When engaging apologetically with Seventh-day Adventists, one common question we are often asked is what to watch for during these conversations. Beyond theological claims, one key area to be mindful of is the frequent use of logical fallacies. Below, we’ve outlined some of the most common fallacies we observe Adventists employing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in defense of their doctrines.
Scripture calls Christians to glorify God not only in their actions and words but also in their reasoning (Matthew 22:37). As God is a logical Being and logic reflects His nature, believers are called to think critically and rationally as His image bearers. Representing God in the world includes engaging the mind thoughtfully and seeking to reason in a manner that honors Him (Isaiah 1:18).
Below are some of the most common logical fallacies that we hear employed by Seventh-day Adventists when seeking to defend Adventism:
Ad Hominem
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It shifts the focus from the argument’s validity to irrelevant details about the person presenting it.
Structure:
- Person A makes an argument.
- Person B responds by attacking Person A’s character, motives, or other unrelated traits.
Example:
- Argument: “Hebrews 7 says Jesus will be a priest forever but Ellen White claims He won’t.”
- Response: “You’re just saying that because you have tattoos and love your sin!”
The personal attack avoids addressing the argument about the eternal priesthood of Jesus and instead seeks to discredit the person making the claim.
Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem fallacy where someone is preemptively discredited by presenting negative information about them (often irrelevant) before they have a chance to make their argument. This tactic is meant to undermine the credibility of the person making the argument, suggesting that anything they say is unworthy of consideration due to their character, history, or personal traits.
Structure:
- Person A is about to present an argument.
- Person B introduces negative information about Person A (whether true or not) to make their argument seem unreliable or biased.
- The goal is to make the audience distrust Person A’s argument before it is even heard.
Example:
- Argument: “Ellen White’s writings contain inconsistencies and should be evaluated carefully.”
- Response: “You probably just don’t understand her writings because you’re influenced by those anti-Adventist groups who twist everything she said to make her look bad.”
In this case, the person is preemptively discredited because they are assumed to be influenced by those critical of Adventism. Instead of engaging with the specific criticisms of Ellen White’s writings, the focus is shifted to undermining the individual’s credibility based on presumed bias.
Strawman
A strawman fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the actual argument, they refute a weakened or caricatured version of it.
Structure:
- Person A presents an argument.
- Person B misrepresents Person A’s argument, then attacks the distorted version.
Example:
- Argument: “I have peace with God by grace through faith alone, not through works.”
- Strawman Response: “So you’re saying we can just live however we want, sin freely, and still be saved?”
This misrepresents the position by equating grace with lawlessness, ignoring the biblical teaching that salvation through grace calls believers to live in obedience to God, but not as a means of maintaining their peace with Him.
Genetic (Guilt-by-Association)
The genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is judged solely based on its origin or source, rather than its merit or validity. This fallacy dismisses or accepts an idea, claim, or argument simply because of where, how, or who it comes from, without engaging with the actual content of the argument. This fallacy can take numerous forms.
Structure:
- Claim A is presented.
- Person B accepts or rejects Claim A based on its origin rather than its reasoning or evidence.
Example 1: Rejecting Based on Origin
- Argument: “The Bible teaches that humans have a rational, immaterial soul.”
- Response: “That’s Roman Catholic theology!”
Here, the truth of the biblical teaching on the soul is dismissed, not on biblical grounds, but on the basis of Roman Catholicism also teaching such and thus associating the belief as being wrong because of that.
Example 2: Accepting Based on Origin
- Argument: “This must be true because it was said by Ellen White, God’s last day prophet”
Even though Ellen White may have said many true things, that does not automatically validate every claim she made.
The genetic fallacy ignores the content and reasoning of the argument, focusing instead on its origin. A claim’s source may influence how we evaluate it, but the validity of an argument ultimately depends on logic and evidence, not where it came from.
Red Herring
A red herring fallacy occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion to divert attention away from the original issue.
Structure:
- Person A presents an argument or question.
- Person B responds with an unrelated or tangential topic, distracting from the original issue.
Example:
- Argument: “The Bible plainly says Jesus will be a priest forever yet SDA theology disagrees.”
- Response: “What about the sabbath, though?”
The response avoids discussing the priesthood of Christ and redirects focus to a different subject.
Word Association or Word Concept
A word association/concept fallacy occurs when someone tries to link an argument or idea to something negative (or positive) purely through association of a word, often by ignoring the semantic range of a word.
Structure:
- Concept A is linked to Concept B because the same words are used.
Examples:
- “Peter said judgment begins at the house of God, that proves the investigative judgment is biblical.”
The argument hinges on the word “judgment” in 1 Peter 4:17 to introduce a concept foreign to Peter’s intent. While “judgment” is mentioned in the context of God’s people, this does not follow that Peter was referencing, or that the text supports, the elaborate doctrine of the investigative judgment.
- “1 John 3:24 says that only those who keep the 10 Commandments abide in God.”
The claim imposes the meaning of the “10 Commandments” onto the word “commandments,” ignoring the context of the passage and the broader semantic range of the word. 1 John 3:23 clarifies the meaning of “commandment,” demonstrating that words derive their meaning from the context in which they are used and do not always refer to the same thing universally.
Verbatim Fallacy
The verbatim fallacy is employed when a person claims something must be verbatim stated in the Bible if order for said thing to be biblical.
Example:
- “Show me one verse in the Bible that says ‘Go to church on Sunday.'”
The Bible doesn’t have to verbatim state something for it to be taught within it. Seventh-day Adventists don’t believe anywhere in the Bible verbatim says, “Go to church on Saturday” yet they believe such to be a biblical teaching. If this standard were consistently held, the vast majority of Adventist theology would be nullified because nowhere does the Bible verbatim say “investigative judgement,” “Ellen White is an end times prophet,” “Worshiping on Sunday will eventually be the Mark of the Beast,” etc.
This is the same sort of fallacious argumentation Muslims make against the deity of Christ, for example, where they will ask to be shown where Jesus verbatim said “I am God, worship me.”
Non-Sequitur
A non-sequitur occurs when a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. There’s a disconnect between the argument’s premises and its conclusion.
Structure:
- Premise A is stated.
- Conclusion B is drawn, but it doesn’t logically follow from A.
Example:
- Premise: Jesus serves as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus began an investigative judgment in 1844.
The conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premise. While Jesus’ role as High Priest is biblical, the specific date of 1844 and the concept of investigative judgment are not logically connected to this role without additional interpretative steps, which are themselves debated.
Equivocation
An equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with multiple meanings within the same argument, leading to confusion or a false conclusion.
Structure:
- A word or phrase is used ambiguously, shifting its meaning in different parts of the argument.
Example:
Argument: The Bible says to honor God with your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), so following Adventist health guidelines, such as vegetarianism, is a biblical mandate.
Equivocation: The term “health” is used in two ways: (1) honoring God by treating the body well and (2) specific dietary practices like vegetarianism or abstaining from certain foods. The argument conflates the general principle of honoring God with specific Adventist teachings, yet the Bible does not equate health with vegetarianism.
Conflation
The fallacy of conflation occurs when two distinct concepts are treated as if they are the same, leading to faulty reasoning.
Structure:
- Person A treats Concepts X and Y as identical or interchangeable without justification.
Example:
Argument: “Keeping the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to God, so if you don’t keep the Sabbath, you’re rejecting salvation.”
Conflation: This argument conflates obedience to a specific commandment (seventh day Sabbath-keeping) with salvation, which the Bible teaches is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). While seventh day Sabbath observance may be important to Adventists, equating it with salvation goes beyond biblical teaching.
Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. This fallacy involves making sweeping claims without considering all relevant data or potential exceptions.
Structure:
- Observation of a small or unrepresentative sample.
- A general conclusion is drawn from the limited evidence.
Example:
Argument: “Adventists who follow a vegetarian diet are healthier, so vegetarianism is the only way to live a healthy and godly life.”
Hasty Generalization: While some Adventists may experience health benefits from vegetarianism, this conclusion overlooks individual differences, other dietary practices, diversity of body types, and the broader complexity of what contributes to overall health and well-being.
Conclusion
It is essential to remain well-versed in common logical fallacies when engaging in discussions about the Christian faith, including with Seventh-day Adventists. While many SDAs are sincere and well-intentioned individuals, their theological framework often relies on arguments that lack logical soundness, possibly due to their often limited exposure to the principles of logic. However, introducing them to logical reasoning can spark meaningful conversations and may serve as a seed that God uses to guide them toward a deeper understanding of biblical truth.