Ang Ayaw ni EGW na Uri ng Debate ay Yung Style ni Thompson!

Panimula: Ang Kasaysayan ng Guro at ng Tindero ng Mani sa Bus

Sa larangan ng Philippine religious apologetics, walang kasing-ironic ang eksenang ipinipilit ni Richard Thompson sa kanyang live broadcast kung saan pilit niyang pinagmumukhang ignorante ang dating Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) apologist na si Ronald Obidos patungkol sa mga isinulat ni Ellen G. White (EGW) sa isyu ng pampublikong debate. Sa nasabing programa, paulit-ulit na nagtanong si Thompson kung nabasa raw ba ni Obidos ang Testimonies for the Church noong nasa loob pa ito ng SDA, o baka raw sadyang kapos lang ang kaalaman nito dahil sa tinatawag niyang "little knowledge is dangerous". Ang ganitong asta ay isang klasikong manipestasyon ng psychological projection at Dunning-Kruger effect, kung saan ang isang dating estudyante ay nag-aakalang mas marami pa siyang alam kaysa sa mismong guro na nagturo sa kanya ng pundasyon ng apologetics.

Upang mailagay sa tamang perspektibo ang lahat at makita kung bakit walang anumang maipagmamalaki si Thompson kay Obidos, kailangang balikan ang dokumentadong kasaysayan ng dalawa noong magkasama pa sila sa Arcillas Memorial SDA Church at sa mga programa sa radyo gaya ng DZRJ AM at DWAD. Kabisado at malalim nang naituturo ni Obidos ang kabuuan ng mga sulat ni Ellen White tungkol sa debate noong panahong si Thompson ay isa pa lamang hamak na tindero ng mani sa loob ng mga bus. Sa mga panahong iyon, si Thompson ay isa lamang masugid na tagapakinig at avid fan na matiyagang sumisilip sa bintana ng announcer's booth ng DZRJ AM radio program upang panoorin si Obidos habang nagsasahimpapawid. Higit pa rito, si Thompson ang nagsilbing boluntaryong tagabitbit ng mga bag, Bibliya, at mabibigat na aklat ni Obidos, at ang malaking bahagi ng mga apologetic materials at compilations na ginagamit ni Thompson hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay hiniram at ipina-xerox lamang niya mula sa personal na aklatan ni Obidos.

Kaya naman, isang malaking kahangalan at komedya na magmalaki si Thompson na tila may bago siyang natuklasan sa Testimonies for the Church na hindi alam ng kanyang dating mentor. Nabasa at naituro na ni Obidos ang lahat ng iyan noong magkakasama pa sila sa DWAD Radio, kaya't walang puwang para magmataas ang isang layko na may kaunting kaalaman. Bago pa man buksan ni Thompson ang kanyang bibig sa mikropono, kabisado na ni Obidos mula umpisa hanggang dulo ang bawat pahina, konteksto, at likaw ng mga talatang binabasa nito, dahil si Obidos mismo ang isa sa mga  nag-spoon-feed ng mga batayang kaalamang iyon sa kanya noong nagsisimula pa lamang itong humawak ng Bibliya.

Ang Konteksto at Kasaysayan ng mga Sulat ni Ellen White Laban sa Misrepresentasyon ni Thompson

Ang pangunahing thesis ni Richard Thompson ay umiikot sa ideyang hindi raw kailanman ipinagbawal nang lubusan ni Ellen White ang pakikipagdebate, kaya't lehitimo at naaayon daw sa Spirit of Prophecy ang kanyang walang-habas na paghahamon ng debate sa publiko. Kapag sinuri ang historical background at ang gramatikal na konteksto ng mga pahayag ni Ellen White mula 1867 hanggang 1915, agad na guguho ang ilusyon ni Thompson dahil lumilitaw na sadyang binaluktot niya ang konteksto ng mga babala ng kanyang sariling propeta.

Ang ugat ng mahigpit na babala ni Ellen White laban sa debate ay nagmula sa mapait na karanasan ng unang henerasyon ng mga mangangaral ng SDA noong dekada 1860 at 1870, partikular na ang trahedya ni Elder Moses Hull. Si Moses Hull ay isa sa mga pangunahing ministro at debater ng SDA na dahil sa pagkahumaling sa pakikipagdebate sa mga Spiritualists ay unti-unting nahulog sa enemy's ground, nawalan ng pananampalataya, at tuluyang tinalikuran ang Adventism sampung taon bago isinulat ang ikatlong tomo ng Testimonies. Dahil sa ganitong "small fruitage of such contentious efforts" at sa espirituwal na pagkasira ng mga mangangaral na ginagawang entablado ng kayabangan ang diskusyon, sunod-sunod na isinulat ni Ellen White ang mga pagsaway sa Testimonies for the Church Volume 1 (1867), Volume 3 (1872 at 1875), at Volume 5 (1889). Kahit noong naganap ang anim na gabing Corliss-Picton Sabbath debate (Elder John O. (J.O.) Corliss: He was an ordained minister and evangelist representing the Seventh-day Adventist Church hindi siya SDA layman lang tulad ni Thompson na nag-aassume na pabor sa kanya si Ellen White) sa Australia noong Disyembre 11–19, 1894 (Ellen G. White: The Australian Years, Vol. 4, pp. 172–175), bagama't nag-ulat si Ellen White na nagtagumpay ang katotohanan, mahigpit muna niyang binalaan si Elder J. O. Corliss tungkol sa kanyang temperamento (Letter 130, 1894; Letter 21a, 1895) at nanindigan pa rin sa pangkalahatang tuntunin na "a debate kills the interest".

Higit sa lahat, isang kritikal na tanong sa hermeneutics ang pilit na iniiwasan ni Thompson: sino ba ang direktang kinakausap at binibigyan ng eksepsyon ni Ellen White sa mga pagkakataong "hindi maiiwasan" ang debate? Ito ba ay ang mga pangkaraniwan at walang pormal na pagsasanay na SDA laymen, o ang mga ordained ministers at pastors ng denominasyon? Ang ebidensya mula mismo sa mga sulat ni Ellen White at ng Ellen G. White Estate ay eksklusibong nakaturo sa mga ministro, mangangaral (preachers), at Bible instructors, hindi sa mga self-appointed na layko na gaya ni Thompson na katiting lamang ang nalalaman sa teolohiya ngunit ubod na ng yabang sa mikropono.

Sa pambungad na pahina ng aklat na Evangelism (1946), kung saan matatagpuan ang opisyal na kompilasyon tungkol sa "The Debate" (pp. 162–166), tahasang nilinaw ng Board of Trustees ng Ellen G. White Estate na ang mga tagubilin sa nasabing aklat ay eksklusibong nakatuon sa ministeryo ng mga pastor:

"The instruction in this book is restricted almost entirely to the evangelistic work of the minister and the Bible instructor" (Evangelism, p. 8, 1946).

Sa bawat orihinal na dokumentong binasa mismo ni Thompson sa kanyang programa, ang simuno (subject) ng mga pangungusap ni Ellen White ay laging ang mga ministro at pastor ng iglesya. Sa Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 213–218 (1872), na muling inilimbag sa Gospel Workers, p. 377 (1915) at Gospel Workers, p. 92 (1892), sinimulan ni Ellen White ang kabanata sa mga salitang:

"Young preachers should avoid discussions... Generally, the influence of discussions upon our ministers is to make them self-sufficient, exalted in their own estimation. This is not all. Those who love to debate are unfitted for being pastors to the flock". 

Ganito rin ang tuon sa Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 218–220 (1872) kung saan ang tinutukoy ay mga "preachers" na hindi dapat manghamon ng "ministers of other denominations", gayundin sa Testimonies, Vol. 3, pp. 220–221 (1872) na tumutukoy sa "Ministers who contend with opposers of the truth of God", at sa Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 426 (1875) na direktang nagbabala sa "God's ministers" na huwag ituring na malaking pribilehiyo ang pakikipagdiskusyon. Maging sa Letter 21a (1895) (Evangelism, p. 166), habang sinasaway ang palaaway na saloobin sa debate, itinanong ni Ellen White: "Those who bear the most solemn message ever given to our world must lay off the pugilistic armor... When will our ministers learn of Jesus?" Kung ang mismong mga ordained ministers na may pormal na pagsasanay sa teolohiya ay mahigpit nang pinagbabawalan ni Ellen White na maghanap ng debate dahil ginagawa silang palalo at hindi akma bilang pastol ng kawan, isang malaking category error at pang-aagaw ng awtoridad na angkinin ito ng isang SDA layman na gaya ni Thompson na walang pormal na edukasyon sa theology at EGW writings.

Upang makita nang buong linaw kung paano sistematikong binaluktot ni Thompson ang mga sulat ni Ellen White, ipinapakita ng talahanayan sa ibaba ang kumpletong talaan ng mga orihinal na sanggunian, petsa, pahina, kung sino ang kinakausap, at ang eksaktong konteksto ng bawat sipi:

Sanggunian, Pahina, at Petsa	Sino ang Kinakausap?	Eksaktong Konteksto at Aral ni Ellen G. White	Paano Ito Nilabag o Binaluktot ni Richard Thompson?
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 624–626 (1867) (Nasa 1T pp. 424–426 din sa ilang edisyon; Ev p. 165)	Mga Ministro at Advocates of Truth [cite: 13, 15]	"The advocates of truth should not seek discussions." Kung hindi maiiwasan, dapat pumasok nang may pag-aayuno, pagpapakumbaba, at walang sarkasmo o playing upon words.	Ginamit ito ni Thompson para bigyang-katwiran ang kanyang paghahamon, kahit malinaw na sinabing "should not seek discussions" at para ito sa mga ministro.
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 37–38 (1872) (Ev p. 162)	Mga Ministro at Tagapagtanggol ng Bibliya	Kapag may glaring misrepresentations, dapat itong sagutin nang "promptly and briefly" at agad bumalik sa gawain gaya ni Nehemias na tumangging bumaba sa pader.	Sa halip na isang beses at maikling sagot lang, ginawang karera ni Thompson ang paulit-ulit na paghahamon ng debate sa publiko.
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 213–218 (1872) (GW p. 377 [1915]; GW p. 92 [1892]; Ev p. 162)	"Young preachers" at "our ministers"	"God is seldom glorified." Kung kailangang harapin (meet) ang isang proud boaster, ang mga diskusyong ito—"either oral or written"—ay madalas nagdudulot ng mas maraming pinsala kaysa kabutihan.	Pinutol ni Thompson ang konteksto: inangkin niya ang papel ng tagaharap kahit siya ang proud boaster na naghahamon, at tinanggihan ang written debate na binanggit mismo sa talata.
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 218–220 (1872) (Ev pp. 162–163, 164)	"Preachers" ng SDA	"They should not defy ministers of other denominations, and seek to provoke a debate. They should not stand in a position like that of Goliath...". Ang paghahamon ay gawain ni Goliath, hindi ni David.	Nang mabasa ito nang live, biglang nag-iba ng komento si Thompson (biglang kambyo) dahil sapul na sapul ang kanyang gawaing manghamon ng ibang mangangaral .
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 220–221 (1872) (Ev p. 165)	"Ministers who contend with opposers" [cite: 6, 13]	Sa debate ay nakakaharap si Satanas; kapag ang ministro ay nagmayabang at nawala sa espiritu ni Kristo, umaalis ang mga anghel ng Diyos at nananaig ang kalaban.	Ipinagmalaki ni Thompson na nandoon din daw ang anghel ng Diyos, ngunit nakalimutan niyang ang pagkatalo niya sa INC at 4th Watch ay ebidensyang iniwan siya ng anghel.
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 424, 426 (1875) (Ev pp. 162, 164)	"God's ministers" [cite: 13]	"Whenever discussions can be avoided, they should be... God's ministers should not count the opportunity of engaging in discussion a great privilege."	Paano maiiwasan ang debate kung si Thompson mismo ang laging naghahanap ng away at nanghahamon sa social media?
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 708 (1889) (Ev p. 166)	Mga Nag-aral Bilang Debaters	"With those who have educated themselves as debaters, there is great danger that they will not handle the Word of God with fairness."	Eksaktong inilalarawan nito ang style palengke ni Thompson na gumagamit ng pilosopo, hiyawan, at pandaraya sa oral stage para lang magmukhang panalo.
The Review and Herald, Feb. 9, 1892 (Ev pp. 163–164)	Buong Iglesia at Mga Mangangaral	"The spirit of debate, of controversy, is a device of Satan to stir up combativeness, and thus eclipse the truth as it is in Jesus."	Pilit na nililimitahan ni Thompson ang kasamaan sa "maling espiritu" habang isinasabuhay mismo ang combativeness na tinawag na pakana ni Satanas.
Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 165 (1892) (Ev p. 166)	Mga Ministro at Gospel Workers	"The best way to deal with error is to present the truth, and leave wild ideas to die for want of notice." Huwag gumamit ng hindi wholly sound arguments.	Sa halip na gumawa ng tahimik at sound theological exposition, dinadaan ni Thompson sa kantyaw at maingay na hamon sa mikropono.
Letter 21a, 1895 (Ev p. 166)	"Our ministers"	"Those who bear the most solemn message ever given to our world must lay off the pugilistic armor... When will our ministers learn of Jesus?"	Suot na suot pa rin ni Thompson ang pugilistic armor (baluti ng boksingero sa debate) na mahigpit nang ipinahuhubad ni Ellen White.
Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pp. 165, 167–168; Letter 62, July 31, 1910 (Later Elmshaven Years, Vol. 6, pp. 257–261)	Mga Lider at Miyembro ng SDA	Mahigpit na ipinagbawal ang pampublikong pakikipagdebate sa pagitan ng mga magkakapatid sa loob ng SDA (gaya ng isyu sa "daily"), at iniutos na huminto sa kontrobersiya.	Buong pagmamalaking inamin ni Thompson sa kanyang video na ang huling dalawang kadebate niya ay kapwa niya SDA (sina Bro. Leonard at Bro. Ruben)!

Salungatan sa Pagitan ng Teorya ni Thompson at ng Buong Sistema ng SDA

Kung ihahambing ang personal na teorya ni Thompson sa opisyal na posisyon at kasaysayan ng Seventh-day Adventist Church bilang isang sistema, lalong lumilitaw na si Thompson ay isang rogue operator na sumasalungat sa mismong organisasyong kanyang ipinagtatanggol. Bagama't walang hiwalay na Fundamental Belief, Sabbath School lesson, o probisyon sa Church Manual na nag-uutos ng pampublikong debate, ang mga opisyal na pahayag na ipinasa ng General Conference (GC) at ang mga artikulo sa opisyal na magasin ng GC Ministerial Association na Ministry at Adventist Review ay buong-pagkakaisang kumokondena sa agresibong estilo ni Thompson.

Sa lebel ng General Conference Executive Committee at Administrative Committee (ADCOM), ang opisyal na boses ng denominasyon sa pakikipag-usap sa ibang pananampalataya ay mahigpit na nakatali sa regulasyon ng sariling pananalita at pag-iwas sa paninira. Sa dokumentong "Freedom of Speech and Defamation of Religion" na ipinasa ng GC Executive Committee noong Hunyo 23, 2010 at inilabas sa Atlanta Session (Hunyo 24–Hulyo 3, 2010), tahasang itinatakda na ang mga Adventists ay dapat maghigpit sa kanilang sariling pananalita (regulate their own speech) lalo na kapag tinatalakay ang ibang relihiyon, at dapat na maging "constrained by Christ's law of love". Ganito rin ang diwa ng "Religious Liberty, Evangelism, and Proselytism" na ipinasa ng GC ADCOM para sa Toronto Session (Hunyo 29–Hulyo 9, 2000) at ng "Religious Freedom" na inilabas ni GC President Robert S. Folkenberg sa Utrecht Session (Hunyo 29–Hulyo 8, 1995), na nagpapatibay sa kalayaang magpahayag sa pamamagitan ng pangangaral at media ngunit hindi kailanman inendorso ang pugilistic public debate bilang kasangkapan ng ebanghelismo.

Kung babalikan naman ang mga historikal na publikasyon sa Ministry magazine at Adventist Review, makikitang matagal nang ibinasura ng mga batikang ministro ng SDA, maging sa Pilipinas, ang mentalidad na umiiral kay Thompson. Sa mga artikulong "The Better Workman (The Question of Debates)" (Abril 1930) at "The Question of Debates: Stating Propositions" (Mayo 1930), inilahad ni Elder E. L. Maxwell mula sa Buenos Aires na matapos siyang lumahok sa 28 pampublikong debate sa pagitan ng 1901 at 1911, malalim niyang pinag-aralan ang payo ng Spirit of Prophecy at tinanggihan ang lahat ng sumunod na hamon. Ayon sa hatol ni Maxwell, siyam sa bawat sampung debate (90%) ay madaling maiiwasan kung ipangangaral lamang nang kaakit-akit si Kristo sa halip na gumamit ng "sharp thrusts", dahil ang epekto ng mga debate ay "usually not the best". Higit na mahalaga para sa konteksto ng Pilipinas ang artikulong "Shall We Engage in Public Debates?" sa Ministry (Hunyo 1941) na isinulat mismo ni J. Y. Yovan noong siya ay Assistant Director ng South Central Luzon Mission sa Pilipinas. Binigyang-diin ni Yovan na ang mga Seventh-day Adventists ay "do not advocate the holding of public debates" bilang paraan ng paglutas ng mga kontrobersiya, mas pinipili ang "avoidance without defeat", at tahasang sinabi na hindi niya kailanman kukunsintihin ang isang baguhan (novice) na maghanap ng debate.

Ang ganitong paninindigan ay sinuportahan din ni Harold N. Williams, District Superintendent ng Indiana Conference, sa kanyang artikulong "Handling an Adversary" (Ministry, Enero 1946), kung saan ibinahagi niya kung paano niya tinanggihan ang isang hamon sa pahayagan na pagdebatehan ang Sabbath dahil ang espiritu sa mga debate ay "not the spirit of Christ", at sa halip ay nag-alok na lamang ng isang mapayapang structured joint discussion. Gayundin, ang iginagalang na patnugot ng Review and Herald na si F. D. Nichol, sa kanyang artikulong "The Christian Way to Contend for the Faith" (mula sa aklat na Answers to Objections, pp. 352–353 at muling inilimbag sa Elder's Digest, Q1 2002), ay nagbigay-diin na ang mga Adventists ay dapat na "strive to avoid, as far as consistent" ang anumang diskusyon na may katangian ng debate. Maging ang pagsusuri ni Denis Kaiser sa Ministry (Disyembre 2014, pp. 16–19) na pinamagatang "The Word, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Mutual Love" ay muling nagpapaalala sa mahigpit na pagkondena ni Ellen White sa mga debate sa loob mismo ng iglesya noong panahon ng kontrobersiya sa "daily". Samakatuwid, ang agresibong teorya ni Thompson na gawing sukatan ng tapang at katotohanan ang walang-tigil na paghahamon ng debate ay sariling imbento at pang-unawa lamang ni Thompson, at hindi kailanman naging opisyal na posisyon ng denominasyong SDA. Nagbago na ang pananaw at naratibo ni Thompson; sa halip na harapin ang katotohanan, unti-unti na siyang nagiging manhid sa reyalidad na hindi lamang si Ellen White ang kanyang katunggali kundi maging ang mga lider at opisyal na patakaran ng Seventh-day Adventist Church. May maling akala siya na susundan at kakampihan siya ng mga miyembro sa kanyang mga pahayag sa video, ngunit kabaligtaran nito ang nangyayari dahil tahasan siyang itinatanggi ng mismong pamunuan ng denominasyon. Kung susuriin ang kanyang istilo, malinaw na lumilitaw ang mga senyales ng Dunning-Kruger effect at pagiging narcissistic, kung saan ang kawalan ng malalim na kaalaman ay tinatakpan ng labis na yabang. Hindi na nakapagtataka kung bakit hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay marami ang hindi bilib sa kanya, hanggang sa umabot sa puntong ipinagbabawal na siyang magsalita o pinag-baban na magpahayag sa maraming mga simbahang SDA sa iba't ibang panig ng Pilipinas.

Punto-por-Puntong Pagsusuri at Pagbabaliktad sa Thesis ni Thompson

Upang ganap na mailantad ang kahinaan ng lohika ni Thompson sa kanyang video, inilalatag sa mga sumusunod na seksyon ang detalyado at punto-por-puntong pagsusuri sa bawat palusot na kanyang binitawan, gamit ang turn-the-table o boomerang tactic na nagbabalik ng kanyang sariling mga salita upang bawiin ang kanyang mga argumento tungo sa katawa-tawang kahangalan.

Ang Alibi sa Ecclesiastes 3 at ang Request Lang Daw ni Sister Emmy Alfonso

Sinimulan ni Thompson ang kanyang programa sa pagmamalaking hindi raw siya sumisilip kahit kaunti sa programa nina Obidos, at hindi raw siya umiiwas kundi sadyang inilagay lang niya sa "tamang panahon" ayon sa Ecclesiastes 3 ("There is a time for everything under the sun"). Dagdag pa ni Thompson, kung hindi lang daw dahil sa request ng isang viewer na nagngangalang "Sister Emmy Alfonso" (na nakakatawang hinahanap niya sa live chat dahil wala naman pala roon nang magsimula siya), ay hindi raw niya bibigyan ng panahon si Obidos dahil ang mga tanong daw nito ay "wala namang kabigat-bigat" at "dali-dali naman".

Ang palusot na ito ay isang klasikong sour-graping at defense mechanism. Kung totoong "walang kabigat-bigat" at "walang kuwenta" ang mga tanong at dokumentong inilatag ni Obidos, bakit kinailangan pang magpatawag ni Thompson ng isang "special edition" na programa, magsuot ng bagong barong at mag-print ng makakapal na pahina ng Testimonies, at gumugol ng mahabang oras sa pagpapaliwanag? Kung pipitsugin at walang kuwenta-kuwenta pala ang mga tanong ni Obidos sa paningin ni Thompson, ngunit hirap na hirap at paikot-ikot si Thompson sa pagsagot nang mahigit isang oras, eh di lumalabas na pipitsugin at walang kuwenta rin ang mga sagot ni Thompson! Ginamit pa niya ang Ecclesiastes 3 bilang banal na palusot sa kanyang matagal na pag-iwas na sagutin nang punto-por-punto ang mga dokumentadong exposés laban sa SDA mula pa noong 2019.

Hindi Daw Niya Idol si EGW at ang Nakakatawang False Trilemma

Nagpupuyos ang kalooban ni Thompson sa pariralang ginamit ni Obidos tungkol sa pagiging "idol" o "fanboy" nito kay Ellen White, sabay deklara na: "Kahit kailan, hindi ko naging idol si Mrs. White, at sabi ko nga, over my dead body na magiging idol ko si Mrs. White!" Pagkatapos ay naglatag siya ng kanyang paboritong multiple-choice trap laban kay Obidos: "Nagbibintang ka? Nanlalait ka? O nagsisinungaling ka? Alin do'n sa tatlo?"

Dito ay gumamit si Thompson ng Red Herring Fallacy at False Trilemma Fallacy. Gaya ng malinaw na ipinunto ni Obidos, hindi ang literal na pagsamba sa rebulto ni Ellen White ang isyu, kundi ang intelektuwal at theological na hipocrisy ng paninindigan ni Thompson. Inaamin mismo ni Thompson sa video na kinikilala, iginagalang, at ipinagtatanggol niya si Ellen White bilang "kaloob na propeta ng SDA" (Spirit of Prophecy). Kung naniniwala siyang lehitimong propeta ng Diyos si Ellen White, ang pagsunod sa mga tagubilin nito ay hindi opsiyonal na puwedeng itapon kapag sumasalungat na sa kanyang hilig sa pakikipagdebate. Kaya kung ibabalik kay Thompson ang kanyang sariling multiple-choice question patungkol sa kanyang walang-tigil na paghahamon sa debate: Alam ba ni Thompson na lagi siyang nakikipagdebate at nanghahamon laban sa utos ni Ellen White? Hindi ba niya alam dahil hindi niya binasa nang buo ang Testimonies? O nagsisinungaling lang siya sa kanyang mga viewers? O baka naman all of the above?

Sino ang Tunay na Hipokrito Noong Nasa SDA Pa si Obidos?

Sa halip na manatili sa paksa, bumanat ng personal na Ad Hominem at Tu Quoque si Thompson: "Alam mo kung may ipokrito sa ating dalawa, n'ung nasa SDA ka pa... hindi ako 'yun. Andami mong sinasabi pala sa akin 'non pag nakatalikod ako." Napakadaling magtapon ng walang-ebidensiyang tsismis sa harap ng mikropono para lang makaiwas sa tunay na isyu ng doktrina. Kung susuriin sa liwanag ng dokumentadong kasaysayan, sino ba ang tunay na hipokrito sa dalawa? Si Obidos na noong matuklasan sa malalim na pag-aaral ng Kasulatan na mali ang 1844 Investigative Judgment, ang mga sablay na pangitain ni Ellen White, at ang legalistikong aral ng SDA ay buong-katapatang nagpasa ng pormal na Resignation Letter noong Setyembre 12, 2019 at lumabas nang harapan? O si Thompson na nananatili sa loob ng SDA, sumisigaw ng "Amen!" sa awtoridad ni Ellen White bilang propeta, ngunit harap-harapang binabastos ang pinakasentrong aral nito laban sa paghahamon ng debate para lang mapanatili ang kanyang macho debater image? Ang tunay na hipokrisiya ay ang pagsasabing "wala akong planong labagin ang sinabi ni Mrs. White" habang araw-araw na ginagawa ang mismong ipinagbabawal sa Testimonies.

Ang Spirit of Controversy at ang Himalang Good Boy Era ni Thompson Kontra Kapwa SDA

Inamin mismo ni Thompson na tama ang sinipi ni Obidos mula kay Ellen White na "The spirit of controversy is a spirit which Satan delights to see" at "Ang pampublikong debate at diskusyon ay nagdudulot ng mas maraming pinsala kaysa kabutihan, which is true. Totoo naman!" Ngunit upang iligtas ang sarili, biglang nag-asal "good boy" si Thompson at sinabing hindi na raw muna niya pinapatulan ang maraming naghahamon sa kanya ngayon at hangga't maaari ay umiiwas na raw siya, sabay banggit na pagkatapos ng debate niya sa kay Bishop Eramis ni ay dalawa na lang ang sumunod niyang nakadebate: sina "Brother Leonard" at "Brother Ruben" na pareho pa niyang kapatid sa SDA, bago raw umabot sa punto na "tina-challenge" na niya si Obidos.

Sa puntong ito ay literal na nag-suicide ang argumento ni Thompson sa tatlong napakalinaw na paraan.

Una, isang malaking himala na biglang sinasabi ni Thompson ngayon na "umiiwas" na siya sa debate, dahil ba noong naghanda siya ng isasagot kay Obidos ay unang beses niyang binasa nang seryoso ang mga sulat ni Ellen White at doon lang niya natuklasang mali pala ang kanyang estilo mula noon hanggang ngayon?

Pangalawa, sa bibig mismo ni Thompson nanggaling ang pag-amin na "china-challenge na kita" (hinamon niya si Obidos), na isang direktang pag-amin na siya ang nagpasimula ng hamon ng debate!

Pangatlo, buong pagmamalaking inamin ni Thompson na nakipagdebate siya kina Brother Leonard (SDA) at Ruben (SDA) na pareho niyang ka-miyembro sa SDA! Hindi ba't iyan ang pinaka-ipinagbabawal ni Ellen White (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pp. 165, 167–168; Letter 62, 1910), ang magdebate ang magkakapatid na SDA? At kung mismong mga SDA layman debaters ay sila-sila na ang nagdedebatehan nang live sa Facebook, hindi ba't iyon ang pinakamatibay na ebidensya na totoong pipitsugin ang mga layman debaters ng kampo nila?

Ang Turista sa North Fairview: Sino ang Tunay na Selective at Gumagawa ng Generalization?

Sa kanyang video, inakusahan ni Thompson si Obidos ng Red Herring, Cherry-Picking, at Fallacy of Generalization, at gumamit pa ng kuwento tungkol sa isang turista sa North Fairview na nakakilala lang ng isang salbaheng SDA ay nagdeklarang "Salbahe pala lahat ng taga-North Fairview!" Ayon kay Thompson, pinalalabas daw ni Obidos sa isang sweeping statement na si Ellen White ay 100% na "totally against sa lahat ng uri ng debate sa lahat ng panahon".

Ang ilustrasyon ni Thompson sa North Fairview ay bumalik mismo sa kanyang mukha dahil siya ang gumawa ng isang dambuhalang Straw Man Fallacy. Kailanman ay hindi sinabi ni Obidos na ipinagbawal ni Ellen White ang lahat ng uri ng pagtatanggol sa katotohanan sa lahat ng pagkakataon. Ang eksaktong ipinupunto ni Obidos ay: hindi kontra si Ellen White sa lahat ng debate, kundi ang mahigpit niyang kinokontra ay ang uri at estilo ng debate ni Thompson na adik sa paghahamon ng debate! Si Thompson ang tunay na selective at cherry-picker, dahil paulit-ulit niyang binabasa ang pariralang "it may be necessary to meet…", ngunit sadyang nilalaktawan at iniiwasan ang pinakasentrong utos ni Ellen White na huwag maghamon ng debate at huwag tumulad kay Goliath!

To Meet a Proud Boaster (3T 213) vs. Maghamon ng Debate: Sino si David at Sino si Goliath?

Ito ang pinakasentro ng pambabaluktot ni Thompson. Binasa niya nang paulit-ulit ang Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 213 (1872): "God is seldom glorified. In some cases, it may be necessary to meet a proud boaster against the truth of God in open debate..." Idinagdag pa niya ang Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 37 (1872) ("Opposers must sometimes be met..."), ang Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 424 (1875) ("Discussions cannot always be avoided"), at ang Testimonies, Vol. 3, pp. 218–220 (1872) tungkol sa pagharap ni David kay Goliath na "defier of Israel". Mula rito, nagtanong si Thompson kung tinatago raw ba ni Obidos ang mga talatang ito o hindi lang talaga alam, sabay giit na si Obidos daw ang "proud boaster" at "Goliath", habang siya naman daw si "David" na tumutugon lamang upang harapin ("meet") si Obidos matapos daw nilang iwasang hamunin ito noong umpisa.

Ang pahayag ni Thompson na "iniiwasan" daw nilang hamunin si Obidos noong umpisa ay isang harap-harapang kasinungalingan (Liar!). Mismong ang mga nakaraang YouTube videos nina Thompson kasama niya si Dizon, at Johnson kung saan may patutsada na ilang beses na nilang hinahamon si Obidos sa debate at marami lang daw itong excuse) ang buhay na ebidensya na sina Thompson ang unang naghamon at si Obidos ay sumasagot lamang bilang depensa! Hanggang ngayon nga walang mailabas na ebidensiya na bayaran muna daw nila ako ng 500k bago ko sila patulan sa debate at lumipas na ang panahon walang imik si Thompson wala siyang mailabas na ebidensiya kaya wag bast-basta maniwala kay Thompson sanay magsinungaling yan. Alam na alam ni Obidos ang Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 213 (1872), ngunit hindi iyon aplikable para absuweltuhin si Thompson dahil sa kaso nilang dalawa, si Thompson ang "proud boaster" na laging naghahamon sa debate gaya ni Goliath!

Suriin ang napakalinaw na pagkakaiba ng mga salitang ginamit ni Ellen White: ang sabi niya ay "to meet" (harapin ang naghahamon), hindi "to challenge" o "to seek to provoke a debate" (manghamon ng debate)! Sa Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 218–220 (1872), tahasang ipinaliwanag ni Ellen White kung sino si Goliath at sino si David: "They should not defy ministers of other denominations, and seek to provoke a debate. They should not stand in a position like that of Goliath when he defied the armies of Israel. Israel did not defy Goliath, but Goliath made his proud boasts against God and His people. The defying, the boasting, and the railing must come from the opposers of truth, who act the Goliath". Napansin ng lahat ng nanood sa video na pagkabasa mismo ni Thompson sa linyang "They should not defy ministers of other denominations, and seek to provoke a debate", biglang nag-iba ng komento at biglang kambyo si Thompson dahil nahalata niyang sapul na sapul siya at guilty sa pagiging provoker ng debate!

At ano ang ginawa niyang palusot kung bakit nilabag niya ang utos ni Ellen White na huwag tularan si Goliath? Sinabi ni Thompson na kung napupuno raw ang pasensya ng Panginoon, sino ba naman daw siya na napuno rin ang pasensya kaya napilitan silang hamunin si Obidos! Isa itong direktang pag-amin mula sa bibig ni Thompson na nilabag niya si Ellen White at sila ang tumayong proud boasters gaya ni Goliath (habang humahalakhak si Thompson tulad ng alakhak ni Satanas sa tuwa!), samantalang ang kanyang mga tagapakinig ay naka-zombie mode na lang at tameme dahil kulang sa katotohanan at facts. Bukod pa rito, sa Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 37 (1872), sinabi ni Ellen White na kapag sinagot ang glaring misrepresentations, "it should be done promptly and briefly, and we should then pass on to our work", isang beses lang naglaban sina David at Goliath at nagpatuloy na sa misyon, samantalang si Thompson ay milyong beses nang nanghahamon sa debate mula pa noong magkakasama sila hanggang ngayon!

Dagdag pa rito, paano magiging "proud boaster" o "Goliath" si Obidos eh hindi naman naghahamon si Obidos ng pampublikong oral debate sa kanila? Ang hinihingi ni Obidos ay pormal nilang i-refute nang point-by-point ang kanyang mga video at artikulo na naglalantad sa mga heretical teachings ng SDA. Bakit hindi iyon magawa ni Thompson sa pagsusulat o kahit bigyan ng panahon sa isang maayos na punto-por-puntong pagsusuri sa FB Live, kundi panay ang hamon ng sigawan sa entablado? Dahil ba mas malakas ang mala-palengkero niyang bunganga at hindi siya marunong sumulat, o nag-iinarte lang siya na kunwari ay magaling ngunit hindi talaga kayang sagutin ang mga ebidensya?

Panahon pa Daw ni Kopong-Kopong ang mga Exposés Laban sa SDA

Idinadahilan din ng kampo ni Thompson na "panahon pa ni kopong-kopong" ang mga inilalantad ni Obidos laban sa mga huwad na doktrina ng SDA at matagal na raw nasagot ang mga iyon. Noong panahon pa ni Ellen White, matagal nang nire-refute ng mga iskolar ang mga kultikong doktrina ng SDA, ngunit bakit patuloy pa ring nag-a-update at naglalabas ng exposés si Obidos hanggang ngayon? Dahil hindi pa rin nagsisisi (unrepentant) ang SDA sa kanilang mga cultic doctrines at patuloy pa rin nilang inilalako ang mga ito sa mga tao! Kung gagamitin ang boomerang strategy laban kay Thompson: hindi ba't ang SDA rin naman ay walang-humpay na inuulit-ulit sa kanilang mga literatura at krusada na ang Papacy ang Anti-Christ, ang Babylon sa Revelation, at ang pasimuno ng Mark of the Beast, mga akusasyong matagal nang sinagot ng mga Catholic apologists noong panahon pa ni Kopong-Kopong? Bakit kapag ang SDA ang paulit-ulit na umaatake sa Katoliko gamit ang lumang script ay "proklamasyon ng katotohanan" ang tawag nila, pero kapag ang mga kasinungalingan ng SDA ang inilalantad ay biglang "panahon pa ni kopong-kopong"?

Oral Debate vs. Written Debate: Ang Pagkamot ng Mata ni Thompson sa Testimonies 3:213 at 5:708

Ipinipilit ni Thompson na "oral debate" lang daw ang kanyang hamon kay Obidos at hinding-hindi raw siya mag-e-engage sa "written debate". Ngunit nang basahin mismo ni Thompson nang malakas at malinaw sa kanyang live video ang Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 213 (1872), ganito ang eksaktong lumabas sa kanyang bibig: "In some cases, it may be necessary to meet a proud boaster against the truth of God in open debate; but generally these discussions, either oral or written, result in more harm than good". Kitang-kita sa video na pagkabasa ni Thompson sa mga salitang "either oral or written", bigla siyang napakamot ng mata, isang malinaw na sign na nagulat siya sa mismong binasa niya dahil doon lang niya nalaman na maging ang written debate pala ay kasama sa tinutukoy ni Ellen White na "open debate" kung kinakailangan! Kung pinapayagan pala ni Ellen White ang written debate sa mga pagkakataong kailangang sumagot, bakit kinokontra na naman ito ni Thompson at ipinipilit na oral debate lang?

Ang sagot ay matatagpuan mismo sa babala ni Ellen White sa Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 708 (1889) (Evangelism, p. 166) at sa Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 165 (1892): 

"With those who have educated themselves as debaters, there is great danger that they will not handle the Word of God with fairness" at "we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound". Matino at patas ba ang mangatwiran si Thompson? Hindi! Sa oral debate kasi ay teritoryo at plataporma iyon na kinasanayan ni Thompson dahil puwede siyang mandaya roon, umiwas sa tanong, idaan sa lakas ng kantyaw, sigaw, at pagpapatawa, at pagkatapos ng debate ay ipagyayabang na naman niyang "nanalo" siya kahit walang true encounter sa mga challenges at facts. Dumaan na si Obidos sa ganyang mga mabababaw na estratehiya noon, kaya hindi na niya uulitin ang ganoong sarsuwela. Ilusyon lang ni Thompson na nananalo siya dahil may skills siyang lumusot sa tanong nang hindi naipapaliwanag ang tunay na sagot, ngunit kung tatanungin ang mismong mga matatalinong SDA na gumagamit ng utak kaysa feelings, alam nilang napakahina talaga ni Thompson sa debate, lalo na sa mga debate niya laban kina Jose Ventilacion ng INC at Quillao ng 4th Watch! 

Walang binatbat ang istilo ni Thompson kundi ang kanyang tanyag na tatlong "P": Palusot, Paiwas, at Patawa! Iyan ang nagpapatindi ng apoy sa kanyang mga tagahanga na madaling mabulag sa ingay, dahil mas gusto nilang ma-entertain at mapatawa kaysa suriin ang lalim ng katotohanan, at sa huli, para sa kanila ay "panalo" na agad iyon kahit puro hangin lamang ang laman.

Kaya isang wise decision talaga na hindi dapat patulan ang "palengke" style ni Thompson. Isa pa, wala naman na siyang sasabihing bago na hindi ko pa kabisado. Ang totoo, baka siya ang takot dahil ang dami kong bagong ebidensya at argumento na hindi pa niya alam. Nasabi ko na din nung una, na hindi ko siya pinapatulan sa debate kasi alam ko na ang style niyan, pag naiipit sa malalalim na argumento, idedeny lang niya, iiwasan, pipilosopohin, at idadaan sa tawa. Para saan pa? Sayang sa oras. Kung talagang hindi siya takot sa mga argumento ko, bakit kahit isa sa mga SDA exposes na isinulat ko mula pa noong 2019 ay never niyang ginawan ng detailed refutation? Tahimik siya sa written format dahil alam niyang hindi niya kayang i-debunk ang mga 'yon. In fact, in-invite namin siya ni Bro. Toto, kamakailan lang sa aming live 'Investigating Adventism Q&A' para sa isang chill at friendly conversation. Anong ginawa niya? Umiwas. Nagdahilan na kailangan daw muna niyang magpaalam kay Johnson Amican at gusto niya sa channel nilang 'Pag-Aralan Natin' gawin. Hindi kasi siya sanay sa conversational format kung saan madali siyang ma-cross-examine nang diretsahan. Mas gusto niya yung format na puwede siyang magpalusot".

Format ng Diskurso Ang Reaksyon ni Richard Thompson Ang Psychological na Dahilan (Ayon sa Pagsusuri)

In Debate We Meet Satan (3T 220-221): Iniwan ba ng mga Anghel ng Diyos si Thompson?

Sa kalagitnaan ng kanyang live stream, binasa ni Thompson ang Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 220–221 (1872) ("In Debate We Meet Satan") at buong-pagmamalaking iginiit na hindi lang naman daw si Satanas at ang kanyang mga demonyo ang nasa debate, kundi nandoon din daw ang anghel ng Panginoon sa panig ng nagdadala ng katotohanan.

Ngunit kung susuriin ang mismong binasa ni Thompson sa Testimonies, Vol. 3, pp. 220–221 (1872), malinaw na sinabi ni Ellen White: "Satan watches for a chance to get the advantage of ministers who are advocating the truth, and when they cease to put their entire trust in God, and their words are not in the spirit and love of Christ, the angels of God cannot strengthen and enlighten them. They leave them to their own strength, and evil angels press in their darkness; for this reason, the opponents of the truth sometimes seem to have the advantage, and the discussion does more harm than real good". Lumilikha ito ng isang nakakatawang logical dilemma laban kay Thompson. Una, ipagpalagay na sumasagot lang siya bilang defender (kahit ang totoo ay siya ang laging naghahamon gaya ni Goliath), kung nandoon pala sa debate ang mga anghel ng Diyos, bakit mahigpit pa ring dini-discourage ni Ellen White ang pakikipagdebate at sinasabing nagreresulta ito sa "more harm than real good"? Pangalawa, ayon mismo sa teksto ni Ellen White, kapag ang debater ay nagmayabang at nawala sa espiritu ni Kristo, umaalis ang mga anghel ng Diyos at nananaig ang kalaban! Yamang maraming matatalinong SDA mismo ang nagsasabing natalo at nilampaso si Thompson sa kanyang mga debate (lalo na laban kina Ventilacion ng INC at Quillao ng 4th Watch), ibig bang sabihin ay iniwan din ng mga anghel ng Diyos si Thompson sa entablado at puro evil angels na lang ang naiwan sa paligid niya?

Ang Humility ni Goliath (1T 624-626), si Fernan Camacho, at ang Katotohanan sa 2006 Pampanga INC Debate

Sa huling bahagi ng kanyang programa, binasa ni Thompson ang Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 624–626 (1867) ("If debate cannot be avoided, whenever it is necessary for the advancement of the cause of truth and the glory of God, that an opponent be met, how carefully, and with what humility should they go into the conflict..."). Mula rito, nagmalaki si Thompson na hindi raw siya nagyayabang sa debate kundi sadyang lumalakas lang ang boses niya bilang pagdidiin, sinumbatan si Obidos kung bakit daw nito hinarap noon sa debate si Fernan Camacho kung "pipitsuging layman" ang tingin nito sa mga SDA layman debaters, at nagtanong pa kung totoo raw ba ang tsismis na kaya hindi sumipot si Obidos sa 2006 Pampanga debate laban sa INC ay dahil masama ang loob ni Obidos na si Thompson ang haharap.

Una sa lahat, gaya ng napatunayan na sa unahan, ang Testimonies, Vol. 1, pp. 624–626 (1867) ay tagubilin para sa mga ordained pastors at ministro ng SDA, kaya't huwag mag-assume ang isang layman na gaya ni Thompson na kasali siya roon gayong wala siyang pormal na theological training. At tungkol sa sinasabi ni Thompson na "humble" daw siya sa debate habang panay ang paghahamon niya sa publiko, mga mismong miyembro na ng SDA ang dapat tanungin dahil sila ang saksi sa kayabangan ng estilo ni Thompson! Lumalabas na sa diksyunaryo pala ni Thompson, pati si Goliath ay "humble" din at "proud to be humble", dahil para kay Thompson ay humbleness pala ang palaging paghahamon ng debate!

Pangalawa, patungkol sa pagharap ni Obidos kay Fernan Camacho noon: sariling desisyon iyon ni Obidos upang i-demonstrate mismo sa mga SDA kung ano ang kahihinatnan kapag ang kadebate ni Obidos ay isang ordinaryong layman lang na walang anumang bagong sasabihin dahil higit pang nauunawaan ni Obidos ang mga doktrina ng SDA kaysa sa kanila. Napatunayan sa karanasang iyon na luging-lugi si Obidos kapag layman ang kaharap: hindi pa man nagsisimulang magpaliwanag ang isang SDA layman na gaya nina Camacho o Thompson ay kabisado na ni Obidos ang buong pagkakasunod-sunod ng sasabihin nito, samantalang ang malalalim na kaalaman, historical data, at exegesis na ilalatag ni Obidos ay hindi nila mauunawaan at itatapon o yuyurakan lamang nila. Sa kabilang dako, kapag mga ordained SDA pastors at theologians ang kaharap ni Obidos, madali silang magkakaunawaan at hindi masasayang ang paliwanag dahil may pormal silang pundasyon at ang totoo, marami ring mga pastor ng SDA ang nabababawan at nababakyaan sa "style palengke" ni Thompson!

Pangatlo, patungkol sa ipinagmamalaki ni Thompson na 2006 Pampanga debate laban sa INC: kung babasahin ang mismong mga komento ng mga SDA na sumaksi roon, alam nilang talong-talo roon si Thompson, kaya maraming mga SDA ang nag-uwian nang malungkot at nakaranas ng matinding "great disappointment" sa kanya (gaya rin ng pagkatalo niya sa 4th Watch). Narcissistic lang talaga si Thompson kaya laging pakiramdam niya ay "yehey, panalo na siya" porke't nakakalusot siya minsan sa tanong sa mababang lebel ng kanyang utak. At ano ang buong katotohanan kung bakit wala si Obidos sa Pampanga noong 2006? Si Obidos talaga ang orihinal na tinawagan ng Central Luzon Conference(CLC) upang humarap sa debate sa Pampanga at nakapaghanda na noon si Obidos, kaso itong si Thompson ang "pumapel" at umeksena para siya ang isalang!. Maaaring tanungin ng sinuman ang mismong CLC upang mapatunayan kung sino ang tunay na pumapel noong 2006.

Tatlong Direktang Cross-Examination Questions na Hindi Matatakasan ni Thompson

Upang tuluyang matuldukan ang mga pag-iwas at pagpapalusot ni Richard Thompson, iniiwan ng pagsusuring ito ang tatlong direktang tanong na kailangang sagutin ni Thompson nang walang paligoy-ligoy.

Ang Hamon sa Aklat at Pahina ng Lisensyang Manghamon

Hinahamon si Thompson na sagutin ito nang direkta at huwag iwasan: Anong eksaktong aklat (book), pahina (pages), at petsa sa alinmang sulat ni Ellen G. White mababasa na ang isang Seventh-day Adventist, lalo na ang isang ordinaryong layman, ay pinapayagan o binibigyan ng lisensya na maunang maghamon ng debate sa publiko?

Ang Hamon sa Eksaktong Petsa at Venue ng Paratang na Proud Boaster

Yamang ipinipilit ni Thompson na si Obidos daw ang "proud boaster" na gaya ni Goliath kaya raw nila ito hinahamon ng debate, kailangang maglabas ni Thompson ng ebidensya: Kung "proud boaster" si Obidos, kailan, anong eksaktong petsa (exact date), at saang venue unang hinamon ni Ronald Obidos si Richard Thompson ng isang public oral debate? Kapag walang maipakitang ebidensya si Thompson, kailangan na niyang magsisi (repent) sa kanyang tahasang pagsisinungaling bago siya mapunta sa impiyerno!

Ang Hamon sa Pag-alis ng mga Anghel at Kaduwagan sa Written Format

Yamang binasa mismo ni Thompson nang malakas sa Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 213 (1872) na ang diskusyon ay maaaring "either oral or written" (sabay kamot sa kanyang mata sa gulat!), at binasa rin niya sa pp. 220–221 na kapag nagyabang ang debater ay umaalis ang mga anghel ng Diyos kaya nananaig ang kalaban, inaamin na ba ngayon ni Thompson na kaya siya nilampaso nina Ventilacion ng INC at Quillao ng 4th Watch sa mata ng maraming matatalinong SDA ay dahil iniwan siya ng mga anghel ng Diyos sa entablado, at kaya siya takot na takot sumagot sa isang pormal na Written Debate sa mga exposés ni Obidos mula pa noong 2019 ay dahil hindi uubra sa papel ang kanyang pampalengkeng kantyaw at pandaraya?

Synthesis at Conclusión

Sa huli, malinaw na sinagot ng mga dokumento at ebidensya ang tanong sa pamagat ng ulat na ito: Ano ang iniwasan ni Thompson? Iniwasan ni Thompson ang katotohanang ang mismong uri ng debate na mahigpit na kinokondena at ipinagbabawal ni Ellen G. White (Testimonies, Vol. 1, pp. 624–626; Vol. 3, pp. 37–38, 213–221, 424–426; Vol. 5, p. 708) at ng buong sistema ng Seventh-day Adventist Church (GC Executive Committee 2010; Ministry 1930, 1941, 1946, 2014) ay ang mismong estilo ni Richard Thompson, ang pagiging isang agresibo, maingay, at palalong challenger na gumagaya sa posisyon ni Goliath na adik sa paghahamon ng debate sa halip na maglatag ng maayos, patas, at nasusulat na katuwiran. Hangga't hindi umaamin si Thompson na nilalabag niya si Ellen White sa kanyang walang-tigil na paghahamon ng debate, at hangga't tinatakbuhan niya ang isang pormal at punto-por-puntong written refutation sa mga dokumentadong exposés laban sa kultikong aral ng SDA, ang lahat ng kanyang sigaw sa mikropono ay mananatiling hungkag na ingay lamang ng isang dating tagabitbit ng bag na pilit nagpapanggap na authorized ni Ellen White sa Debate sa entablado.

The Hidden Legalism in the SDA "Call of a Prophet" Lesson #2 Exposed

Welcome to this deep-dive pastoral and theological critique of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Sabbath School lesson for October 3-9, titled "The Call of a Prophet." This commentary is designed specifically for the Former Adventists Philippines (FAP) ministry. Our goal here is not merely to criticize for the sake of criticism, but to passionately pursue biblical truth, applying standard hermeneutics and sound exegesis to the text. 

When we read the Bible without the heavy, presuppositional baggage of 19th-century Adventism, the text opens up in beautiful, Christ-centered ways. We will go through this lesson day by day, pointing out the logical fallacies, asking some hard rhetorical questions, and looking at what the text actually says in its historical and grammatical context. 

Let us dive right into the Word of God and see how the true Gospel sets us free.

Sabbath Afternoon: The Divine Council and the True Call (Isaiah 6:8)

The memory text chosen for this week is the majestic call of Isaiah: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me'" (Isaiah 6:8, NKJV).

The lesson uses this text to establish a general premise about the prophetic office. It quickly pivots to a sociological and historical observation: being a prophet is difficult. Prophets face sorrow, rejection, misunderstanding, and frustration. They are ignored, ridiculed, and opposed by the very people who should welcome their messages.

While it is historically accurate that biblical prophets suffered greatly, the lesson employs a subtle logical fallacy here known as Affirming the Consequent. The underlying argument the lesson is quietly building goes like this:

True prophets are rejected and misunderstood by the mainstream church. Ellen G. White was rejected and misunderstood by the mainstream Christian church. Therefore, Ellen G. White is a true prophet.

This is a profound logical leap. Rejection is not the biblical litmus test for a prophet. Cult leaders, false teachers, and heretics are also widely rejected and misunderstood. The biblical test for a prophet, according to Deuteronomy 18:21-22, is one hundred percent accuracy in their prophetic predictions and total alignment with previous biblical revelation (Isaiah 8:20).

Furthermore, the lesson completely misses the rich theological depth of Isaiah 6:8. When we apply standard historico-grammatical exegesis, we see that Isaiah is granted a theophanic vision of the divine council, which is why Yahweh asks, "Who will go for Us?" The prophet is brought into the heavenly throne room. When faced with the absolute, blinding holiness of God, Isaiah does not boast in his Sabbath-keeping or his diet; he is utterly undone. He pronounces a curse upon himself: "Woe is me, for I am undone!" (Isaiah 6:5).

The burning coal taken from the altar is a profound, Christocentric picture of the Gospel. It represents substitutionary atonement and cleansing. God sovereignly cleanses Isaiah’s lips before commissioning him. The true call of a prophet is always rooted in the staggering grace of God that covers our depravity, not in a human being's inherent worthiness or ability to withstand rejection. How often do we miss the Gospel in the Old Testament because we are too busy looking for proof texts to support our denomination's authority?

Sunday: Abraham, Defender of the Covenant

Sunday’s lesson focuses on Abraham, calling him a "Defender of the Covenant." The text cites Genesis 15:6, Galatians 3:6-9, and Hebrews 11:8, pointing out that Abraham was an example of covenant faith for all future generations. However, the lesson then takes a jarring, anachronistic turn. It states: "There are many parallels between Abraham's day and ours... God's people today are called to reflect His image faithfully in their daily interactions with others, including their proclamation of the three angels' messages (Rev. 14:6-12)."

The Fallacy of Anachronism and Covenant Confusion

This is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of Anachronism, reading a 19th-century theological construct back into the patriarchal period. The "three angels' messages," particularly as interpreted by traditional Adventism (which ties them to an 1844 investigative judgment and Saturday Sabbath-keeping as the final seal), had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham’s covenant.

When we view this through the lens of New Covenant Theology (NCT), the structural flaw in the SDA argument becomes obvious. NCT recognizes the progressive nature of God's revelation. God's covenant with Abraham was an unconditional promise of grace. God alone walked through the severed animals in Genesis 15, taking the covenant curse upon Himself. Abraham simply believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

In contrast, the Sinaitic (Mosaic) Covenant, which included the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath, was a conditional, bilateral treaty made specifically with the nation of Israel. The lesson attempts to flatten all biblical covenants into one continuous, identical "everlasting covenant" where the requirements are always the same. But the New Testament explicitly teaches discontinuity. The Old Covenant (the law written on stone) is obsolete and has passed away (2 Corinthians 3:7-11; Hebrews 8:13).

Consider the implications of the Sabbath under New Covenant Theology. There is no biblical record of Abraham ever keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath was first introduced in Exodus 16 and codified in Exodus 20 as a specific sign between Yahweh and national Israel (Exodus 31:16-17). Under the New Covenant, the Sabbath is recognized as a ceremonial shadow that pointed to the ultimate substance, which is Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:16-17). We do not rest for 24 hours a week; we live in a perpetual, spiritual Sabbath rest by ceasing from our own works of self-righteousness and trusting completely in Christ’s finished work (Hebrews 4:9-10).

We must ask a rhetorical question here: If the seventh-day Sabbath is the eternal, unchanging moral seal of God for all time, why did God never command Abraham, the father of our faith, to keep it? Why did Paul, when writing to the Galatians about Abraham’s faith (Galatians 3), entirely omit any mention of Sabbath-keeping, instead emphasizing that the law was merely a temporary tutor to lead us to Christ? (Galatians 3:24-25).

Monday: The Elijah Message

Monday’s lesson turns to 1 Kings 18, examining Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. The lesson frames Elijah's ministry as a call to stop national apostasy and return to obedience. It then abruptly pivots to the modern era, claiming that just prior to the Second Coming, God commands His church to proclaim the "Elijah message" again. To support this, the lesson quotes Ellen G. White:

"A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs. To seek this should be our first work. There must be earnest effort to obtain the blessing of the Lord, not because God is not willing to bestow His blessing upon us, but because we are unprepared to receive it." (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 121).

Reformed Arminianism vs. The Conditional Grace Fallacy

When we analyze this quote through the lens of the Scriptures, we uncover a deep theological problem. Scripture strongly affirms the total depravity of humanity and the absolute necessity of prevenient grace, the grace that comes before any human response. Salvation, revival, and godliness are initiated entirely by the sovereign grace of God, even though humans are granted the freedom to respond to it.

The Ellen White quote embeds a profound Conditional Grace Fallacy. It suggests that the Holy Spirit is effectively handcuffed by human imperfection. By stating that we must make an "earnest effort to obtain the blessing" because we are "unprepared to receive it," the focus shifts entirely from the finished work and sovereign power of Christ to the performance of the believer. This is the very definition of legalism, the belief that our behavior is the key that unlocks God's grace.

In true New Covenant theology, God pours out His grace precisely because we are utterly unprepared, dead in our trespasses, and incapable of earning it (Ephesians 2:1-9). If God waited for us to be "prepared" to receive His blessing, we would be waiting for eternity. Revival is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, not a reward for our earnest behavioral efforts.

The Misappropriation of Malachi 4

Furthermore, applying the "Elijah message" (Malachi 4:5-6) strictly to a modern denominational remnant is an exercise in eisegesis (reading one's own ideas into the text). Jesus Christ Himself provided the infallible interpretation of Malachi's prophecy. In Matthew 11:14, Jesus explicitly identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy: "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come." To repurpose this prophecy as an exclusive mandate for a 19th-century Sabbatarian movement is to ignore the clear, New Testament fulfillment provided by the Son of God.

Tuesday: Isaiah, the Gospel Prophet

The lesson for Tuesday takes us to Isaiah 53. Exegetically, this is the strongest part of the lesson. The author rightly acknowledges the substitutionary aspect of Christ's death and the universal nature of the cross as the solution to sin. It is a beautiful summary of the atonement.

However, the lesson cannot resist the urge to turn a message of glorious salvation into a narrative of apocalyptic doom. The application at the end of the lesson states: "It was the refusal of the nation to practice justice and reform that led to Jerusalem's destruction. The same sin will mark the destruction of earth's wicked inhabitants when Christ returns."

Postmillennial Optimism vs. Apocalyptic Pessimism

The SDA eschatological framework is inherently pessimistic. It relies on a paradigm where the world grows increasingly wicked, the church becomes a tiny, persecuted, hiding remnant, and society totally collapses until Christ intervenes to rescue the few survivors.

Let us contrast this with the robust, biblical hope of Postmillennialism, which is a key framework in the Former Adventists Philippines theology. Postmillennialism holds a profoundly optimistic view of the Gospel's power in human history. Rooted in passages like Isaiah 2, Isaiah 9, and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), Postmillennialism teaches that Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth right now. The Great Commission is not a desperate rescue mission on a sinking ship; it is a declaration of victory.

Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until it was all leavened (Matthew 13:33). The Kingdom of God will progressively and successfully Christianize the nations through the preaching of the Gospel.

The lesson’s incessant focus on an "impending crisis" and the "destruction of earth's wicked inhabitants" reveals a theology driven by fear and an expectation of the church's ultimate failure in society. We must ask: Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ lack the power to transform nations in history, or is the Adventist apocalyptic lens forcing a narrative of defeat upon the Bride of Christ? Why do we expect the devil to have more historical success in ruining the world than Jesus Christ will have in redeeming it?

Wednesday: Daniel, the Faithful Seer

Wednesday's lesson focuses on the prophet Daniel. Predictably, the lesson begins by citing Daniel 1 to praise Daniel's insistence on "eating a plant-based diet and drinking only water." It then moves to Daniel 2, interpreting the statue's feet of iron and clay as the nations of modern Europe, claiming that despite intermarriage and attempts at unity, Europe will remain divided until the eternal kingdom comes.

The Fallacy of Eisegesis and the Health Message

First, regarding Daniel's diet, we must call out a classic example of eisegesis, reading an institutional lifestyle bias into the biblical text. Daniel 1 is not a divine endorsement of veganism, nor is it a precursor to the SDA health message. Daniel and his friends refused the king's delicacies because the meat and wine were ceremonially unclean according to the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 11) and had likely been sacrificed to Babylonian idols. Repackaging this Jewish ceremonial fidelity as a mandate for a modern "plant-based diet" strips the text of its historical and redemptive context.

The Kingdom of God

Second, the interpretation of Daniel 2 presented in the lesson is fatally flawed when viewed through the lens of Partial Preterism. Partial Preterism is the orthodox, historical view that most of the prophecies in Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, specifically culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

The lesson claims the feet of iron and clay represent "nations of modern Europe." But look closely at Daniel 2:44:

"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed."

According to standard historical exegesis, the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. "In the days of these kings" refers directly to the days of the first-century Roman Empire, not modern Europe. Did the God of heaven set up His kingdom during the Roman Empire? Yes! Jesus Christ came preaching, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). Paul declared that God "has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13).

The rock cut without hands struck the statue in the first century. The Kingdom of God is a present reality, expanding in history right now. The SDA historicist method continuously delays the establishment and victory of the Kingdom to a future eschatological event, completely missing the glorious present reality of Christ's active reign on the throne of David today (Acts 2:30-36). This continuous delaying tactic is necessary for Adventism to maintain its 1844 investigative judgment doctrine, but it fundamentally undermines the realized victory of the New Testament Gospel.

Thursday: John the Baptist, Preparing a People

Thursday’s lesson examines the ministry of John the Baptist, exploring his faithfulness in the face of Satan’s attacks and his eventual imprisonment and death. Yet, incredibly, the lesson manages to forcefully insert Revelation 14 into the narrative of John the Baptist, stating: "Like the prophets of old, we, too, are called to proclaim a message of repentance and faith and the totality of Christ's righteousness (Rev. 14:6-12)."

The Fallacy of Equivocation on "Christ's Righteousness"

What exactly does the SDA lesson mean by the "totality of Christ's righteousness" in the context of Revelation 14:6-12? Historically and practically within the denomination, Revelation 14:12 ("Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus") is used as a foundational proof text to assert that keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is the final test of righteousness and the ultimate seal of God.

This is the logical fallacy of Equivocation, using orthodox biblical words but assigning them proprietary, denominational meanings behind the scenes. Through the lens of New Covenant Theology, true righteousness is an imputed reality. It is a legal declaration received by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from works of the law (Romans 3:21-22; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

John the Baptist did not preach the seventh-day Sabbath. He did not preach a cosmic controversy where God's character is on trial. He certainly did not preach an 1844 investigative judgment. He preached repentance because the long-awaited Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. To artificially tether the vibrant, prophetic ministry of John the Baptist to a 19th-century sectarian interpretation of Revelation 14 is theological malpractice. It attempts to give the SDA denomination a lineage tracing back to the forerunner of Christ, which the text simply does not support.

Friday: Called to Prophetic Ministry (The Ellen G. White Narrative)

Friday’s lesson is the ultimate destination toward which the entire week has been building. Having established that prophets are rejected, that they call people back to the covenant, and that they face great trials, the lesson explicitly introduces Ellen G. White as a modern "noncanonical prophet."

The text sets the historical stage: After the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844 (when Jesus did not return as William Miller predicted), the Millerites were utterly devastated. In December 1844, Ellen Harmon (White) received her first vision. The Sabbath School lesson summarizes the vision and its aftermath like this: "Its primary message was to encourage both her and the disappointed believers that God was still with them in spite of their mistaken interpretation... This vision was good news. God was beginning to create a new movement out of the confusion of the disappointment. Jesus was still with them. He was still returning... They had great reasons not to give up hope."

Historical Revisionism and the "Shut Door" Cover-Up

This section of the lesson requires severe, unflinching cross-examination, as it constitutes egregious historical revisionism. The lesson claims this first vision in December 1844 was simply "good news" that Jesus was still leading the believers. However, a review of primary historical documents from the early Adventist pioneers themselves reveals a theological disaster that the lesson entirely suppresses.

Following the Great Disappointment, the early Adventists, including Ellen White and her husband James White, adopted the infamous "Shut Door" doctrine. They believed that on October 22, 1844, the door of mercy had forever closed for the entire world. They taught that only the small group of Millerites who held on to the 1844 date could be saved, and no new sinners could ever be converted. This is not an accusation invented by modern critics; it is exhaustively documented in their own early publications.

In the original publication of her first vision in the 1847 pamphlet A Word to the Little Flock, Ellen White explicitly recorded the Shut Door doctrine as a reality she was directly shown by God. Describing those who gave up their belief in the 1844 movement, the original text stated:

"It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another."

Let that sink in. The "good news" the lesson speaks of included an explicit prophetic declaration that God had "rejected" all the "wicked world," meaning probation had closed for humanity. In a letter to Joseph Bates in 1847, Ellen White wrote: "With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be converted... I saw that Jesus had shut the door in the Holy Place, and no man can open it..." (Selected Messages, Book 1, page 74 (originally from Manuscript 4, 1883; The Present Truth, Vol. 1, No. 3, page 21 (later republished in Early Writings, page 42).

By the early 1850s, it became painfully obvious that the world was continuing, new people were coming to faith, and the "Shut Door" theology was a massive, embarrassing error. When Ellen White's visions were later republished for a broader audience in the book Early Writings (1882), the highly problematic sentence, "It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected," was silently deleted by the editors.

The Sabbath School lesson's portrayal of this historical event is a blatant logical fallacy of Omission and Cherry-picking. It frames the 1844 vision as a beautiful, encouraging message of hope while completely ignoring that the prophet claimed divine authority to declare the rest of the world eternally lost.

This demands a rhetorical question of the highest magnitude: If the original 1844 vision was truly a flawless revelation from the Holy Spirit, why did the Holy Spirit's words need to be secretly edited out by human editors a few decades later? Does the God of truth make mistakes in His revelations, or was the vision merely the psychological projection of a traumatized and disappointed teenager attempting to make sense of a failed prophetic date?. When an institution edits its own divine revelations to fit the changing theology of the moment, it confesses practically that its final authority is not God, but the institution itself.

Teachers Comments: The "Spirit of Prophecy" Exegetical Fallacy

The "Teachers Comments" section further attempts to validate Ellen White by linking her to the biblical phrase the "Spirit of Prophecy." In traditional SDA theology, Revelation 19:10 ("For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy") is used as a foundational proof text. The logic asserts that the true end-time remnant church must possess a living prophet, which they explicitly identify as Ellen G. White.

A proper, standard grammatical exegesis of the Greek text utterly shatters this proprietary claim. The phrase "testimony of Jesus" (martyria Iēsou) can be translated in two distinct ways grammatically:

Subjective Genitive: The testimony given by Jesus (Jesus is the one doing the testifying; He is the source giving a message to a prophet).

Objective Genitive: The testimony about Jesus (Jesus is the object being testified about by the believers).

Contextually, syntactically, and linguistically, the overwhelming weight of New Testament scholarship points to the objective genitive. When the Apostle John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9), he was not banished by the Roman Empire because he possessed a special prophetic gift; he was banished because he boldly preached the gospel about Jesus Christ. Similarly, the martyrs in Revelation 12:11 conquer Satan "by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony." They died for bearing witness about their Savior.

Therefore, Revelation 19:10 simply means that the entire purpose, essence, and "spirit" of all true prophecy is to bear witness about Jesus. It is a glorious, Christocentric declaration that Jesus is the focal point of all redemptive history. It is not a secret code meant to provide institutional validation for a 19th-century American founder. By twisting this verse into a subjective genitive to validate Ellen White, the lesson engages in severe eisegesis.

The Continuationist Lens

Furthermore, when viewed through a Continuationist lens, the SDA monopoly on spiritual gifts is exposed as deeply unbiblical. Continuationism affirms that the Holy Spirit continues to pour out all the spiritual gifts (including prophecy, healing, teaching, and tongues) upon the entire Body of Christ for edification until Christ returns (1 Corinthians 12, 14; Ephesians 4).

The SDA church functionally operates as a bizarre hybrid of Cessationism. They effectively believe that the gift of prophecy ceased for about 1,800 years after the Apostles, suddenly reappeared exclusively in one woman (Ellen White) in 1844, and then ceased entirely again upon her death in 1915. This violates the clear New Testament pattern of widespread, congregational spiritual gifts distributed dynamically among the priesthood of all believers across all ages. True prophecy in the New Covenant is meant to edify the local church, not to serve as an infallible, extra-biblical commentary that rivals Scripture.

Conclusion

The Sabbath School lesson "The Call of a Prophet" attempts to build a subtle but deliberate theological bridge from the genuine, canonical prophets of the Old and New Testaments to the extra-biblical authority of Ellen G. White. Through a careful analysis utilizing New Covenant Theology, this critique reveals a curriculum plagued by anachronism, historical revisionism, and exegetical fallacies.

The lesson forces the beautiful text of Scripture into an artificial denominational mold. It reduces the sweeping, victorious Gospel of Isaiah and Daniel into a pessimistic, fear-based eschatology. It turns the New Covenant grace modeled by John the Baptist and Abraham into a works-based conditionalism.

Most troubling of all, it actively suppresses the historical truth regarding the devastating false prophecies and "Shut Door" theology of Ellen White's earliest visions. By presenting a sanitized, highly edited narrative, the lesson is designed to protect institutional authority at the direct expense of historical and biblical truth. As New Covenant believers, we are called to a higher standard of truth, one that rests entirely on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and the finished work of the cross.

Three Mic-Drop Cross-Examination Questions

To challenge those studying this lesson to think critically and biblically, we offer these three mic-drop cross-examination questions that summarize the fatal flaws in the curriculum's theological framework. Share these with your friends, family, and former brethren:

The Question of Suppressed Revelation: If Ellen G. White's first vision in December 1844 was truly an infallible divine revelation from the Holy Spirit, why did early Adventist leaders feel compelled to secretly delete the lines stating that "it was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected" when they republished the vision in Early Writings? Does the Holy Spirit make mistakes in His prophecies, or did the church intentionally hide a false prophecy regarding the close of probation?.

The Question of the Sabbath and the New Covenant: Hebrews 4:10 clearly states that "he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His." Since the biblical text explicitly defines the New Covenant Sabbath as a spiritual cessation from works-righteousness through faith in Christ, why does the lesson continue to retroactively impose a literal, Old Covenant shadow (Colossians 2:16-17) upon believers, effectively turning the rest of grace back into a legalistic work of the flesh?.

The Question of the Objective Genitive in Revelation 19:10: Greek scholars and biblical grammarians overwhelmingly recognize the phrase "testimony of Jesus" (martyria Iēsou) in Revelation 19:10 as an objective genitive, meaning it is the testimony about Jesus that the church preaches, for which John was exiled to Patmos. If the "spirit of prophecy" simply means that the essence of all biblical prophecy is to point directly to Jesus Christ, by what exegetical authority does the SDA denomination hijack this verse to validate the exclusive, extra-biblical writings of a single 19th-century founder?