Diet, Drugs and Divinity

And more than anything, this SDA"wall" keeps some seekers out of the “one true church”…and will likely keep some of the “one true church” out of heaven.

That is the wall we ought protest

vandiemanjeremy

Would you allow me to apply the same argument to Ellen white? Though she claimed supernatural dreams and visions for her writings, investigation proved she had indeed copied them from some book, thus, had she not lied?

You are bold to accuse Peter of plagiarism though you do not have solid evidence, at the same time you would not admit Ellen White to have ever done that, with all the evidence available to prove it.

‘of course’, the undeniable fact is, Ellen White Plagiarised all her works, from hundreds of authors.

3 Likes

But it doesn’t. Research the OT. It never says that. Look at 1st c. Judaism, the time of the NT. They simply didn’t view clean and unclean in this way. It was an identity marker that signified covenant belonging. Observant Jews were clean, unclean Gentiles ate unclean food. It was all about who was in and who was out. Unclean coastal Philistines ate shell fish, etc.

The NT knocks down the walls between Jews and Gentiles, including this issue. There is no evidence that Gentiles were ever taught to observe this list for belonging to the people of God in Christ. Paul, when referring to food issues, calls them disputable matters, matters of conscience, not of a list of regulations. He also speaks of eating with the conscience of ones weaker brother in mind, not to be a stumbling block to their faith…IOW, love for one another is the rule of the community. "The kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking, but about righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Spirit."

No one is disputing the value of teaching good health. If one wants to cite scientific support for the health benefits of abstaining from the foods in Lev. 11, then that is perfectly fine. Just don’t say that this is the point of the biblical narrative, or how this was perceived in Judaism. And, don’t make observance of a list such as this part of the ground for membership…who is in and who is not. It runs against the inclusiveness of the gospel.

This is where many of us have issue with Adventism…its unbiblical emphases and distortions. I’m sorry if you perceive this as anger. It’s affected many of us negatively.

Thanks…

Frank

7 Likes

Frank – you are correct. It was All About Purity. And Purity was a sign
that I was a Jew in the In-Group.
Jesus picked a few grains of wheat or barley on the Sabbath. Took the
shells off and ate them. Jesus was told He was IMPURE for doing so.
Healing was work. There again, Jesus was IMPURE.
IMPURE persons were considered Sinners.
Being “Clean” was important.
“Unclean”, as you said, puts me in the same category as a heathen Gentile.

3 Likes

And there was a place where NT Christianity debated about a minimum consensus of such debatable questions for Antioch, Syria, Cilicia (areas close to Israel): Acts 15.
They didn’t force kosher food on Gentile Christians then. Furthermore, Paul didn’t rigorously adapt this consensus to Gentile Christians in other areas.
God cleansed his children: “and he made no distinction between us [Jewish Christians] and them [Gentile Christians], having cleansed their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9)
What they ate didn’t make them unclean. God already cleansed them.

And by the way, this is what even our church staff says lately in publications like George Knight in his Commentary on the Gospel of Mark; food cannot make you unclean in a ritual or cultic sense; the condition of your heart shows whether you’re clean or unclean (see his comments about Mark 7). But he continues to distinguish between food that is in his opinion eatable and not eatable according to the Torah. (edit: here no quote, only summary of his ideas)

I agree, we shouldn’t make this a who’s-in-and-who’s-out-thing and stick with the way the first Christians handled this question.

2 Likes

In a sense he sounds as if talking out of two sides of his mouth. If he said that the Torah gives wisdom that is corroborated by modern science and nutrition, that is one thing. If he said that it’s good to teach this as part of overall healthful living, that’s great. But, from what you’ve quoted, I really wonder if he’s still trying to justify SDA membership standards based on biblical food laws…just jettisoning the clean/unclean distinctions.

The kingdom, (and acceptance with God and his people, in the context of Romans 14), is not about eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. I think that’s pretty self explanatory.

Thanks, Kate…

Frank

2 Likes

A clarification:
It’s not a quote, Frank. I was summarizing his ideas of some pages. I don’t have his book in English, only in another language. So, I can’t give an exact quote. He doesn’t interpret external things (and addresses here questions of diet and others) as the center of faith. And he doesn’t say anything about the connection of the biblical food laws and membership or health.

1 Like

Thanks, Kate. The bottom line is I don’t think that Knight would ever come out and criticize SDA membership standards based on food laws. John Brunt did that in a well known Spectrum article in 1981, and was vilified for it. He basically showed from a NT perspective that the whole thing is wrong headed, and also talked about the idea of teaching health in a much more holistic way than mere adherence to a list of prohibitions. Knight is probably familiar with this, and knows what happened the last time this boundary was crossed.

Keep digging! We all need to!

Frank

4 Likes

Yes, he didn’t criticize the official church position.
He just didn’t put diet at the center of the faith. But he retained the food laws as still binding laws with the shift that they can’t make you spiritually unclean.

I am thankful and humbled by those people that risk their jobs for stating obvious things in the bible. But that’s another story.

5 Likes

Just curious, what is that language?

Not English :laughing:

1 Like

That’s OK. I was just wondering if it was one of those that I speak… :wink::upside_down_face::rofl:
Never mind.

1 Like

This is almost a spiritual non-sequiter that he’s promoting. They were binding in terms of clean and unclean distinctions. That was their function. If that function no longer exists, how can they still be binding? It seems like he’s trying to attribute something to them that isn’t there, in order to keep them in place as a distinctive to be adhered to for belonging to the remnant church. If this is the intention, he’s actually bringing clean and unclean in through the back door, without naming it as such.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, Kate! But, the gymnastics that even some of the leading minds in Adventism go through to defend the so- called distinctives really drive me crazy!

Thanks…

Frank

4 Likes

Breathe! It’s healthy. You know, we like healthy. :rofl:

2 Likes

Yeah…I react, and then move on. Until I encounter the next piece of spiritual mumbo jumbo!

Frank

1 Like

Ohhh…that won’t take long! It’s everywhere…:scream: :wink: :roll_eyes:

5 Likes

You said it, Carol! :crazy_face::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::grimacing:

Frank

That’s exactly why you have been so much busy lately. :wink:

1 Like

Unfortunately, I gotta go.

Shabbat shalom for those of you that celebrate a version of Shabbat this weekend!
And for all: “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful.” (Col 3:15)

10 Likes

Peaceful weekend, Kate!

Frank

1 Like