Why I am Skeptical Regarding SDA Arguments

[Lee Freeman]

Put simply, because they routinely misquote and /or spin quotations by Christian leaders such as William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Amos Binney, and Alexander Campbell on their websites, attempting to make it look like these men either supported Saturday Sabbath obervance or at the least saw nothing inherently wrong with it. I have pointed out specific instances in three threads here where SDA websites misquote or spin quotations in order to prove their point yet so far none of our SDA friends here have responded.

If I can't trust the SDA Church to accurately and honestly handle quotations by historical figures, why should I trust anything they say?

You can read two of the threads in which I have identified blatant SDA spin in Hobie's thread on Luther and Tyndale, and mine on how SDA Sites routinely misquote famous Christian leaders.

What say our SDA friends?

Pax.

[3AM]

What say our SDA friends?

Pax.

Well, I can't speak for other SDA's, I for one don't use any of the above mentioned men's quotations.

I much prefer to stick to the Bible, (I use the KJV, in case anyone wonders).

However, I won't deny that God may be used those mentioned men, in the cause of God, during their time period.

[Lee Freeman]

My point is that many SDA websites use deliberately edited quotes by these men in order to make it look like they endorsed Saturday Sabbath observance. If I can't trust these SDA sites to be honest in posting quotations by historical Christian figures, how can I trust anything else they say?

Certainly God used Tyndale, Luther, Binney and Campbell, but not to teach Saturday Sabbath observance or soul-sleep, because none of them endorsed or taught these doctrines.

Pax. 

[3AM]

My point is that many SDA websites use deliberately edited quotes by these men in order to make it look like they endorsed Saturday Sabbath observance. If I can't trust these SDA sites to be honest in posting quotations by historical Christian figures, how can I trust anything else they say?

Certainly God used Tyndale, Luther, Binney and Campbell, but not to teach Saturday Sabbath observance or soul-sleep, because none of them endorsed or taught these doctrines.

Pax. 

I agree with you on these issues.

Those above mentioned men, to my knowledge never , ever spoke on those issues.

The above mentioned men, still held to the RCC doctrines of the Immortal Soul, and Sunday Sacredness.

[Lee Freeman]

My point is that many SDA websites use deliberately edited quotes by these men in order to make it look like they endorsed Saturday Sabbath observance. If I can't trust these SDA sites to be honest in posting quotations by historical Christian figures, how can I trust anything else they say?

Certainly God used Tyndale, Luther, Binney and Campbell, but not to teach Saturday Sabbath observance or soul-sleep, because none of them endorsed or taught these doctrines.

Pax. 

I agree with you on these issues.

Those above mentioned men, to my knowledge never , ever spoke on those issues.

The above mentioned men, still held to the RCC doctrines of the Immortal Soul, and Sunday Sacredness.

What would you say then, to these SDA apologists who misquote and spin what these guys wrote to make it look as if they actively supported or at least saw nothing unscriptural, in Saturday Sabbath observances? Because Hobie and others have posted these kinds of articles here more than once. I'm not accusing them of dishonesty, only of not carefully checking their facts. The people who write these articles, on the other hand, should know better. Thus I'm skeptical about anything the SDA Church says because of their continued use of such propaganda. I'm not opposed to the SDA Church arguing its case, even though I disagree with it; that's their right. But don't spin the writings of others and use that as propaganda while arguing that case.

I'm not sure what you could do about it, but are you as an SDA bothered by this? Because I'm bothered when legalistic people in Churches of Christ twist the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pius XII, Benedict XVI, etc., to prove their points. I'd be annoyed if they misquoted William Miller or Ellen G. White.



Pax.

[3AM]

What would you say then, to these SDA apologists who misquote and spin what these guys wrote to make it look as if they actively supported or at least saw nothing unscriptural, in Saturday Sabbath observances?

I would tell them to stop trying to use, what isn't there.

Just use the Bible, as it contains all the useful information that is needed, for the Christian of today.
 If people won't believe what the Bible says, it is not their problem...it is the people's problem who won't believe what the Bible says....as the Bible will stand on its own.

 

Because Hobie and others have posted these kinds of articles here more than once.

I have noticed that Hobie gets carried away somewhat.
 And I admire his zeal, But he tries too hard to convince others of his position.

I'm not accusing them of dishonesty, only of not carefully checking their facts.

Some people cannot be convinced even when faced with the facts......just look at the religious leaders of Christ's day.

 

The people who write these articles, on the other hand, should know better. Thus I'm skeptical about anything the SDA Church says because of their continued use of such propaganda.

I would think that the SDA church, as an organization, would tell them to just stick to the Biblical facts.

 

I'm not opposed to the SDA Church arguing its case, even though I disagree with it; that's their right. But don't spin the writings of others and use that as propaganda while arguing that case.

Debating things I think is healthy, as long as both sides stay away from personal attacks.

I'm not sure what you could do about it, but are you as an SDA bothered by this?

Yes, somewhat.
 As I said, I admire his zeal, but why try so hard to convince people without the aid of the Holy Spirit, which alone can bring the truth, to a person's mind.

Because I'm bothered when legalistic people in Churches of Christ twist the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pius XII, Benedict XVI, etc., to prove their points. I'd be annoyed if they misquoted William Miller or Ellen G. White.
Pax.

I can see the value of using a quote from someone else, if it has validity to the subject at hand.....to further explain an idea.

BUT again, the final authority is the Bible.
 And an SDA should rely on that.

However, I will defend William Miller and E.G. White......ONLY, as they agree with what the Bible, has already said.

[Hobie]

Put simply, because they routinely misquote and /or spin quotations by Christian leaders such as William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Amos Binney, and Alexander Campbell on their websites, attempting to make it look like these men either supported Saturday Sabbath obervance or at the least saw nothing inherently wrong with it. I have pointed out specific instances in three threads here where SDA websites misquote or spin quotations in order to prove their point yet so far none of our SDA friends here have responded.

If I can't trust the SDA Church to accurately and honestly handle quotations by historical figures, why should I trust anything they say?

You can read two of the threads in which I have identified blatant SDA spin in Hobie's thread on Luther and Tyndale, and mine on how SDA Sites routinely misquote famous Christian leaders.

What say our SDA friends?

Pax.

If you look at their context you will see they said and meant what is in the quote, now as to how the church teaches now can be many ways so that is not how you would judge if the reformer said it or not. The second thing would be if it was just one phrase or paragraph or sentence but you can find the whole text and see the context and see what he was saying. The last thing is the vast amount of text that is available is giving insight to some of the reformers thoughts that the church today may like to keep out of sight, the fact its there may irritate but its still what they were thinking and wrote or said..

[Hobie]

The real issue is the truths of the Bible and I think this is just a excuse not to deal with the truths itself that is being presented, so its misdirection and covering over what is being shown rather than looking hard and digging deep for the truth.

[3AM]

The real issue is the truths of the Bible and I think this is just a excuse not to deal with the truths itself that is being presented, so its misdirection and covering over what is being shown rather than looking hard and digging deep for the truth.

There is a universal truth, and that is:

"Popular Error versus UnPopular Truth"

Most people don't want the truth of God, they want to make up their own truth.

As the Bible says: Isaiah  4:1   And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 

In other words, they want to be called Christians, BUT they want to do things their way, not God's.

[Lee Freeman]

Put simply, because they routinely misquote and /or spin quotations by Christian leaders such as William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Amos Binney, and Alexander Campbell on their websites, attempting to make it look like these men either supported Saturday Sabbath obervance or at the least saw nothing inherently wrong with it. I have pointed out specific instances in three threads here where SDA websites misquote or spin quotations in order to prove their point yet so far none of our SDA friends here have responded.

If I can't trust the SDA Church to accurately and honestly handle quotations by historical figures, why should I trust anything they say?

You can read two of the threads in which I have identified blatant SDA spin in Hobie's thread on Luther and Tyndale, and mine on how SDA Sites routinely misquote famous Christian leaders.

What say our SDA friends?

Pax.

If you look at their context you will see they said and meant what is in the quote, now as to how the church teaches now can be many ways so that is not how you would judge if the reformer said it or not. The second thing would be if it was just one phrase or paragraph or sentence but you can find the whole text and see the context and see what he was saying. The last thing is the vast amount of text that is available is giving insight to some of the reformers thoughts that the church today may like to keep out of sight, the fact its there may irritate but its still what they were thinking and wrote or said..

Hobie, the article you posted on Tyndale and Luther is nothing but spin. Neither Luther nor Tyndale ever advocated soul sleep. What the article does is manipulate what they actually wrote in order to make it seem like they believed in soul sleep. The article thus is intellectually dishonest in that it attempts to make Luther and Tyndale support a doctrine they were actually against.

The SDA does the same thing with Christian Church founder Alexander Campbell and Methodist pastor Rev. Amos Binney. I've posted threads examining each of these. You can read my thread on how the SDA Church spins Binney's comments in this forum.

As for Campbell, here's an example of how the SDA Church spins his writing, from the SDA website Sundaylaw.net, "Testimony from Leading Denomiations":

http://www.sundaylaw.net/opening/said.htm

The Church Of Christ

NOTE: The current official position of the Church of Christ is that the Sabbath was abolished entirely and Christians need not keep either Saturday or Sunday as a day of worship.

 "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day." DR. D. H. LUCAS, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890.

"The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change." First-Day Observance, pages 17, 19. 

"To command ... men ... to observe ... the Lord's day ... is contrary to the gospel."  Memoirs of Alexander Campbell," Vol. I, page 528. 

"It is clearly proved that the pastors of the churches have struck out one of God's ten words, which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality."   ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, "Debate With Purcell," page 214. 

"I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it." ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Washington Reporter, Oct.8, 1821. 

Reading this one would think that Campbell advocated Saturday Sabbath observances. But such is blatantly not true. Firstly, the Church of Christ does teach that Sunday is the day of Christian worship, but not because it is the Sabbath changed to another day. We observe Sunday as the Lord's Day because of passages in the NT which depict the NT church assembling on Sunday. Churches of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Disciples of Christ, Ind. Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ) have never, at any time, taught Sabath observance, either on Saturday or Sunday.

Secondly, the SDA quotations above are hatchet-jobs on what Campbell actually wrote. Below is some background on Campbell's views on the sabbath and the way SDA sites like the one above misquote him. What the SDA site above doesn't do is provide the full quotations-notice the many ellipses in one, nor do they provide the historical, social, and literary contexts of those quotes. Contexts which are crucial.

Regarding the quote from the Washington Reporter, what the above SDA site doesn't tell you is that Campbell, in a long series of essays, writing under the penname of Candiduus, was protesting an effort of Christian moral societies, who were at that time lobbying the federal government to enforce the 1794 Sunday/sabbath regulations. These laws attempted to make Sunday, the Lord's Day, a legal day of rest and worship throughout the United States on the grounds that America was a Christian nation and that Sunday was the "Christian Sabbath." Anyone who did not observe Sunday as the Sabbath was liable to be prosecuted. In his articles, which can be read on Dr. Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement site here:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/ce/CE00A.HTM

Campbell/Candidus argues against both Saturday Sabbath observance and the idea that Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath, moved from Saturday to Sunday. Campbell believes that the requirement that the sabbath be observed was done away with by Christ. Jesus is now the Christian's Sabbath rest. For Christians thus to observe Sunday as the Jews observed the Sabbath to Campbell was unscriptural, unChristian, and a profanation of the Lord's Day. Nevertheless Campbell grants Jews and sabbatarians the legal right to observe Saturday as their consciences dictate and their constitutional rights allow. He argues that for the US government to force groups such as Jews and sabbatarians to observe this Sunday/Sabbath law violates their consciences, their freedom of religion, and their civil rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Below is a large part of the article the SDA quotes from above, in context:


The popular doctrine taught from many pulpits which has given rise to the many errors of the religious publick, on the nature and observance of the Lords day, is that it came in room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. . . .

I do not believe that the Lords day came in room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day; for this plain reason; that where there is no testimony there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lords day came in the room of it; therefore, no man can properly believe that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lords day came in the room of it. As a great deal depends upon the truth of the preceding argument, we shall take some pains to illustrate it. . . .

The truth proved in the above syllogism may be exhibited in another form, thus - every thing that is believed upon human testimony alone, is received and acted upon by a mere human faith, but that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, or that the Lords day came in the room of it, is believed upon human testimony alone; therefore he that believes that the Sabbath was thus changed, &c. receives it upon a mere human faith. Amongst the conclusions resulting from the above are the following. 1st, The nature and obligation of the Lords day must be learned exclusively from the New- Testament. 2nd, That to observe the Lords day, as the Jews observed the Sabbath is not to observe the Lords day; or in other words if any man should exactly pay the same respect to the Lords day, as the most strict Jew, shewed to the Sabbath; he would not be acting as a christian, and the Lords day would be abused. 3d, That all measures which may be adopted to cause, or to compel, or to teach mankind to respect the Lords day as the Jews respected the Sabbath are anti-christian, and aim at the supplanting of christianity, and the substituting of Judaism in its stead. 4th, That all the arguments which have been used by my opponents, to transfer a portion of that respect, shewn to the Sabbath, to the Lords day, are inapplicable, inconclusive and grossly sophistical.

CANDIDUS (Alexander Campbell). (The Reporter, 8 October 1821, p. 4.)

Campbell thus argues that the idea that the sabbath continued, albeit simply on Sunday rather than Saturday, is based upon flawed human reasoning, and not the Bible, and that its actually unChristian to do regard Sunday as the Jews regarded the sabbath. Campbell never once in his life argued for sabbath observance, either on Saturday or Sunday. Campbell taught that Sunday was the day of Christian worship because he believed the NT taught the idea, and that the Lord's Day was sacred because it was the day on which Christ was resurrected from the dead.

What the SDA site above did with Campbell's quotes the one you posted above in this thread has done with Tyndale and Luther. But if you really want to argue the views of these men with a historian (me), feel free. I'm ready.

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

The real issue is the truths of the Bible and I think this is just a excuse not to deal with the truths itself that is being presented, so its misdirection and covering over what is being shown rather than looking hard and digging deep for the truth.

The issue is the SDA Church dishonestly manipulating historical texts in order to prove their doctrine. Its as unethical for the SDA Church to do it as it is for the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to do it.

If it gets out that Tyndale and Luther really didn't teach soul sleep, then the SDA Church loses a lot of historical weight for its arguments.

At least 3AM is honest enough to admit this and to urge the SDA Church arguing its theology upon the Bible alone.

Pax.

[Amo]

The issue is the SDA Church dishonestly manipulating historical texts in order to prove their doctrine. Its as unethical for the SDA Church to do it as it is for the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to do it.

If it gets out that Tyndale and Luther really didn't teach soul sleep, then the SDA Church loses a lot of historical weight for its arguments.

At least 3AM is honest enough to admit this and to urge the SDA Church arguing its theology upon the Bible alone.

Pax.

Of course the bible alone should be the final word concerning correct doctrine.  It would be nearly impossible to keep everyone of any denomination from ever misquoting.  The proof of a Churches or individuals genuineness, will of course be determined by what they will do when confronted with the truth.  Of course, the truth will have to be determined by careful examination.  An accusation does not a truth make. 

From my own examination of the writings of Luther, I believe that he believed in the sleep of the dead until the resurrection.  Some of the proof of which, I have already given in another post.  I await a plausible refutation of the same, and am perfectly willing to examine the same.  I will look into the Tyndale issue to see what I can find.  Unfortunately, time is always an issue.  May God grant us all the time to get to know Him through the truth of His word unto eternal life.

[djconklin]

>here's an example of how the SDA Church spins his writing

The SDA Church is NOT putting the spin on the quotes--a specific member is.

[Tantor]

I've taken them to the mat several times on quotes they use from people in the past that are totally taken out of context or the persons themselves are taught to be something that they aren't.  The amount of spin in SDA articles would embarrass most politicians.

My favorite ones are two quotes they use from 'well known astronomers'.. one was claimed to be a Yale astronomer... yet it has been proved that said individual taught military tactics at Yale and never ever taught astronomy at Yale at any point in his life.  It should also be noted that his tenure at Yale was due to an appointment via the military and not won on merit. This individual drifted from cult to cult and 30 years after departing Yale made a statement that fell in line with what the SDA's espouse so they quote him as an authority.

The other 'well known' astronomer.. is apparently so 'well known' that absolutely no references to this individual exist outside of SDA publications.

Imagine that.

[marc]

I remember back around '80 or '81 watching Garner Ted on TV doing this and just shaking my head when he came to the Campbell quote (I would have known how out of context it was even if I hadn't just finished an A. Campbell biography.)  I don't keep up with the interconnectedness of him and the followers of Ellen Degeneres and the SDA movement, but it looks like their logic is as solid as his was.