Three days ago, Ty Gibson posted eight arguments on Twitter to convince un-jabbed (covid-vaccinated) people to get jabbed. His post:
A THREAD ON THE VACCINE. If you are struggling to know whether to get the vaccine, may I offer the following line of reasoning for your consideration?
- If it does not violate the moral law of God and therefore is not a matter of sin and religious liberty, and you want to be taken seriously when the real religious liberty threat arises,
- If your denomination has published an official statement in favor of it and you find yourself hesitant at the prospect of running with your own opinion over the general collective option of your church,
- if the vast majority of the scientific and medical community is in favor of it,
- if your personal primary care doctor recommends it and you have ever trusted your doctor’s medically-educated opinion regarding your medical care over your own opinion,
- if you find yourself willingly obeying other laws of the land designed for general public safety,
- if you have ever received other vaccines, including those mandated by law for school enrollment or for international travel,
- if when you are faced with risk in two directions you try to intelligently make your decisions in the direction of the best mathematical odds,
- and if you want to live in such a way that you value the general well-being of your fellow human beings above your own as your LORD commanded,
If you can answer yes to at least two of these eight factors, then get vaccinated” — Ty Gibson.
————————————————————————————————
A Seventh-day Adventist individual from the medical community responded to Gibson’s arguments from a biblical perspective. His post on Facebook:
Rather than attack his (Gibson’s) character which I cannot judge, I will point out flaws in his "reasoning" - let me actually start there.
While reading his arguments, you will notice he never refers to the Bible nor calls on us to seek God's wisdom, pray or seek the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy. Despite his sincerity, there is no truth to what he writes and it does not come from God.
Throughout his message, he clearly and admittedly uses human "reasoning." But we need to be very careful not to do this, since the only reasoning worth anything is that which is influenced by the Holy Spirit. Let me go point by point...
"If it does not violate the moral law of God and therefore is not a matter of sin and religious liberty, and you want to be taken seriously when the real religious liberty threat arises,"
According to the Bible, sin is not only breaking God's law, but also knowing right and not doing it. Paul makes it very clear that violating one's conscience or causing someone else to do so is sin. The claim that this is no matter of religious liberty would require someone to bury themselves fairly deeply in the sands of Rub 'al Khali, because if it isn't a real threat to religious freedom, then the pilgrims must have been lunatics and Martin Luther a clown.
I am not sure where he gets the idea that our goal is to be "taken seriously" - I thought our goal was to live for Christ and to be faithful to our calling. I do not recall any of the apostles worrying about being taken seriously. Perhaps he seeks the approval of man, not God. We do not need to strive to be taken seriously. Nor should we!
"if your denomination has published an official statement in favor of it and you find yourself troubled at all by the prospect of running with your own opinion over the general collective option of your church,"
Our church has not made a position on this. The General Conference has released a statement based on the views of a few delegates, but the Church in session, the heaven-ordained method as outlined in Acts, has not released a statement or a decision on this issue. Our opinions are never to be molded to that of the collective. We are to submit to God only, we are not Catholics.
"if your personal primary care doctor recommends it and you have ever trusted your doctor’s medically-educated opinion regarding your medical care over your own opinion,"
This is one of his most illogical statements. First of all, it contains three fallacies, one of which is appeal to authority and possibly the most dangerous. Therefore, if I have ever accepted advice from a person, I am obligated to accept all their advice through infinity.
"You say I should get divorced? Well, I listened to you before so I must listen to you now"
Considering the counsel of Spirit of Prophecy, we should be skeptical of doctors and only accept their advice if it corresponds with the Word of God and does not violate nature's laws, principles that govern our being, or our conscience.
"if you find yourself willingly obeying other laws of the land designed for general public safety,"
This statement would imply that we should also surrender when the Sunday law is enforced. Oh, and FYI, the segregation of the blacks and the isolation, imprisonment, and destruction of the Jews were all for the sake of "public safety". It is important to understand that the concept of "public health" can be used for great evil.
There is a greater duty to God than any obligation to supposed public safety measures - measures proven to cause harm and have no verifiable benefit.
"if you have ever received other vaccines, including those mandated by law for school enrollment or for international travel,"
The fact that vaccines can be dangerous does not justify the idea that one cannot decide one vaccine is unsafe because they had others. This is both illogical and unfounded.
As a result, if you take aspirin from your doctor you should take whatever he prescribes because of precedent. This man's arguments are heavily swayed by his past decisions. So if I have ever done anything I regret in the past, I must still follow that path. This is not sound reasoning!
"if when you are faced with risk in two directions you try to intelligently make your decisions in the direction of the best mathematical odds,
and if you want to live in such a way that you value the general well-being of your fellow human beings above your own as your LORD commanded,"
Certainly not! I make my decisions based on the Word of God and thus saith the Lord! Bringing this to a climax with a false tie to "love thy neighbor" is a disservice to those who would live according to their conscience and principle.
There is no obligation to violate your body for the sake of protecting someone else's health. This is a satanic idea at its core. Nowhere in the Bible has anyone been instructed to violate one's body to protect another.
Daniel and the three Hebrews risked their lives for principle on grounds that endangered their friends. Were they selfish? No, those who ate the king's meat were selfish” — Randall LaCelle.
We found Randall’s response to Gibson’s arguments to be thoughtful and worth your consideration. Enjoy, God bless and Merry Christmass.