The Day of Atonement

Health Reform Vegetarianism As A Test
1

The section in part 1 on vegetarianism addressing the Day of Atonement raises at least a couple of issues.

The first is the use of Isaiah 22, and the second is the point of fasting on the Day of Atonement.

1 Like
2

On the point of Isaiah 22, whether the reference to Eliakim the son of Hilkiah (Isaiah 22:20-22) can rightly place the earlier verses (12-14) within the Day of Atonement, I am not presently prepared to discuss more deeply. But the cross-reference to Revelation, the key of David and the opening and shutting, does seem to be something relevant to look at.

However, the application of this passage to the Day of Atonement regardless of those later verses, did not originate with SDARM.

Stephen Haskell, in The Cross and Its Shadow, chapter 30, “The Duty of the Congregation on the Day of Atonement,” connects these things together.

How few are willing to deny themselves the things their appetite craves, even when they know the claims of God! The prophet Isaiah, looking down through the ages, describes the state of things as follows: ‘In that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen , and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine.’ What a vivid picture of the present condition of the world! God calls upon His people to afflict their souls, to control their appetite, to partake of food that will give good blood and a clear mind to discern spiritual truths: but instead of obeying, they engage in ‘eating flesh and drinking wine.’ The prophet records the final result of this course: ‘It was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die.’” Haskell, The Cross and Its Shadow, p. 224

This connection is not a novel concept, and perhaps should not even be seen as controversial.

1 Like
3

Now to the point of fasting in the antitypical Day of Atonement. Note Haskell’s treatment of this point in The Cross and Its Shadow.

“The antitypical day of atonement covers a period of years. In the type there was a fast of twenty-four hours required. During this one day there was to be complete control of the appetite; and it was a type of the self-control to be exercised during the antitypical period of years. God designs that His people shall be masters of their appetites, and keep under the body. [1 Corinthians 9:27] Satan would give loose rein to the appetite, and let it control the person.

“In spite of the fact that an army, of faithful workers are doing all in their power to withstand the flood of intemperance, Satan is working with such power that drunkenness and crime are increasing in the earth at an alarming rate. Back in 1844, when the investigative judgment opened in heaven, only men and a few women were slaves to tobacco; but now thousands of children are being destroyed by it, and many women are addicted to the filthy habit. Wineries and breweries are increasing in the land, and intoxicating beverages are served in thousands of homes.

“God calls upon His people to be masters of their appetites instead of slaves to it, that they may have clearer minds to comprehend divine truth and follow the work of their High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary….

[The paragraph quoted in the previous comment appears here]

The Saviour gave special warning against the evil of giving loose rein to the appetite during the time when the records of human lives are being examined and individuals are being accounted worthy or unworthy of eternal life: ‘Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. . . . Watch ye therefore, and pray that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.’ [Luke 21:34-36] The warning is against ‘surfeiting’—overeating, and ‘drunkenness’—eating injurious food. In other words, the Saviour designs that His people, during the antitypical day of atonement, shall take heed to both the quantity and the quality of their food. One can becloud the mind and ruin the health by overeating of the best of food. The glutton and the drunkard are classed together: ‘Be not among winebibbers; among riotous caters of flesh; for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty.’ [Proverbs 23:20, 21]

“Our first parents failed on the test of appetite [Genesis 3:1-6]; but where they failed, Christ triumphed. [Matthew 4:3, 4] And it is possible for a Christian, with the indwelling Christ in the heart, to be complete master of his appetite,—to abstain from all food that is injurious, however much the natural appetite may crave it, and not to overeat of good food.

“As He entered upon His earthly ministry, the Saviour was not only tested upon the point of appetite, but from childhood He was taught to control His desires. In speaking of His childhood, Isaiah says, ‘Butter and honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ [Isaiah 7:14,15] His manner of eating developed in Him spiritual power to discern between good and evil. Many who have gone into drunkards’ graves have eaten ‘butter and honey,’ but Jesus ate it in a way to develop spiritual strength. He ate it according to the Bible rule. There are three texts which, taken together, contain a rule for eating honey, and the same rule will apply to all food that is good. They read as follows: ‘My son, eat thou honey, because it is good.’ [Proverbs 24:13] ‘Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee.’ [Proverbs 25:27] ‘It is not good to eat much honey.’ The one who follows the above instruction, and eats none but good food and only ‘so much as is sufficient,’ will enjoy good health and a clear mind. God wishes His people to have good health, with souls free from condemnation. Satan delights in beclouding the brain and destroying the health. All who will fulfil the antitype will be masters of their appetites, that they may prepare to meet the Saviour when He comes to the earth as King of kings and Lord of lords.” Haskell, The Cross and Its Shadow, pp. 223-226.

This is a very solid argument, applying the principles of temperance and control of appetite to the antitypical Day of Atonement.

4

In regard to consistency in applying the several things required of the congregation on the day of atonement, I would concur with Haskell on his application of it.

The article states:

We interpret fasting as corresponding to vegetarianism – a literal dietary practice. Yet we interpret refraining from work as meaning abstaining from “works of sin”- a spiritual application. ( A Test of Fellowship? Examining the SDARM Basis for Making Vegetarianism a Baptismal Requirement – An Appeal to SDARM )

I think it would be more properly stated like this:

  • Fasting (affliction of soul) had the practical effect of curtailing appetite and preserving clarity of mind for those who participated in the Day of Atonement
  • Being a sabbath rest day, the Day of Atonement was an opportunity to focus on the events of the day and wholeheartedly participate without distraction.

The application of these principles to the antitypical Day of Atonement will achieve the exact same objectives.

1 Like
5

Haskell comments on the Day of Atonement being a day of rest:

“The day of atonement was kept as a ceremonial sabbath by the ancient congregation [Leviticus 23:31]. All work was laid aside, and the entire thought was given to seeking God and serving Him. God’s work was given the first thought during the entire day. Such was the type; but it does not follow that on the antitypical day of atonement no one should attend to personal business, for God never intended His people to be ‘slothful in business’ [Romans 12:11]. He promises to bless them in temporal things if they fulfil the antitype by looking after His work and service first, and their temporal interests second [Matthew 6:31-33]. This was beautifully taught by the Saviour’s words: ‘Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with…cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares’ [Luke 21:34]

“Satan is liable to entrap more well-meaning people in this snare than in any other of his many deceptions. He often persuades good people that the daily cares of the household are so important that they have no time to study God’s word and pray, until, for lack of spiritual food and communion with God, they become so weak spiritually that they accept the doubts and unbelief the enemy is constantly presenting. When the time comes that they think they do have time to study their Bibles, they find they have lost all relish for God’s word.” Haskell, The Cross and Its Shadow, pp. 227, 228.

1 Like
6

I was aware of Haskell’s use of Isaiah 22, but in my research I found that he appears to be the primary pioneer who employed this passage to argue that it forbids certain articles of diet during the antitypical Day of Atonement. I was not able to locate other substantial statements from early Adventist authors drawing the same conclusion, nor did I find any support for this idea in the Testimonies.

For that reason, while the concept is not unique to the SDARM tradition, it does not seem to have gained broader endorsement among Adventist pioneers beyond Haskell himself.

7

I agree completely with the spiritual message of Haskell’s argument, but I do not believe it establishes grounds for making diet reform a test of fellowship. The question my article raises is not whether health reform applies during the antitypical Day of Atonement - we agree that it does (the pot of manna). The question is: does the application of these principles justify making abstinence from flesh a test of fellowship and condition of baptism? Haskell points to an ideal, a duty of personal sanctification, and a moral appeal - but he nowhere suggests the church should require compliance as a condition of membership.

8

Then the main question stands on its own to be further discussed but it seems we have at least agreed that Isaiah 22 has a place somewhere here.

Whether others shared Haskell’s view or not, he doesn’t make the point in a way that is incompatible with foundational principles.

2 Likes
9

I agree Isaiah 22 came from Haskell and that it ties in with the church period of Philadelphia because Jesus said it is written again.

“Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” — Matthew 4:7

Who was He talking to?

He was speaking directly to Satan.

In that scene Matthew 4:1–11, Jesus had been fasting in the wilderness, and Satan came to tempt Him. Each time Satan presented a temptation, Jesus answered with Scripture.

Satan had quoted Scripture Psalm 91, trying to twist it. So when Jesus says “it is written again,” He is correcting a misuse of Scripture by using another Scripture.

Why does He say “again”?

Because He is showing that:

One verse alone can be misapplied

Truth is established by comparing Scripture with Scripture

when we are reading a scripture or Ellen Whites writings, we have to compare it with other statements.

The quotation of Isaiah 22 is a prophetic foresight to a specific time (‘in that day’) – this is further continued in verses 20 – 22.

When is that? Compare verse 22 with Revelation 3:7,8.

Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

The church period of Philadelphia was from 1833 to 1844 – the announcement time of Jesus entering into His final work of mediation in the Sanctuary in heaven – moving from the Holy place into the Most Holy Place: Symbolised by the day of atonement in the Hebrew Sanctuary. This day of atonement was a day of fasting and deep heart searching.

This is what God means in Isaiah 22:20-22 & 12-14. In that day when Jesus leaves the holy place and enters into the Most Holy Place – all Gods people are to eat only for nourishment and not for drunkenness. If they ignore this day of judgement and indulge in lustful joy and gladness eating, to satisfy appetite only, their judgement is expressed.

That sin shall not be purged.

All true believers who are aware of the truth of Jesus’ meditation in the heavenly sanctuary, have the Bible reason for vegetarianism clear and do not eat flesh or any nature of alcohol/strong drink.

10

This is really where the issue lies. Not whether a plant-based diet is God’s ideal; I believe it is, and I’ve said so throughout this series. The question is whether we as a church are authorised to make it the boundary line of who is a true believer. That is a far heavier thing to build, and it needs a foundation heavier than an inference or speculation.

Notice what Haskell actually does with his quoting of Isaiah. He reads the passage as “a vivid picture of the present condition of the world,” and turns it into an appeal: God calls His people to control appetite and to eat for a clear mind. That is an argument for self-denial and for health reform, and I have no quarrel with a word of it. What Haskell does not do - anywhere in that chapter - is propose that the passage establishes a condition of church membership. Event if he did, Haskell, for all his value to us, was a teacher rather than a prophet (1 Corinthians 12:28), which means his applications remain open to the same examination as anyone’s.

On the link to Revelation 3:7 – it is clear that Christ appropriates the imagery of Isaiah 22:22 to describe His own authority. My difficulty is with what happens next in the argument.

That phrase “in that day” occurs four times in this chapter - verses 8, 12, 20, and 25.

It’s worth being precise about what inspiration actually authorises here (this shouldn’t be a private interpretation). Revelation 3:7 takes up the key of David from verse 22 and applies it to Christ. That much is settled. But I can find nowhere in Scripture or the Testimonies where verse 20 - “I will call my servant Eliakim” - is given an end-time application. Inspiration borrows the image of verse 22; it does not relocate the timeframe of the surrounding passage.

So if “in that day” is what ties verses 12–14 to verses 20–22 and lifts them together into the antitypical Day of Atonement, notice that verse 25 is tied by the very same thread: “In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off.” And this is not a different figure. Verse 23 introduced the image of Eliakim - “I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place” - and verse 25 repeats the phrase exactly. The one who holds the key of David is literally the same one who is cut down and falls, on the same day.

Nobody applies verse 25 to Christ, and nobody should. But the reason we don’t is important: we recognise that carrying a figure beyond what inspiration authorises produces conclusions that don’t add up.

11

thank you for your response. But I think you’re making a stronger point than Scripture itself requires.

The New Testament does not leave us wondering whether Isaiah 22 has a Messianic application. Christ Himself deliberately applies Isaiah 22 in Revelation 3:7.

These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.

This is a direct quotation of Isaiah 22:22. Jesus identifies Himself as the One holding the Key of David. That is not speculation. It is Christ’s own interpretation.

The reason this matters is that verse 22 does not stand in isolation. The key is given to My servant Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20–22. Revelation does not merely borrow an isolated metaphor. It identifies Christ with the office represented by Eliakim. Eliakim was a type of Christ, just as David, Solomon, Melchizedek and Joshua the high priest were types of Christ. Types are never perfect in every detail.

Therefore, I am not arguing that every verse concerning Eliakim must be mechanically applied to Jesus. That would be poor typology. The failures or limitations of the historical type do not belong to the antitype. David committed adultery, Solomon fell into idolatry, Moses sinned at Meribah, and Eliakim’s story concludes historically. None of those failures transfer to Christ simply because they were types.

This is why Isaiah 22:25 does not present a difficulty. It belongs to the historical type, not necessarily to the antitype. Revelation only authorises the application of the portion that Christ Himself claims, namely the Key of David and the authority connected with it. Scripture frequently does this, applying only selected aspects of an Old Testament type to Christ.

As for the repeated expression in that day, it is certainly true that it occurs several times in Isaiah 22. The question is not whether every occurrence must refer to exactly the same prophetic horizon, but whether the chapter contains elements that extend beyond the immediate historical setting. Revelation 3 demonstrates that it does. Christ reaches back into Isaiah 22 and identifies Himself with the One who possesses the Key of David. Once Christ does that, the chapter cannot be treated as merely an exhausted historical narrative.

Regarding Isaiah 22:12–14, my argument is not based solely on the phrase in that day. It rests on the remarkable parallels between God’s call to weeping, mourning and self-denial, contrasted with eating flesh and drinking wine while saying Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die, and the final message of repentance before the close of probation. Ellen White repeatedly places appetite and health reform within the preparation for the sealing and the judgment, and S. N. Haskell recognised Isaiah 22 as portraying the condition of the world in the last days and appealed for victory over appetite from this very passage.

Whether one agrees with that application or not, it is inaccurate to say the chapter has no end-time significance. Christ Himself has already carried Isaiah 22 into the New Testament by identifying Himself with the One who possesses the Key of David. That alone establishes that the chapter has prophetic significance extending beyond Eliakim’s lifetime.

Meat eating in this day and age, is an unnecessary indulgence. We don’t need it and if God created our first parents in Eden to be vegan, and he wants to restore the old path, the Repairs of the breach, the restorers of many generations, then should we not be upholding everything instituted in Eden? Including the Sabbath, marriage and the diet?

I do want to commend you though. Because you are asking questions and you’re questioning the doctrine of the reform. I’m impressed that you no longer believe that people cannot remarry because from what I understand you believe they can? You also don’t believe that the remnant will only come from the reform, I would enjoy having conversation with you if you would not brand me under a certain ministry and accept me for who I am as an individual with my own thought pattern and decision making. many conclusions that I drew as a child not from the ministry that I’m under.

12

I think this part of your response is essentially making the same point I am.

But let me steer the conversation back to the original point in the articles, as I think we might be drifting a little.

Is a plant-based diet God’s ideal for His people, and is flesh-eating generally an unnecessary indulgence today? My answer is yes and yes. I’ve said so in every part of this series. I’m not defending meat-eating in the camp of God’s people.

But while we agree on the ideal, the question I’m asking is - has God authorised His church to make that ideal a condition of baptism - a boundary line determining who may and may not enter the fellowship of Christ’s body?

Everything I’ve written concerns this last question. When you write that meat-eating today is an unnecessary indulgence, I don’t disagree with you at all, provided we don’t carry this principle to the front in our gospel work. I share Sr. White’s concern here, that such things “are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work.” (Ms 5, 1881).

You ask: if Sabbath, marriage and diet were all instituted in Eden, and we are to be repairers of the breach, why uphold two and not the third?

But I do uphold the third. I teach it, I advocate it, and I’ve argued that the church should serve only plant-based food at every gathering and require it of all who stand in ministry. The question was never whether to uphold the Edenic diet - it’s whether to make it a test of fellowship. Those are different things, and the Eden argument only reaches the second if we assume that upholding something requires testing on it.

13

I think the 1881 statement needs to be read in its historical context rather than as though it settled the question for all time.

in 1881 Ellen White said meat was not to be made a test because the church itself had not yet accepted health reform, and God was still leading His people progressively. truth is often introduced in stages, just as happened with Israel, and that God’s expectations increase as greater light is received.

Your quotation from Manuscript 5, 1881 is completely correct for that point in history. Ellen White wrote, “The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese is not to be presented to anyone as a test,” and she added that these things were “not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work.”

The question, however, is whether that statement was intended to remain unchanged forever. it was not. He traces the development of health reform and shows that later inspired counsel speaks of God’s people returning to full health reform before the close of probation, just as other truths unfolded progressively throughout Advent history.

So I agree that in 1881 meat was not yet a test. That is exactly what Ellen White wrote. But it does not automatically follow that what was true in 1881 remained God’s final position regardless of increasing light and the advancing condition of the remnant church. The real question is not, “What was the policy in 1881?” but, “What does God require of His people living in the antitypical Day of Atonement with all the light He has since given?” That is where I believe the discussion should be focused.

I’ve always found this very helpful by Peter Lausevic

14

Thanks, Ariadne. I’m quite familiar with Peter Lausevic’s material on this topic, and his approach is very much the standard one within SDARM.

Tests are certainly important. But look at what actually forms the basis of a test of fellowship. A test is valid when God has required it in Scripture - not when the church has come to agreement and decided to institute one. That’s precisely my question, where is the command, and where is the authorisation?

Notice that both of the examples used to establish the “light then test” principle actually demonstrate this. The Sabbath rests on the fourth commandment. Pork rests on a plain prohibition - “of their flesh ye shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:8). And in the very 1858 statement quoted, Ellen White tells us how such a change comes about: “If God requires His people to abstain from swine’s flesh, He will convict them on the matter… He will teach His church their duty.” In both cases there is a command in Scripture, and God Himself brought the church to the test. Neither became a test because the membership all agreed it was a good idea.

In 1909, standing before the General Conference in session and publishing it in the Testimonies: “We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship.” In 1911: “I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question.”

For the progressive-light argument to hold, the counsel would need to move toward the test as light increased. It moves the other way. The latest, most public, and most authoritative statements are the ones against it - given after all the light had been given.

This is relevant to what “increased light” actually means. As I set out in the article on discerning claims of new light, Ellen White’s own test is that genuine light never reverses established light: “When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained” (1SM 161.1). And more pointedly still: “Every soul is to watch everything that comes in as new light, which in tracing it out leads you to give up the light which the Lord attested to be light during the past half a century” (Ms 130, 1906). Authentic new light expands and clarifies what has been given; it does not overturn it. So an argument that our advancing understanding has now cancelled a position she stated publicly in 1909 and again in 1911 is not an application of the progressive-light principle.

There’s also the matter of the reason. You wrote that in 1881 she said this “because the church itself had not yet accepted health reform.” But the passage supplies its own reason, and it isn’t that one: “The Word of God has given tests to His people. The keeping of God’s holy law, the Sabbath, is a test.” And in 1902: “No tests that the Bible does not require are to be brought in” (Lt 213, 1902). Those are arguments about authority, not about readiness or uniformity. Nor does the 1881 statement contain the word “yet” - it says the question of meat “is not to be presented to anyone as a test,” without qualification. The “not yet” language belongs to 1911, and there it concerns the Anti-Meat Pledge specifically.

Which brings me to the pledge, because I think the account of it needs correcting. Peter’s study suggests that 9T 159 was written because the General Conference leadership were unwilling to sign a pledge themselves. The documentary record gives different reasons. W. C. White’s 1934 statement records that the officers of the General Conference, “and especially those who have labored long in foreign countries,” judged that a universal pledge “would cause unnecessary strife and unnecessary criticism of our people in mission fields.” His deeper concern was hermeneutical: he warned that “such a pledge as this would naturally lead to endless controversies regarding the authority of the Testimonies,” and that it would come to be “regarded as a test of loyalty to the Testimonies.” The proposed wording of the pledge made this almost inevitable - it bound signatories “in compliance with the revealed will of the Lord.”

It’s worth adding that Ellen White never authorised the 1908 letter for publication, and declined repeated requests to release it or extracts from it - because, as W. C. White explained, there were “extremists and fanatics on health reform… who would be prompt to seize upon some portions of this letter and make an unwise use of it were it made public.”

So even granting that the deferred thing will one day arrive - what was deferred was a pledge: voluntary, signed by those already convicted, and no bar to membership for those who didn’t sign. I would support that tomorrow. It is not the same thing as a baptismal requirement, and the one does not authorise the other.

I’ve laid all of this out at length in Parts 2 and 3 of the series, with the primary sources, and if you haven’t already, I’d encourage you to read them - particularly the section on the 1908 letter and why she declined to publish it.

15

Gerson, the problem with your argument is that you treat Ellen White’s 1909 counsel against making flesh eating a test of fellowship as though it were an everlasting prohibition against meat ever becoming a test. The evidence does not establish that.

In 1911 Ellen White again said that she was not prepared at that time to advise making meat eating a test question among the people. But she immediately added that not yet were the people fully ready for the issue.

The words not yet are extremely important and cannot simply be brushed aside. She did not say never. She said not yet. Those words are temporal. They indicate that the people were not ready at that time. If Ellen White intended to teach that meat eating could never become a test under any circumstances, there would have been no reason to use the words not yet.

Although the manuscript concerned an anti-meat pledge, her wording refers more broadly to making meat eating a test question and says the people were not yet ready for the issue. The title of a manuscript cannot be used to erase the meaning of the words within it.

Ellen White consistently presents health reform as progressive and connected with preparation for Christ’s coming. She teaches that health reform is part of the third angel’s message and that God’s people needed preparation before the loud cry.

She also teaches that among those waiting for the coming of Christ, meat eating would eventually be done away with. She regarded continued flesh eating as inconsistent with the advancing light God had given His people.

She further explains that God was bringing His people back toward His original design regarding diet and that ultimately flesh would no longer form part of the diet of His people.

These statements show that the established trajectory was not permanent acceptance of meat, but progressive restoration toward God’s original design. Moving from tolerated meat eating toward abstinence does not contradict earlier light. It follows its direction.

The biblical foundation is also clear.

Genesis 1:29 establishes God’s original diet.

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 teaches that our bodies belong to God and must be used for His glory.

1 Corinthians 10:31 applies the principle of glorifying God directly to eating and drinking.

Romans 12:1 calls believers to present their bodies as living sacrifices.

2 Corinthians 7:1 calls for cleansing from defilement of both flesh and spirit.

Daniel 1 demonstrates that appetite and diet can become an actual test of faithfulness to God.

Ellen White also applies these principles to flesh eating, connecting appetite with spiritual preparation and repeatedly warning against allowing appetite to control the Christian life. She did not treat meat eating as morally neutral.

Her 1909 statement should therefore be understood in its historical setting. The people were not to have an inflexible test imposed before they were adequately instructed and prepared. It should not be turned into the claim that meat eating could never become a test.

The key question is not whether vegetarianism was a test in 1909. It was not.

The key question is whether that situation permanently fixed the standard until the Second Coming.

Again, the words not yet are crucial. Not yet points to timing and readiness. It does not mean never.

Ellen White’s language throughout the health reform message shows progression. God leads His people step by step. Meat eating would eventually disappear. The people were not yet ready. God was bringing His people back toward His original design.

The issue is whether advancing light can produce advancing responsibility.

Her writings on health reform show that it can.

Yes — that sentence is too vague for the point you’re making. It sounds almost neutral, when your argument is specifically that the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church went into apostasy and therefore cannot be treated as the continuing authority for what later reform believers were permitted to make a test of fellowship.

I’d change it to this:

There is also a historical and prophetic dimension that needs to be considered.

Ellen White made the statement about meat eating not being a test of fellowship in 1909. She died in 1915. But only a few years after that statement, the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church entered the great crisis of 1914 and departed from fundamental principles of the original Adventist faith.

Before her death Ellen White had already warned of approaching crisis, division and spiritual decline. In the railroad depot representation she described a terrible crisis coming upon the people. The message of the fourth angel had begun in 1888 and was advancing, bringing greater light and greater responsibility.

Then came 1914. From the Reform Movement understanding, the mainstream church compromised the commandments of God, Sabbath observance and non-combatancy. In doing so, it departed from the original platform and lost the candlestick.

This is why the 1909 instruction cannot be used to bind the later Reform Movement. The mainstream church itself had fallen into apostasy only a few years later and was no longer the body carrying the advancing light.

Amos 5 speaks of the virgin of Israel as fallen. A church being raised up by God does not make it incapable of falling through apostasy.

God raised up the Reform Movement to continue the original Adventist platform. In 1925 it formally established its principles of faith and church order and applied the advancing light more fully, including health reform as a test of fellowship.

The Reform Movement was therefore not wrong simply because the mainstream church had not made it a test in 1909.

Again, the words not yet are vital.

Not yet does not mean never. It means the people were not ready at that time. Light advanced, apostasy came, the candlestick passed, and God raised up a movement to continue the work.

16

Hi Ariadne,

Regarding the SDARM test, I think the burden of proof is actually quite straightforward. This quote tells us:

“Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” GC 595.1

And Sr. White applies essentially the same principle directly to questions of diet:

“The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese is not to be presented to anyone as a test… The Word of God has given tests to His people. The keeping of God’s holy law, the Sabbath, is a test.” Ms 5, 1881

That seems highly significant to me. The issue is not whether abstaining from flesh foods represents a higher or healthier ideal. I accept the health-reform ideal. The question is whether the church has divine authority to turn that ideal into a test of fellowship.

Ms 23, written in October 1911, does not establish such a test. It concerns a personal pledge, not a condition of church membership such as that practised by SDARM. And when Ellen White writes, “not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue,” notice what she says should happen next:

“There should be first a fair representation of the subject, and it should be considered in all its bearings.”

She then directs attention to Genesis 18:6–8, where Abraham serves a dressed calf, butter and milk to heavenly visitors. That is a very strange passage to introduce if her purpose were to signal that total abstinence from flesh foods was developing into a future test of fellowship.

SDARM’s own constitutional principle rules out simply creating such a test by church legislation. Resolution No. 36 of the 1987 General Conference states that church decisions are ratified in heaven only “when the church acts and makes decisions in harmony with the will of God as delineated in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.”

So the question still comes back to divine authority. Where, in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy, is the church authorised to make abstinence from flesh foods a condition of membership?

“Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission.” DA 826.1

So I think the burden remains on those defending the test.

Can a plain and sound argument be produced from Scripture showing that abstinence from flesh foods is to be made a condition of church fellowship? I have yet to see one.

Or can a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy be produced in which Ellen White actually authorises the church to make abstinence from flesh foods a test of fellowship?

And I mean precisely that - not statements teaching the ideal of abstinence, because I already accept those. The question is whether she authorised the church to make that ideal a test of membership.

There is also a further problem created by our present position. I have explained that concern in more detail here:

https://appealtosdarm.com/the-final-deception-making-the-testimonies-of-none-effect/

17

I believe the SDARM has a defensible biblical, prophetic and historical basis for making abstinence from flesh food a test of membership.

Ellen White’s earlier statements must be understood in their historical setting and in relation to advancing light. In 1881 she said that butter, meat and cheese were not to be presented as a test. In 1909 she wrote that flesh food was not to be made a test of fellowship. In 1911 she likewise said that she was not then prepared to advise making meat eating a test question. These statements should not be denied. However, they do not necessarily establish that the church would never be permitted to make health reform a test under a later and more advanced condition of light.

When Ellen White wrote in 1909 that flesh food was not to be made a test of fellowship, she was addressing a church whose own ministers and leaders had not accepted the standard. Immediately after making that statement, she rebuked ministers and conference presidents who were still freely eating meat, explaining that their example counteracted the efforts being made to reform the members. The leadership could hardly impose upon ordinary members a standard that it was unwilling to practise itself.

The 1909 statement must therefore be read within its historical context. It addressed the unreadiness and inconsistency of the church at that time rather than necessarily establishing an everlasting prohibition against abstinence from flesh food ever becoming a test. This interpretation is strengthened by Ellen White’s later words in 1911 that “not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue.” She did not say that the people would never be ready. She said they were not yet ready.

The standard could not consistently be placed upon the members while it had not first been accepted and demonstrated by the leadership. Reform had to begin with the ministers, conference presidents and other influential workers responsible for teaching and guiding the church before it could consistently be required of the wider membership.

Ellen White repeatedly pointed forward to a time when God’s people would abandon flesh food. She wrote that among those awaiting the coming of Christ, meat eating would eventually be done away; that no meat would be used by God’s people; that flesh would cease to form part of their diet; that appetite must be cleansed; and that this work had to be accomplished before God’s people could stand before Him as a perfected people.

The expression not yetis therefore important. It indicates that the matter was not permanently closed but that the church had not reached the point at which the full requirement could be implemented. Her forward-looking statements reveal the direction in which God was leading His people. The temporary inability to make something a test should not be transformed into a perpetual prohibition against the church ever reaching the predicted standard.

Ellen White also called upon believers to sign a pledge against flesh meats, tea, coffee and all injurious foods. This demonstrates that health reform was not merely private advice with no corporate or covenantal significance. It was connected with self-denial, Christian discipline, preparation for the latter rain, and the cleansing of God’s people before the close of probation.

A voluntary pledge is not identical to a baptismal vow, but it nevertheless shows that Ellen White did not regard health reform as merely a private preference that the organised body could never address. She wanted a united and visible commitment, beginning with the leadership and working forces of the church. The church was first to educate the people, set the right example and bring them progressively into harmony with the light.

The issue must therefore be viewed progressively. A message may be true before the church is prepared to make it a formal test. God often teaches His people step by step. The fact that Ellen White opposed making meat eating a test at one stage does not prove that the same restriction must remain unchanged after greater light, instruction and conviction have been received.

The Sabbath itself illustrates the principle of advancing responsibility. Truth may exist before a people fully understand it, but once God restores that truth and brings conviction, obedience becomes a test. The same principle applied to the rejection of swine’s flesh. The standard was not enforced before the people had received sufficient instruction, but after the light became clear, knowingly continuing the practice could no longer be treated as innocent.

The biblical foundation for the original diet begins in Genesis 1:29, where God gave humanity fruits, grains and seed-bearing foods. Flesh eating was permitted after the Flood as a concession to changed circumstances, but it was not God’s original design. Israel’s experience in the wilderness shows God attempting to lead His people away from the flesh pots of Egypt and teach them dependence upon the food He provided. Their demand for flesh was associated with appetite, unbelief and resistance to divine instruction.

Daniel 1 shows that diet and appetite can become direct tests of faithfulness. Daniel and his companions refused the king’s food because they would not defile themselves. Their dietary stand was not separated from their loyalty to God. It formed part of their preparation to stand faithfully through the greater tests that followed.

First Corinthians 6:19–20 teaches that the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost and must be used for God’s glory. First Corinthians 10:31 applies that principle directly to eating and drinking. Romans 12:1 calls believers to present their bodies as living sacrifices, while 2 Corinthians 7:1 calls for cleansing from every defilement of flesh and spirit. These principles show that appetite and diet are matters of Christian obedience rather than areas entirely outside the authority of the gospel.

Isaiah 22:12–14 also presents the issue in the setting of a particular prophetic day. God called His people to weeping, mourning and affliction, but instead they were slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. The passage condemns indulgence at the very time when God was calling for solemn preparation. This applies to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the heavenly sanctuary ministry beginning in 1844. God’s people living in the hour of judgment are called to self-denial, restraint and the overcoming of appetite.

Isaiah 58 further describes the true fast and the work of restoring the foundations of many generations. God’s people are called to repair the breach and restore the paths in which His people should dwell. Health reform belongs to this restoration because it concerns the body, the mind, the treatment of God’s creatures, the control of appetite and the preparation of a people who will stand in the final crisis.

Isaiah 58 also presents restoration as a corporate work. God’s people are not merely disconnected individuals receiving private convictions. They are a visible movement entrusted with the responsibility of lifting up the standard and proclaiming the final message. When a church recognises that a particular reform has become present truth, it has a responsibility to teach it clearly and require harmony with it from those who seek membership.

The historical question is inseparable from the doctrine of the candlestick. Revelation 2:5 warns that when a church refuses to repent and return to its first works, Christ will remove its candlestick. Ellen White explained that Christ can take His Holy Spirit from a church and give it to others who will appreciate the light. She also wrote that an organisation may continue outwardly while its light grows dim and its candlestick is removed.

In 1913 Ellen White warned that a crisis was approaching and called for people of clear understanding to lead a thorough reformation. She described a movement of revival in which God’s people were coming into line. The following year, the First World War began and brought the predicted crisis directly upon the Adventist Church.

The doctrines established by the Reform Movement included the continuing authority of the Ten Commandments, the seventh-day Sabbath, the sanctuary and investigative judgment, the three angels’ messages, the Spirit of Prophecy, the faith of Jesus, separation from worldly organisations, noncombatancy, Christian temperance, health reform, dress reform and preparation for the sealing, latter rain and close of probation.

This history directly affects the question of whether the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church can permanently determine the limits of present truth. Ellen White’s 1909 counsel against making meat eating a test was given before the First World War crisis, while she was still labouring to bring the denomination and its leadership into harmony with the health message. It cannot simply be treated as though the later history of rejection, separation and reorganisation never occurred.

The SDARM did not receive its authority from the mainstream church after the latter had departed from the original platform. It understood that the responsibility of the candlestick had passed to the faithful movement that preserved the Sabbath, sanctuary, third angel’s message, noncombatancy, Christian temperance and advancing health reform.

The church that compromised during the First World War cannot be permitted to define forever the standard that the Reform Movement may require of its own members. The very purpose of the Reform Movement was to take up neglected truth, restore the original principles and bring the people into harmony with the advancing light that the former body had failed to uphold.

The earlier warnings against making meat eating a test must therefore be understood as applying to the period in which the church and its leadership were not prepared for the final stage of health reform. The later prophetic direction towards complete abstinence, the 1908 pledge, the sanctuary message, the antitypical Day of Atonement, Isaiah 22, Isaiah 58, the First World War separation, the transfer of the candlestick and the establishment of the SDARM’s doctrine together indicate that the movement had entered a more advanced stage of responsibility.

The Reform Movement then had a responsibility to establish doctrine and define the principles governing those who sought to become part of it.

This does not mean that every person must already possess perfect understanding or that sincere seekers should be treated harshly. Instruction, patience and pastoral care remain necessary. However, a person seeking baptism or membership is not merely asking to attend services. He or she is asking to unite with a movement that claims to bear the final message. Such a person must be willing to accept the present truth of that movement and bring the life into harmony with it.

Accordingly, the SDARM may consistently teach that abstinence from flesh food is a condition of membership, not because Ellen White used one isolated sentence saying, “Make this a test,” but because the complete direction of Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy and the history of the remnant movement points towards a final standard that God’s people must reach.

The earlier “not yet” was not “never.” It indicated that the people and their leaders had not reached the necessary spiritual condition. The Reform Movement believes that subsequent light and history brought the remnant to a different stage of responsibility and that it was required to establish and uphold the standard that the former organisation had failed to reach.

The question is therefore not merely whether Ellen White made flesh eating a test in 1881, 1909 or 1911. The larger question is whether God’s people have entered the period in which the final health-reform standard must be proclaimed and maintained. The SDARM answers yes.

Flesh eating is not spiritually neutral for those who have received the present light. It represents continued participation in a practice that God has called His people to abandon. Health reform forms part of the preparation for the latter rain, the sealing, the close of probation and the final conflict. For that reason, the SDARM is justified in requiring those seeking membership to accept and practise abstinence from flesh food as an expression of obedience to present truth.

18

Hi Ariadne,

Most of the points in your latest response here have already been addressed, either in the four-part series or in my earlier replies in this thread. So rather than answer everything again at length, I’ve grouped your arguments under nine headings. For each one I note where it has been answered and respond to anything new.

First, two points on which we now agree:

  • Isaiah 22: you’ve acknowledged that Revelation 3:7 authorises only the portion of Isaiah 22 that Christ claims for Himself.

  • The pledge: you’ve acknowledged that a voluntary pledge is not the same as a baptismal vow.

One question also remains from my last reply. You wrote that SDARM’s position does not depend on Ellen White ever explicitly saying, “make this a test.” Instead, you said it rests on the overall direction of Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and history.

I already accept that there is a clear trajectory toward the ideal. But a trajectory is not the same thing as a test at the point of baptism, and it cannot provide the plain “Thus saith the Lord” (GC 595.1) that would be needed to turn that ideal into a condition of church fellowship. Notice it doesn’t say that we must demand “an overall direction of Scripture”…but a “plain thus saith the Lord”.

1. Isaiah 22:12-14 belongs to the antitypical Day of Atonement

I’ve answered this in Part 1 and in my earlier replies here (#10, #12). Isaiah 22 describes what the people were doing: slaying oxen, eating flesh and drinking wine. It does not prescribe what God’s people may or may not eat. You’ve also acknowledged that “Revelation only authorises the application of the portion that Christ Himself claims, namely the Key of David.”

But suppose we grant that Isaiah 22 alludes in some way to health reform during the antitypical Day of Atonement. It still does not establish a test of fellowship. The iniquity God said would not be purged was the people’s defiant response to His call to repentance: “let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die.” It was not the food itself. Nothing in the passage authorises the church to treat a member’s diet as the modern equivalent of that sin. That applies whether the church disfellowships them or implies they have sinned beyond forgiveness by rejecting a church rule.

And that problem remains whichever form the sanction takes. Whether a person is formally disfellowshipped, excluded from baptism, or left with the impression that rejecting a church-imposed dietary requirement places them under the condemnation of Isaiah 22, the same question remains: where is the biblical authority for making that application? If there is an antitypical lesson regarding health reform here, it reinforces the importance of repentance and health reform, but it doesn’t by itself create a condition of church membership, unless you believe that disfellowshipment today is the equivalent of capital punishment during the time of Israel’s Theocratic government. Which brings me to the following question.

What do you mean by?:

If you mean John Thiel’s exposition of Isaiah 22, he applies the nail removed in verse 25 to Christ himself. Aside from this appearing to be his own private interpretation, it requires him to believe that disfellowshipment today is the spiritual equivalent of capital punishment.

I know John Thiel argues that the modern equivalent of capital punishment in the Old Testament is disfellowshipping from the church. But the two are not equivalent. When a person was executed under the Old Testament civil system, their earthly life ended. Church discipline, by contrast, is intended to leave the door open for repentance, restoration, and salvation.

But John goes considerably further than that. He teaches that when a person is disfellowshipped from his church, particularly in the context of the antitypical Day of Atonement, that removal effectively represents their final rejection by God. That creates an enormous problem, because such a conclusion requires a level of certainty that no human church can reasonably claim for itself, unless of course you have attributed the Catholic idea of infallibility to yourself.

To make that judgment, the church would effectively have to assume that: its interpretation of truth on the disputed matter is without error; its dealings with the person have been without mistake; it has neglected no duty toward them; those making the decision possess reliable spiritual discernment concerning the individual’s condition before God; and sufficient allowance has been made for differences in knowledge, background, opportunity, maturity, and capacity to understand.

I don’t think SDARM generally goes that far (perhaps some individual’s may). Aside from the obvious heresy, this perspective does face the consistency problem I raised in Part 1. SDARM applies the fast literally, as vegetarianism, but the rest from work spiritually, with no stated rule for choosing between them. If we read the fast through Isaiah 58:6-7, it concerns justice and mercy. Consistency would then require us to make works of justice and mercy a test of fellowship as well.

The problem is that if you espouse John Thiel’s view of this and since he also believes the sealing work commenced in 1844 and that the literal number must by now be close to complete, the doctrine can easily create the expectation that relatively few people remain to be reached and prepared, and relatively few ministers if any should be ordained. That sits uneasily beside the repeated biblical emphasis on seeking the lost, labouring patiently for souls, and extending mercy to the erring.

2. Sabbath, marriage and diet all come from Eden, so repairers of the breach must uphold all three

Part 1 of my series agrees with the Edenic ideal, but it also shows that Scripture nowhere makes that ideal a requirement for baptism. As I said earlier in point #12, I fully support health reform through teaching, encouragement, plant-based meals at church events, and a high standard for those in ministry.

The Eden argument only becomes a test of fellowship if we assume that every ideal the church upholds must also become a condition of membership. Sr. White spent her ministry teaching, encouraging, and personally modelling the Edenic diet, while at the same time clearly warning the church not to make it a test.

3. Meat eating is an unnecessary indulgence, and flesh eating is not spiritually neutral for those who have received the light

The key phrase is “for those who have received the light.” Sr. White envisioned people coming to that conviction within the fold, not having to reach it before they could enter.

4. The 1881 statement (Ms 5) was temporary, because the church had not yet accepted health reform

That is an assumption. The passage supplies its own reason: “The Word of God has given tests to His people.” That is an argument about authority, not readiness, and there is no “yet” in the 1881 statement. In 1902 she said the same: “No tests that the Bible does not require are to be brought in” (Lt 213, 1902). Part 2 of my series covers both statements.

5. Progressive light brings progressive responsibility, so earlier counsel should not be read as permanent

The earlier light being set aside here is not the ideal of health reform. It is the instruction not to make it a test, together with the reason given for it: Scripture does not require it. Genuine new light does not reverse attested light (1SM 161.1).

6. “Not yet” does not mean “never” (Ms 23, 1911)

Part 3 is devoted entirely to this statement. It covers:

  • the Anti-Meat Pledge context;

  • “let us give this matter due consideration”;

  • “a fair representation… considered in all its bearings”;

  • the Genesis 18:6-8 reference.

Even granting that the deferred thing will one day arrive, what was deferred was a voluntary pledge. That is not a baptismal requirement.

You wrote that “the title of a manuscript cannot be used to erase the meaning of the words within it.” I agree, and that isn’t what I’ve done.

  • The context is not only the heading. Paragraphs 4-6 of the same manuscript concern requests to use her writings to drive a campaign. Paragraph 7 says she dares not place it “before our people in that positive way”. The whole manuscript is about the pledge campaign.

  • “Not yet” . The authority to make a test still has to come from God (GC 595.1; Ms 5, 1881), not from the church judging itself ready.

I’m glad we agree that “a voluntary pledge is not identical to a baptismal vow.”

7. Ellen White’s forward-looking statements: meat eating will be done away, and appetite must be cleansed before God’s people are “perfected”

Part 2 deals with the two main statements:

  • CD 407 comes from a letter about the Rural Health Retreat’s menu. It is addressed to “all who are connected with our institutions”.

  • CD 382 says the half converted “will go from God’s people”, which is self-separation and a prediction. It does not say they “cannot be united”, which would be exclusion and a prescription.

The “perfected people” sentence (Lt 162, 1908) was reprinted in “Faithfulness in Health Reform” (9T 153-166). That is the same chapter that says “we are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship” (9T 159). Ellen White understood the prediction and the prohibition together in one address.

8. A candidate is uniting with a movement that bears the final message, so must accept all its present truth before baptism

This is answered across the series:

  • Part 1 shows that a test of fellowship is the minimum, not the maximum, and that Matthew 28:19-20 places some teaching after baptism.

  • Part 4 distinguishes entrance requirements, growth goals and qualifications for service.

  • The article on belief in Ellen White’s writings prior to baptism shows from 1T 327-329 and 1T 382 that the pioneers did not require settled conviction on every point before membership.

19

The reference to Sabbath Sermons should not have been there. I do not know why it was included, but I have deleted it. I was not appealing to John Thiel’s interpretation, nor am I saying that a church creates a person’s final condemnation through disfellowship. God alone judges each person. Nevertheless, the church must faithfully teach what Scripture says and warn people of the consequences of knowingly rejecting present truth.

Regarding a plain Thus saith the Lord, biblical doctrine is not always established by one sentence containing the precise wording of a church requirement. It may be established through the combined and consistent testimony of Scripture. The question is whether abstinence from flesh food forms part of the present truth and preparation entrusted to the final movement.

I believe Isaiah 22 teaches that wilfully continuing to eat flesh during the antitypical Day of Atonement, after receiving the light, is an unpardonable sin. Isaiah 22:12–14 connects flesh eating with the deliberate refusal of God’s call to affliction, repentance and solemn preparation, and declares that this iniquity will not be purged. I therefore do not regard flesh eating as spiritually neutral for those who understand the light and knowingly reject it.

The Edenic diet establishes God’s original design and supports the wider biblical and prophetic direction of health reform. It is part of the restoration to which God is calling His people in the final period of earth’s history.

Those who have received the light are responsible for it. There is a difference between someone who has not yet been instructed and someone who understands the teaching but knowingly rejects it while seeking membership in a movement that professes to uphold it.

The 1881 statement must be read in its historical setting. Saying that God’s Word provides the tests does not prevent the church from recognising and applying biblical principles as light advances. The test is not created by the church. It arises from the truth God has revealed.

Progressive light does not contradict genuine former light. The ideal of health reform remained unchanged. What changed was the people’s understanding, readiness and responsibility to practise it.

I agree that the pledge was not a baptismal vow. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Ellen White regarded abstinence as a matter of organised and united commitment, not merely an individual preference. The expression not yet leaves open a later stage when the people would be prepared to accept the full standard.

The institutional setting of some statements does not remove their wider principle. Predicting that those controlled by appetite would separate themselves does not make their rejection of advancing light acceptable. The prohibition against making flesh food a test applied when Ellen White said the people were not yet ready. I believe the final movement has now reached a different stage of responsibility.

I believe candidates must have a perfect understanding of the church’s doctrines, principles and present truth before baptism. Baptism is not the beginning of doctrinal instruction. A person must first understand what the movement teaches, accept it and be prepared to live in harmony with it. Matthew 28 places teaching before baptism and requires continued instruction and obedience afterwards.

Christ said that if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand, as recorded in Mark 3:25. A church either possesses and upholds the truth entrusted to it or it does not. It cannot claim to bear the final message while treating its recognised principles as optional for those who knowingly reject them. The church does not determine a person’s eternal destiny, but it must warn people faithfully and maintain doctrinal consistency in defining its membership.

20

Also, my church no longer believes in arbitrarily disfellowshipping people, but in education rather than legislation, allowing them to remain in fellowship while they are patiently taught and encouraged.