Jesus is "the true Michael" [76][77] and “the only Archangel”,[78] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[74]

Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.[79] Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.[80][81]

Michael continues to be recognized[specify][vague][who?]among Protestants by key churches dedicated to him, e.g., St. Michaelis Church, Hamburg and St. Michael's Church, Hildesheim, each of which is of the Lutheran Church and has appeared in the Bundesländer series of €2 commemorative coins for 2008 and 2014 respectively.

In Bach's time, the annual feast of Michael and All the Angels on 29 September was regularly celebrated with a festive service, for which Bach composed several cantatas, for example the chorale cantata Herr Gott, dich loben alle wir, BWV 130 in 1724, Es erhub sich ein Streit, BWV 19, in 1726 and Man singet mit Freuden vom Sieg, BWV 149, in 1728 or 1729.

Seventh-day Adventists

See also: Seventh-day Adventist, beliefs about Michael and Pre-existence of Christ

Seventh-day Adventists, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[82]

Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.[83]

Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.[84] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"]

In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.[85] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")[86] And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.[85] Because of this belief that the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one in the same, many mainstream theologians and academics[specify][vague][who?] in the field of Judeo-Christian history place Seventh Day Adventists in a unique category as a branch of, yet outside, mainstream Christianity.

………….

The references above from Wiki were the common view from the reformers and were a common belief during the reformation period and is biblical. It came about from an evaluation of the Hebrew and Greek "Michael the archangel" JUDE 1:9; DANIEL 10:21; 1 THESSALONIANS 4:16. It is not saying that Michael the archangel is a litteral created winged angel as most know the term. It means a messenger like God who is the chief of the angels or messengers from God. All those reformers and those listed in the OP believe that JESUS is God and the Chief of the angels and host of heaven.

MICHAEL;מיכאל ; mı̂ykâ'êl From H4310 and (the prefixed derivation from) H3588 and H410; who (is) like God ?; Mikael, the name of an archangel and of nine Israelites: - Michael.

ANGEL; מלאך; mal'âk; From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

ARCHANGEL; ἀρχάγγελος; archaggelos From G757 and G32; a chief angel: - archangel.

Blessings.

Well if Martin Luther and John Calvin actually believed that St. Michael was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (and I will say right now I would be shocked if they held such a view) which I believe is firmly disproven by scripture, this would not be the only time I find myself disagreeing with them. Calvin, for example, was an avowed iconoclast who regarded icons as idolatry, who denied the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and was also opposed to the existence of the liturgical calendar, and was opposed to monasticism, and Luther thought, among other things, that the Roman Canon should be removed from the Eucharist, which had prompted other Lutherans since him to seriously degrade the quality of their Eucharistic liturgy with an unwarranted War on the Anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer, and by the way, the Anglicans and Calvinists retained the Anaphora, so I have no idea where Luther was coming from, and Luther was also an anti-Semite, to an extreme and horrible extent, and he also believed he had the authority to insert a word into the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and got away with it, while his desire to remove James, Jude, Hebrew, Romans and Esther from the Bible was thwarted. So I disagree with both of them, on a great many things, and so in the event you are right, well, that’s one more thing I disagree with them about.

I will say I’ve never met a Lutheran or a Calvinist who claimed Jesus and St. Michael were the same person, so if this was their view, it did not catch on.

As far as Bishop Robert Clayton is concerned, he was an Arian heretic, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who attempted to remove the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds from the liturgy of the Anglican Church of Ireland, and consequently was facing a trial for heresy at which he surely would have been convicted, deposed and probably sent to prison, given that Anglicanism was the State Church in the Kingdom of Ireland (which was in personal union with Great Britain, and would unite forming the United Kingdom around 1800) in the 18th century, however, he died of natural causes before the trial could begin.

I will also state the Anglicans and the Lutherans celebrate, along with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the Feast of St. Michael and All the Angels on September 29th, also known as Michaelmas.

Lastly, as far as Charles Spurgeon is concerned, he is not one of my favorite theologians; the Baptists admire him but I am not a Baptist and I reject nearly all of his doctrines.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way @LoveGodsWord your post made a misleading claim regarding Martin Luther; I just looked into the matter and it is clear that the Lutheran doctrine is actually much more nuanced: Michael is used to refer to Christ on some occasions and on other occasions, such as in Jude, refers to a created archangel. This view is also not universally held among Lutherans, with some, probably most, adhering to the more traditional Patristic exegesis that St. Michael always refers to one of the four Archangels (the others being Saints Gabriel, Rafael and Uriel).

I think the comments of @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch on this issue might come in handy.

I have a great love for Lutheranism even if Martin Luther himself occasionally annoys me (and I do think he was well intentioned at first, and I think regarding some of his later questionable conduct, there is some strong historical evidence suggesting he suffered from poisoning from exposure to lead, mercury or mold, which would account for the disparity we see between the brilliance of the 95 Theses and the disturbing quality of On The Jews and Their Lies).

Also whereas the SDA position that Michael always refers to our Lord strikes me as lacking in theological viability, I can understand the logic behind the Lutheran position, even though I disagree with it.

 

[The Liturgist]

The references above from Wiki were the common view from the reformers and were a common belief during the reformation period

Umm no, since Knox, Zwingli, and most importantly the great Anglicans such as Archbishop Cranmer, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, Archbishop Laud et cetera, who represent the apex of pre-Wesleyan Protestant theology, as well as the first and most venerable Protestant reformers, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are the only Protestants venerated as saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, rejected this doctrine, as did the Swedish Lutherans from what I can tell, which means this doctrine was held at most by some German Lutherans and possibly some Continental Calvinists, but in a mitigated form in which they believed that Michael could refer to Christ but also to an Archangel, depending on scriptural context.

Also, as further evidence that this view was not the same as the Adventist view, dedicating a church to St. Michael if Michael is Christ would be obviously blasphemous, yet they did it.

It is clear the Lutheran position is different from the Adventist position which I already acknowledged is different from the J/W position, since the Adventists do not believe that our Lord is the Archangel Michael but that Michael is our Lord, a distinction that was previously lost on me.

However, the heretical Anglican bishop the article you cited mentioned, Robert Clayton, who like the J/Ws was an Arian, appears to believe that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person of the Trinity but the Archangel Gabriel and that Jesus Christ was not a divine person of the Trinity but the Archangel Michael, so thus he was not only Arian but Pnuematomacchian and thus held doctrines which directly contradict the correct Trinitarian doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.