|Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 9:34 pm: || |
This evening, I was telling my children about Peters vision--Acts 10:9-16
"9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
After I read the rest of the story (through 11:18), I asked my oldest son "What does the vision have to do with Peter visiting Cornelius?"
His answer was: "Just like all foods are clean foods, (even foods that Peter had thought were unclean) so the people of different nations are clean (when they had not been before).
He then promptly asked me, "Where do people get the idea that some foods are wrong to eat?"
We flipped to Lev. 11 and read through the list of foods. And, I noticed something that I had never noticed before. In verse 4 it says, "There are some that chew only the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you."
Is there signifigance in the term "ceremonially unclean"??
In Lev. 10:9-10 it says, "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whevever you go into the Tent of meeting, or you will die......You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean..."
This implies that fermented drinks were not prohibited yet only restricted during certain ceremonies.
Did the illustration of the camel being "ceremonially unclean" have the same implications? Was it only an issue of ceremonial cleanliness and never a law for every day living?
Jesus said, in Mark 7:18, "...Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart (mind) but into his stomach and then out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean")"
Col. 2:16, "Therefore do not let any judge you by what you eat of drink..."
Romans 14:14 "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself".
Being ceremonially clean was the process one must complete in order to be in the "cleanest" condition that man can become before making a sacrifice for sin. All of this purification was null and void after Christs death and ressurrection. This process of cleanliness was part of the ceremonial laws, right? Were you not taught has an Adventist that all the ceremonial laws were fulfilled? I was! Then why is the diet such a big issue in Adventist lifestyle, today, if that part of "the law" was fulfilled? There is nothing in the 10 commandments about diet.
|Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 9:52 pm: || |
Just more bondage, 'cause Ellen said so.
I found it interesting when I realized that Noah and his family were told they could eat any animal, surely if it were a health issue God could have provided enough clean animals for them to eat.
It always amazes me too, that they pick and choose which OT laws they want to observe and figure it's OK to delete the rest.-Pharisees! ha!
|Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:09 pm: || |
I think that the only reason that the "ceremonial" law position was formulated was to "nullify" Col. 2:14 and similar passages with respect to the decalogue. If not for that, I would assume that any and all of the statutes and ordinances would be promoted in the SDA church.
I think the entire Levitical Priesthood would be followed. I think this because my wife's church was so pleased with itself for modelling their service after the Levitical sanctuary service. It was very watered down, of course. No actual sacrifices or burnt offerings were done.
As Sabra said, " . . . pick and choose . . ." is their method.
I think the real objective for what they do or do not observe is to differentiate themselves so they feel superior.
That is just my opinion based on what I have seen and read.
If I am off base, feel free to correct me.
|Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:41 pm: || |
Really good points! During the late 70's, John Brunt, then on the faculty of relgion at Walla Walla College, wrote an article on the SDA food laws and their oringin in Leviticus. (I can't remember what magazine it was published in.) He stated that those laws were part of the ceremonial laws that were done away with at the cross, and it was clear in his article that Adventists were double-talking when they said those laws were done away with yet held onto the food laws.
I think you're right; it's all because of Ellen, and it's both amazing and not surprising at all that we "bought" these restrictions without questioning whether or not those laws were still valid if the rest of the cermonies weren't. We actually held quite a lot of cognitive dissonance in our heads, didn't we?
Interesting conjecture, Jerry!
|Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 9:15 am: || |
I read the passages you are referring to and if you read several chapters in a row, it is talking about not drinking wine before entering the temple then the dietary laws then it goes into the issues of giving birth and being clean and unclean. I wonder how many Adventist stay out of church if they had a baby the week before? it also talks about marital relations and being unclean for a period of time. These are all related, God is just continuing to talk about cerimonial cleanliness. Another example of people following someone because they are too lazy to read the Bible for themselves.
You know the impression I get from reading White's writtings is she must of been some sort of battle axe. Sorry I know I should not call names but I just get so steamed.
|Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:45 am: || |
Violet, I can understand your point of view about Ellen Whiteís demeanor. Although you and I can never be certain since neither of us could have met her, I think we can reasonably speculate based on the historical record. Even more important than that, I think there is some evidence relating to the reason that her doctrines arose. We can see this evidence manifested in the effect on those who currently believe her writings to be inspired.
I have a theory about her personality. This is highly speculative and not proven. Therefore, I hope people will read this with the understanding that it is my impression. I do not concede, however, that because I use such words as ìtheory,î ìthink,î ìimpression,î or ìspeculate,î that this automatically means that my thoughts are entirely incorrect.
When anyone makes a broad, unequivocal, absolute statement, I immediately suspect factual disparity. Not that there are no absolutes. It is just that human beings must always be cognizant of their inherent flaws.
I propose that Ellen White likely did what she did, due to the following factors:
1. Based on early documents, I get the sense that she was extremely sensitive, insecure, and impressionable.
2. The country, in the first half of the 1800ís, was very unstable.
3. She happened into a group of people who decided that she was useful to their purposes.
The second reason exacerbates the first reason. The third reason exploits the first two.
There can be little doubt that she must have been very domineering, especially in the later parts of her adult life. Strange as it may seem, I believe that this is a strong indication of insecurity.
Just my thoughts.
|Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:38 am: || |
Have any of you read The Life of Mrs. E.G. WhiteóHer False Claims Refuted" by D.L. Canright? It's quite eye-opening. (It's available from Dale RatzlaffóI'm not sure if it's available anywhere else or not. He reprinted it.)
Canright was an early Adventist who worked with both James and Ellen. He had trouble sticking with the churchóhe left a time or two because of the dishonesty and manipulation he witnessed among the Whites and the early church leadership, then came back at their urging, and finally he left altogether. The church has said he recanted his "false" testimony against Ellen, but he did not "recant". And his daughter, who was present up to his death, says also that he never recanted his assessment of the her and James.
I grew up hearing "Canright" as a bad wordóa traitor who who falsely maligned EGW. This book contains recountings of his experiences with the Whites and with his own frustration that caused him to try to leave numerous times and finally to leave for good. The book really gives a good glimpse into the profit-driven motives of both James and Ellen and of their dealings with other people including Ellen's changing testimonies. This book also contains quite a few first-person accounts of Ellen's expanding fascination with health reform as taught at various health conditioning centers and by Kellogg. This fascination included the short-lived "reform dress" period during which Ellen said Adventist women were to wear long dresses over pants, and the only approved pattern for Adventist women was available through the "Review and Herald" for $1.00. (That was at the turn of the centuryóa pattern cost $1.00?!) The fad abruptly ended a few months later without Ellen ever saying a word about it's being over. She just quietly quit wearing the awkward clothes, and the rest of SDA women figured they could too. It ended, however, only after the Whites made quite a profit from selling the "approved" patterns to Adventist women all over the USA for $1.00 apiece.
If you haven't read the book, it's very interesting.
Praising God for truth,
|Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:02 pm: || |
Oh, yes! I have read most of Canrightís published work. They are very interesting to read. I would recommend that anyone studying out of SDA doctrines should read these.
Canright did make a few minor mistakes in his interpretation of scripture. Nevertheless, he did not make them under the guise of inspiration. Furthermore, he was much closer to the scriptural truth than any of EGWís writings.
Especially interesting is the fact that his criticism of the sanctuary doctrines predates the Glacier View controversy by almost a century. His reasoning has much in common with the examination of the beliefs by Dr. Ford.
I also recommend the book ìI was Canrightís Secretaryî paired with the rebuttal by Norman Douty, ìThe Case of D M Canright.î This shows the depths that Adventists have gone to quash threatening opposition.
|Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 5:53 am: || |
Canright's book is available on line, along with a wealth of other information at http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm
In His Grip
|Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 8:11 am: || |
Thanks, Thomas. Canright has two books, actually. Are both available online? The Life of Mrs. EG White didn't used to be available online, only his other book. It may be available now, however. They're both excellent.
|Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 9:38 am: || |