Post Number: 72
|Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 2:37 pm: || |
I need help. I am having discussion via email with a very senior person in SDA Australia re the issue of whether unclean food is finished as an issue for the NT believer. His (sda) position is that the health laws (clean/unclean Deut 14) are not part of the ceremonial laws and hence do not finish at the cross. He quotes Isaiah 66:15-17 as support for saying anybody that eats unclean food will not be saved.
My understanding is that unclean food became an issue for SDA after EGW had a vision saying they had to follow the OT health laws. Am I correct in thinking this? Can somebody supply me with a reference for this vision.
Also. From memory another woman had raised this as an issue and EGW had said something along the lines of God not requiring abstinence from unclean food. Then she had her vision saying God now requires it. Thus I have made the statement to this prominent SDA that the teaching originates with EGW and not the Bible as far as SDAs are concerned.
I am very clear on the usage of the word "broma" in the NT. to me there is absolutely no issue. However it is scary to see how this prominent SDA twists every reference (Mk 7:19, Acts15, Rom 14, 1Tim 4:1-6 et al) where the word "broma" is the original Greek word used, to show that it can't be meaning what it clearly is saying.
It is interesting to note that at every major change of covenant there is also an instruction of dietary change. By that I mean when Adam and Eve are instructed that their diet becomes inclusive of herbs, Noah is instructed that all things that move and creep on the face of the earth can be eaten. The Mosaic covenant included the prohibition of unclean food, the New Covenant removes that distinction with Jesus own statement in Mark 7:19. In taking the position they do SDAs are saying they know better than God.
However, I need help with those references to EGW being the instigator of the teaching of unclean meat needing to be abstained from by all believers and her saying prior that it is not an issue.
Post Number: 2895
|Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 3:35 pm: || |
Show him these verses:
Leviticus 20:24-26 which shows that God separated Israel from the "unclean" meats because He was separating Israel from the "unclean" peoples around them. "...I am the Lord your God, Who has separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean..."
Genesis 9:3 which [as you pointed out] shows that after the flood ALL animals could be eaten.
Acts 10 where Peter had the vision of the unclean animals and God told him that what He [God] had cleansed, to not call "unclean." As you read further he finds out that God is talking about people. When Jesus died the wall of separation was torn down between Jews and Gentiles. (Ephesians 2:11-22 "...at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ..."
Tell him that if he goes by that rule given to Israel, he's in effect, saying that Gentiles are still "unclean" and that the wall of separation symbolized by not eating "unclean" meats, is still up.
If he objects by saying: "but then why did Noah take 7 of the clean animals and 2 of the unclean into the ark," tell him that only the clean were sacrificed, so they HAD to take more of the clean animals. Otherwise, whatever species of animal that Noah offered as sacrifices to God after he disembarked from the ark would have gone instantly extinct!