ALL FOODS ARE NOT

CLEAN AND EVERY DAY

IS NOT THE SABBATH!!
A Response to Elce Lauristons 2017 Booklet
(All Foods Are Clean and Every Day is the Sabbath)
By Derrick Gillespie
*2 Edition (FULL Release), Nov.5, 2017

*Notethis e-book (PDF), (the second edition released) is subject to revision

and new future editions being published as time goes by.
 INTRODUCTION
In 2017, exactly one year after leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and after airing on
Television Jamaicas (TVJs) Religious Hardtalk program his grouses and reasons for
apostatizing from the denomination, former SDA preacher Elce Lauriston (seen pictured) has
released his first 100+ page booklet entitled All Foods Are Clean And Every Day is the
Sabbath (a direct attack upon two distinctive doctrines of his former SDA Church). Click the
links seen throughout this e-book to view more details. His publication is a small booklet
published by the LAM Publications (a publishing house run by a former SDA preacher and now a
popular anti-SDA critic, Dale Ratzlaff), and its endorsed by former SDA member, Dr. Andre Hill
(who apostatized from Adventism in 2013). Elce Lauristons initial grouses aired on TVJs
Religious Hardtalk program were already publicly but respectfully responded to by me in a
two part publication released online (see links below), as well as in a Facebook open-dialog
thread/post which invited Elce Lauriston to dialog brother to brother (see links below).

Link 1: Part 1 Published Response--

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309709460/Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016

Link 2: Part 2 Published Response---

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-
Charges-2016

Link 3: Facebook Open-Dialog with Elce Lauriston---

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209789510480779

Up to the time of me writing this critique of Elce Lauristons new 2017 book, he has not yet
responded to my critique of his views, and has refused to fully engage me, with the excuse that
I, as a layman, am not at his level of erudition, and he prefers to dialog fully with the leaders of
the SDA Church who are trained in theology.

Now, as I read his book, All Foods Are Clean and Every Day is the Sabbath, I could not but help
seeing in his writings the theological fingerprint and footprints of his former SDA theology
professor, Dr. Clinton Baldwin (who also apostatized from Adventism in 2016, and is now a
critic of literal weekly Sabbath keeping), as well as seeing the theological fingerprint and
footprints of Dr. Andre Hill (who also became a full critic of Mrs. E.G. White and Adventism
upon his departure from the denomination). It is a book splattered with their ideas about either
the Sabbath becoming Jesus himself, or about denigrating Mrs. Whites teaching on healthy
living, and about meat eating and its impact on spiritual life. I know, because I have interacted
personally with Dr. Andre Hills views as well as that of Dr. Clinton Baldwin. Elce Lauristons new
book is simply, in my opinion, him recycling the old popular anti-Sabbatarian and pro-Sunday-
observance arguments resident among Sunday-keeping Churches of Christendom, as well as
him inserting in it the theological ideas of Dr. Andre Hill as well as that of Dr. Clinton Baldwin,
and backed by Dale Ratzlaffs anti-SDA sentiments. Its all a team effort, as it were, from SDA
apostates, backed by popular recycled arguments of Sunday-keepers. It was therefore easy to
get to the crux of the arguments while sifting through the flood of Elce Lauirstons bombast and
attempt at seeking to dazzle the readers with seemingly authoritative command of Hebrew
and Greek, textual analysis, exegesis, hermeneutics, lexicography, etc.largely acquired via
books he avidly reads (including courses in Greek), and acquired in an incomplete course in
theology while attending Northern Caribbean University (NCU); an SDA-run university in
Jamaica, which he withdrew from upon his departure from the Church in 2016. I also watched
several of his videos released on Youtube, as related to the same theme of Gods Sabbath
versus the Sunday tradition (see Exodus 20:8-11) and Gods dietary laws in the Bible (see
Deuteronomy 14:3-20), and so I was able to get a fuller grasp of his newly acquired theology in
these matters (not just from what is in his book).

Without any further ado, let me make my first real initial rebuttal statements, before delving
into more details. Just looking at the title of the book, All Foods Are Clean and Every Day is
the Sabbath, it is right away an affront to Jesus himself, and to God himself, and is actually
ridiculous when we consider the following:

REBUTTAL No. 1: If all foods were to become clean BEFORE Judgment day comes, then I
guess God himself never knew it, since he himself saw into the furfure and predicted what the
fiery Judgment day will be like (a Day not yet come):

"Isaiah 66:15-19 The LORD will come with fire. He will ride on the wings
of a storm to punish those he is angry with. By fire ... he will punish all the people of the world
whom he finds guilty---and many will be put to death. The LORD says, "The end is near for
those who purify themselves for pagan worship...and who eat *pork and *mice and other
*disgusting [abominable] *foods.
I know their thoughts and their deeds. I am coming to gather the people of all the nations.
When they come together, they will see what my power can do and will know that I am the
one who punishes them..." - Good News Bible (GNB).

So lets compare Elce Laristons book title (see above) with a choice meat (dog head) he
should now be having (if his theology is correct), and then compare that with what Gods own
future prophecy says in Isaiah (the gospel age prophet). See a problem? I do!! When we look
at the prophecy of Isaiah (seen quoted above) regarding God's future fiery Judgment against all
the nations of the world (i.e. including Gentiles; not just sinful or apostate Jews), we see God
making plain that even those who are pagan worshipers (i.e. Gentiles) who eat "abominable"
things like pigs and rats (and of course dogs) will be punished by fire on the global Judgment
day for doing these things. This is still future, and God who sees the future must know what he
means when he says "The end is near for those who purify themselves for pagan
worship...and who eat *pork and *mice and other *disgusting [abominable] *foods.

*N.B. And by the way lest it be said I am unaware that Isaiah 65-66 also speaks of not just a
future fiery judgment against eaters of unclean foods, and about the new heavens and new
earth, but also of future priests, future sacrifices, a future temple, future new moon
celebrations, old age and death in the future as well, after the fiery Judgment day (things which
will no longer be in existence after the ultimate Judgment day, therefore, it would be argued,
that this must only be referring to post-exilic life only in ancient Israel after their Babylonian
captivity), I will address that issue later in this book (see Appendices), considering that its those
very same chapters the apostles used in the only Scriptures they had to prophecy about the
ultimate new heavens and new earth after the ultimate future fiery judgment day, et al. But
moving on!

Paganism, or pagan worship, has always been aligned with eating abominable food, and things
deemed unclean and unhealthy by God; explaining why God allowed Jews to sell to pagans
animals which died of itself (with hidden health issues from dying by itself, am sure); but his
people were not allowed to eat things like that (underscoring both a moral/health and symbolic
principle; not just a ceremonial one).

This further makes it plain that this issue of diet and prohibited unclean or abominable
animals seen in Isaiah 66:15-18 is NOT just some 'ceremonial' matter for just the Jews to
observe, as Elce Lauriston faultily argues in his book and in his online videos!! It is clearly a
universal and moral issue (which predated the Jews; see Genesis 7:1-9), to be observed by all
people (as seen in the era of Noah when meat was first eaten)... just like lying, homosexuality,
incest, pride, worshiping graven images, etc. is called "abominable" or an "abomination" in
God's sight (in all eras), and he will punish anyone who is found to be knowingly and willingly
guilty of and unrepentant in disobeying his will to avoid these things. Remember it is God who
declares certain things as "abominable" in behavior, as well as abominable for food (as in
Deuteronomy 14:3 and Isaiah 66:17), and what God considers an "abomination" could not just
be some empty ceremonial issue, but rather goes to the very nature of that thing in Gods own
estimation, who knows and sees all!! God who created all things clearly did NOT create
everything to be eaten, and intended nothing is to be refused for food, as Lauriston
argued/implied in his book, citing 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (a scripture I will address later in this book)!!
If that was so, then what of the poisonous plants, frogs, insects, etc., or what of scavenging
animals that are wreaking all over with viruses, bacteria and toxic waste in their bodies simply
because they were made to be scavengers, and their very body tissue is filled with all the waste
they consume? Nothing is to be refused, even in the above described category, once we just
pray over it, as some would like us to think? Thats wild and reckless theology that ignores
context and thats totally unbiblical (a matter I will delve into later) !! With the above
introductory rebuttal point made about the notion of All Foods Are Clean, let me now
introduce my first rebuttal point about Every Day is the Sabbath.

REBUTTAL No. 2:

If the seventh-day Sabbath after the Cross (according to Elce Lauriston and the SDA heretic, Dr.
Clinton Baldwin) was to become the person of Jesus and is no longer a day, then am amused
(since its hilarious) that Jesus himself didn't know it, neither did the apostles like Paul and Luke
his traveling companion know it. Why do I say so?

EVIDENCE FROM JESUS HIMSELF

"Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on *THE SABBATH
*DAY.
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the
world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."- KJV

COMMENTS ON JESUS' PROPHECY:

Now there is no way that the Sabbath was meant to come to an end at the Cross, and become
the person of Jesus, if Jesus Himself saw it in the future as A *DAY and asked his disciples to
pray they would not have to flee from persecution on *the Sabbath *DAY. Why? Because Jesus
knew it would be burdensome to carry loads and travel on the Sabbath (which should be time
of rest and attending church). Now it was in A.D. 70 (over thirty years after) that Judea and
Jerusalem saw Jesus' prophecy of persecution against his Christian people first coming true,
and so this tells us a lot about what Jesus saw regarding the Sabbath in the future!! And keep in
mind that not necessarily all of his disciples would be within the walled city of Jerusalem,
since Jesus warned them in the entire land of Judea (not just in the city of Jerusalem) to flee
when the Romans came to persecute the Israelites (see Matthew 24:16-20 with Luke 21:21-
23), for there shall be great distress in the land (Luke 21:23), and in that
context they were to pray that their flight be not in winter neither on the Sabbath day (which
could apply to those Christian disciples both without and within the city of Jerusalem; it wasnt
just a matter of the gates of the city of Jerusalem being closed on the Sabbath preventing
travel (since the land of Judea is not Jerusalem but includes the gated city Jersualem as Acts
1:8 makes irrefutably plain); a matter Lauriston was too short-sighted to see as he
regurgitated the popular views of Sunday-keeping theologians).

IMPORTANT BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR SABBATH KEEPING AFTER THE CROSS

The record of the early Church and the post-Cross period in Acts shows that Paul and his
Christian partners kept the Sabbath faithfully every week (just as Jesus did in Luke 4:14-16;
see 1 Corinthians 11:1), where he met Sabbath keepers who were BOTH Jews and Gentiles (in
fulfilment of Isaiah 56:1-8), and he even kept the Sabbath by going to church *outdoors when a
synagogue was not even available in which to worship, preach, study the Word, and pray!! And
if it be argued, as am sure Elce and his ant-SDA cohort will do, that Paul kept the entire Jewish
laws (annual feasts, circumcision, etc.), and hence he cant be a good example for Gentile
Christians, that I will also later address in this book. All in good time!!

EVIDENCE No. 1

"Acts 16:13 And ON *THE SABBATH we [i.e. Paul and His fellow *Christian travelers, including
Luke who wrote Acts] went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made;
and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [gathered] thither.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things
which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:16 And it came to pass, as we [i.e. Paul and His fellow *Christian travelers, including
Luke who wrote Acts] went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination
met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:
Act 16:17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the
most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation."- KJV

EVIDENCE No. 2

"Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the *Gentiles [notice,
"Gentiles"] besought that these words might be preached to them THE NEXT *SABBATH.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious
proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue
in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And THE NEXT SABBATH *DAY came almost the whole city together [consisting
mainly of "Gentiles"] to hear the word of God."- KJV
EVIDENCE No. 3
"Acts 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in
Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they [not just Paul, but all *Christians with him]
came to Antioch in Pisidia, and [they all] went into the synagogue ON *THE SABBATH *DAY,
and sat down.
Act 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent
unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people,
say on.
Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that
fear God, give audience."- KJV

EVIDENCE No. 4

"Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they [not just Paul,
but all *Christians with him] came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three *SABBATH *DAYS
reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Act 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the
dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Act 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout
Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few." -KJV

EVIDENCE No. 5

"Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with
his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and
came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by
their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue EVERY *SABBATH, and persuaded the Jews and
the Greeks." -KJV

COMMENTS ON THE EXAMPLE OF PAUL AND LUKE AND OTHER CHRISTIANS:

Here is evidenced that long after the Cross Paul (and his fellow Gentile apostle, Luke, and
other Christian companions) every week treated with respect THE DAY that is still called "THE
Sabbath"; making it a time to gather with, pray with, preach to and exhort the "worshippers of
God" and those who "feared God", i.e. both Jews and Gentiles who respected the gospel of
Christ and even those who didn't yet. Did the Sabbath DAY still exist for Paul and Luke (the
Gentile), even years after Jesus' ascension? You bet! And even when a synagogue or meeting
place was not available Paul and his traveling *Christian companions (Luke the Gentile
included), by example, sought out a prayer meeting place outdoors to engage in what the
Sabbath was for (i.e. meditation, gathering together, prayer, and preaching). A total of over 80
weekly Sabbath DAYS that Paul kept (as exemplified by Jesus) are seen in the book of Acts
alone. On none of these Sabbath days is Paul ever seen working!! That's instructive!! And
those, like Elce Lauriston, who think Paul only attended the synagogues of the Jews just to
preach to them weekly, but was not observing the Sabbath himself, are simply closing their
eyes from seeing the plain truth. It was Paul and his travelling companions (including the
Gentile companion, Luke) doing it all together; not just Paul visiting the synagogues to just
preach, as is often argued, and Elce Lauriston just simply imbibed this popular but misguided
notion and regurgitates it. They all disregard the full story at their own peril. Read the
foregoing references above slowly, and allow the Spirit's still small voice to show you the truth,
dear reader.

It is simply hilarious that Elce Lauriston and Dr. Clinton Baldwin (despite all his/their seeming
erudition and theological credentials) would say the Sabbath after the Cross became the
person of Jesus, when Jesus himself and the biblical evidence (and historical evidence to be
shown later) prove otherwise. Jesus said he would GIVE us rest; not become the Sabbath rest
(Matt. 11:28). And this is what Dr. Baldwin and Elce Lauriston (prideful bible scholars)
missed? It would be funny if it was not a serious matter involving heresy from the faith bent on
leading people astray.

With the forgoing introductory rebuttal points now made, lets delve further and
deeply into the issues, and chop down every tree standing in the way of truth being seen for
what it is.

FAULTY PREMISES OF ELCE LAURISTONS THEOLOGY AND ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION!!!

It is the case that if your foundational premise in any doctrinal thesis is faulty in the first place,
then it leads to faulty reasoning, and erroneous conclusions drawn based on looking wrongly at
the supportive-evidence adduced. If the faulty overall premises can be shown in Lauristons
anti-Sabbatarian and anti-dietary-laws theology, then the body of his argumentation will fall
apart like a house built on sand. Here are the key sticking points and foundational premises of
Elce Lauriston's theology:

1. The Sabbath and the Law (and dietary rules) were exclusively for the Jews and the people of
Israel; never Gentiles.

2. Circumcision was the entry requirement or 'entry point' to observing the Sabbath and the
Law, thus with the Circumcision law abolished, the entire body of Law (which was a "shadow"
of things to come) has been totally abolished with the old covenant.

3. Now today all days are the Sabbath, all foods are clean, and we have no obligation to observe
any days or "Jewish" ceremonies, and we can eat anything as a matter of personal choice!! This
must be so, since Romans 14 and Colossians 2 totally obliterate any claim that the Sabbath and
dietary laws still applies to Israel or Jews or anyone for that matter.

Lets examine each premise one by one and see what they lead to if followed through to their
logical conclusion.

Firstly, if the Jews were the only people required to live at such a high standard of morality and
by set or codified rules, compared to all other people since the fall of Adam in Eden, then it
means that Gods ways are partial and he has a differing set of rules for differing sets of the
same sinful human beings throughout history. How then could it be said Enoch walked with
God if his righteous behavior was lesser in nature, and if he had no knowledge of how to live
righteously? How could Gods people before Israel know what sin is, if they had no knowledge
of moral laws to, like Joseph, for instance, declare it an awful thing to commit adultery and
sin against God? See Genesis 39:9.

Secondly, if the new covenant abolished all laws of Israel, signaled by circumcision being
abolished, and the entire Law (with no distinctions inherent in it) was a shadow of Christ to
come, as Lauriston argues in one of his online videos, then, it should mean that none of the Old
Testament laws (whether moral, civil, or ceremonial) should be-re-stated, expanded on or
magnified by Jesus or the apostles, or applied under the new covenant by Paul, since
abolished means just that. No longer in effect in any way!!

Thirdly, if all foods are now clean, and there is no longer any obligation to observe specific
ceremonies attached to specific days pointing to Jesus, and, as Lauriston argues, if esteeming
a day (any day in a religious sense) as important is to be left up to the whims of the new
covenant Christian, then Christians should, in the first instance, be eating dogs, rats, cats,
vultures, crocodiles, camels, bats, lizards, spiders, donkeys, and the like (refusing nothing),
and in the second instance, the freedom to ignore or not esteem a day or feast (occasion of
solemn assembly) should apply to even the Passover feast carried over as the Lords
Supper or Communion, since it was a day and ceremony observed by Christians either
annually on Nisan 14, or sometimes daily, and sometimes weekly. It too should be non-
obligatory and left up to the whims of the believer to esteem it as important of not, since,
after all, it is a ceremonial activity which was attached to a day. This would have to be so, if, as
Lauriston argues, Colossians 2 and Romans 14 applies to any and all days which can be
esteemed as religiously important in honor of God.
The above described (and maybe even more) would be the logical outcomes of Lauristons
faulty premises when followed through to their logical conclusion, despite he will certainly
protest that antinomianism (or total lawlessness) is not his theology. But that would have to be
what his second faulty premise leads to, if, as he argues, there were no distinction between
laws (e.g. those that were to remain and be re-stated under the new covenant, and those that
were temporary), and if, as he argues, abolishing circumcision effectively abolished the entire
Law code in the Old Testament part of the Scriptures, since Jesus is all we need. You cant have
your cake and eat it too, Elce Lauriston!

CORRECT PREMISES TO BASE ONES THEOLOGY ON

However, what is demonstrated via Israel is that Gods standard of righteousness has always
been high to match up with his purity as a holy God, and to match up to the condition Adam
was in when created without any sin. Thus God demonstrated to the world through Israel (via
codified laws and symbolic representations) what standard of righteousness he wanted the
entire world to return to, which was only attainable through the Redeemer, the second Adam
(but who first had to live the Law perfectly as an Example for us to follow after he saves us,
and also die as the Lamb as the Atonement for all sins). And if all peoples of the world, pagans
included, were descendants of Adam and then descendants of Noah after the Flood, then it
stands to reason that God wanted to bring all people of the world (his own creatures) back to
himself, and back to the full holy state where righteous behavior comes natural. That is why
Israel was meant to be the vehicle to reach the world, and through them all nations [would]
be blessed or saved (Galatians 3:8). Thus what was the standard for Israel was the standard
for the entire world all along, but only fully recognized and experienced when/if someone
became part of Israel (whom the covenants and promises pertained to after Abraham was
called to fully unfold Gods salvation plan via the nation descending from him).

Thus Israel was the unfolding of Gods plan to redeem the entire world (or whosoever will in
the world; John 3:16), since the Redeemer was an Israelite who, through him (Jesus), all who
chose to would be saved, from Adam to the last man on earth (as Gal. 3: 26, 29 indicates).

Thats why Galatians makes plain that anyone saved through Christ (i.e. those before his
incarnation who looked forward to him in faith, and those after his incarnation who look
backward to him in faith) are in fact ABRAHAMS SEED and thus are spiritual Israel. Thus
all of Gods people in all ages are spiritual Jews or Israelites, as it were, and thats why all
of what is truly for Israel and Jews applies to all of Gods saved people in all eras; including
saved Gentiles today who MUST be saved via a new covenant made ONLY with the Jews (see
Hebrews 8:8-10 with Jeremiah 31:33 and Romans 9:3-5). No wonder the home of the saved of
all ages in Paradise has gates and foundations all having names of males/people from Israel
(Revelation 21: 12, 14), and no wonder the true mother of all the saved of earth is deemed as
Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:26). Its all an Israel-related vehicle of salvation which unfolded
gradually over time; from the time of the first slain/sacrificed animals after Adams fall, meant
to symbolize the coming Jewish Lamb (Jesus), to Noah already knowing of clean and unclean (or
abominable) animals (as related to food and sacrifice) from Genesis 7:1-8, and from him
already knowing about the non-ceremonial law not to eat blood from Genesis 9:4.

IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING THE CORRECT PREMISE AS THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR THEOLOGY

The Sabbath and the Law (including dietary rules) were exclusively for Gods TRUE
WORSHIPPERS who via faith in Jesus would be called Israel or Abrahams seed, and would
consist of BOTH Jews by blood and Gentiles. That is why in Isaiah 56:1-8 God made plain the
Sabbath covenant applied to eunuchs who could not be circumcised (to become a literal Jew
of the circumcision), and to Gentiles (foreigners) as well who were not literally blood
relatives of Abraham; but all would share in being part of Israel, since Gods house in
Jerusalem was meant all along to be a house of prayer for ALL people. This is seen clearly in
Acts 13:42-44, where Gods true worshippers on the Sabbath were BOTH Jews and Gentiles;
taking hold of the same Sabbath covenant, as Isaiah 56:1-8 potently prophesied and
illustrated!!

Circumcision of the heart by faith in Jesus was the TRUE entry requirement or 'entry point'
to becoming a true Israelite and observing the Sabbath and the Law of God (as seen by the
example of the eunuchs in Isaiah 56:1-8). Circumcision of the flesh was clearly only a symbol of
true heart circumcision via faith in Jesus (signaled by Abraham being considered justified
and the father of all nations even BEFORE he was circumcised). Thus circumcision was not
really abolished in the New Testament in terms of the principle, but it only changed form; just
as sacrifices, the priesthood, purification via water, et al, changed form but were not totally
abolished in principle (since today we must look to Jesus the Sacrificed Lamb, we must offer
our bodies as living sacrifices, be purified by washing and the Word via baptism and Bible
application too our lives, but only after our hearts are circumcised to make us become part of
a royal priesthood and a holy nation as Gods Christian people). Thus with even the
ceremonial aspects of the Law, which came into being after sin, being still in force spiritually, it
is easy to see the principles which predated the entire nation of Israel, like dietary laws and
principles seen evident from Noahs day, and the Sabbath coming all the way from creation as a
memorial of creation (Gen. 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11), these can easily still be in force literally,
since they were not original with the Mosaic code of ceremonies given through Moses, but they
predated it, and relate to the moral obligation we have to take care of our health (i.e. our
physical and spiritual health)!!

No wonder the New Testament abound with references to clean and unclean animal
distinctions still remaining in place (even after Jesus ascension), so that not only could Peter in
vision testify of the distinctions still remaining among animals (but not among people which the
vision symbolized), and testifying that he has NEVER ate anything common or unclean even
after Jesus declared (in the context of hand-washing ceremonies) all foods contaminated by
dirty hands as ceremonially clean (I will expound on that matter later), but also logical and
realistic similes and references could be made (based on reality still existent then) about every
unclean and hateful bird in the book of Revelation, for instance, and about unsaved people
found outside the city being deemed as dogs (an animal usually deemed unclean or
abominable for food)!! Will expand on and expound on those issues later in this study!!

All annual feasts or feast days (occasions of solemn assembly) of Israel, which were original
at or after the Exodus (i.e. the departure from Egypt), they were clearly given by via the
Mosaic code God (except Hannukah), but were all founded after sin as shadows to point to
salvation from sin; just like the system of sacrifices came about after sin to point to the Lamb of
God (Jesus). Yet when it comes to the weekly Sabbath (also called a feast or solemn assembly
occasion in Leviticus 23:1-3), not only was it known BEFORE Sinai, BEFORE the Exodus 16
experience, and BEFORE the the exodus from Egypt (see Exodus 5:1-7 with Exodus 10:9,
which I will expound on later in this presentation), but it was created in Genesis 2:1-3 long
before sin, before shadows created after sin to point to the coming Lamb, before the Mosaic
code, and before the Jewish nation, et al. It simply was created as a memorial of God as
Creator!! Exodus 20:11 compared with Genesis 2:1-3. No wonder we see the writer of
Hebrews, in Hebrews 4, in light of the fact that the annual Sabbaths were all no longer
applicable literally, as given to the Jews, he had to make the point about the Sabbath that
there remaineth a sabbath-keeping [Greek, sabbatismos] for the people of God, which
applied BOTH to the literal memorial of Sabbath-keeping or resting from weekly labor (original
from Genesis 2), as well as the spiritual rest in Jesus as our Saviour (remember Jesus promised
to GIVE us rest; not become the rest of the Sabbath; Matthew 11:28).

Now, if the very literal feast of the Passover of the Mosaic code could be transformed into
another literal feast (or occasion of solemn assembly) which Christians were commanded to
keep the feast (1 Corinthians 5:8) which we know as the Communion or Lords Supper
(observed literally either on Nisan 14, or daily or weekly, or quarterly), and if it be literally
observed to point back to a past event (Jesus death), it is simply someone totally misguided
and illogical who denies that the Sabbath from Genesis can and still does apply today as a
literal memorial in order to point back to another monumental event (the creation of the
world and us humans). No wonder we can find so many cases of both Jews and Gentiles, and
Paul and his Christian brethren *(both Jew and Gentile) observing the weekly Sabbath all over
the book of Acts after the Cross (as clearly demonstrated earlier).

It is the case that every holy day that God himself had his people hold in high esteem via his
commands and instructions was NOT based on their choice, but was via Gods own
imposition of that sentiment. Thus if we can see that reality in the Old Testament connected
with the annual sabbaths original with the nation of Israel, it is plain that the weekly Sabbath
coming all the way from creation was deemed as important because God made it soit was
NOT via their choice; rendering ERRONEOUS the faulty notion (by misinterpreting Romans 14)
that its left up to Christian people to either esteem or not esteem the weekly Sabbath as
important in the New Testament. This I will delve into fully later, as I now seek to address and
refute Elce Lauristons specious eisogetical arguments related to Colossians 2 and Romans 14.

REFUTING OR DEBUNKING ELCE LAURISTONS KEY ARGUMENTS.

SECTION A. All Foods Are Clean? REALLY???

Where would Elce Lauriston get this misguided notion from, and where in the Bible did he find
words to label this misguided notion of his? Simple! Its found in the recycled arguments of
misguided teachers in Christendom who BUTCHERED Jesus and Pauls words in the Bible, and
Lauriston, since his departure from SD Adventism, has lapped and up their errors with wild
abandon, and he is now what the Bible described in symbol as he being drunk with the wine
of Babylon.

It is all based on the false notion long in Christendom (hence a recycled argument) that Jesus
made/declared all foods "clean" (or according to Lauriston on page 46 of his book, Jesus
removed the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law), since Lauriston argued that Jesus said
"not what enters the mouth defileth the man", and Paul later said that nothing is unclean of
itself, and grace now means "we are no longer under the law", i.e. no more do we need to
obey God's dietary laws from the Old Testament part of the Bible!!

RESPONSE:
All of the above claims are easily proven to be false straight from the Bible itself.

[a] First, Jesus was plainly dealing ONLY with the issue of the man-made tradition of the
*Pharisees of washing hands before eating in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7: 1-23 (and their
man-made tradition that not to do so was to be considered as "defiling" the man). He was
NOT dealing with the health or diet laws that his own Father and he himself commanded
before coming to earth. And all Jesus said in those verses of Matthew 15:1-20 or Mark 7:1-23
are in that CONTEXT; nothing more!! And for Elce Lauriston, who theoretically loves to
emphasize CONTEXT so repeatedly, its sad to see him now endorse people in Christendom
taking Jesus' words related only to the man-made hand washing tradition in Matthew 15:2
and Matthew 23:35 (not diet laws), and force it to mean something else; effectively having
Jesus contradict his own moral and health-related commandments that he himself gave
(remember he is God and thus gave the commandments; see John 1:1-3, 14; John 20:28, 29)!!!
This twisting of Scripture is to rape the Scriptures and twist it to suit one's own purposes (in
order to fit in with the crowd and popular sentiment in Christendom) and mislead people to
disobey God's commands about diet. Read Matthew 7:21-23 in light of the above described.

Jesus settles the issue by he himself telling us what he was dealing with in Matthew 15:1-20
and Mark 7:1-23, when he plainly said:

Matthew 15:20 to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.
And with the Pharisees alone being the ones offended over their tradition being slighted
and rebuffed by Jesus (Matthew 15:12), this again tells us plainly what was under focus, since

no one else even raised an eyebrow, or showed alarm (which would not have been the case if
Jews were now hearing they could eat pork, for instance)!! If one just read without any pre-
conceived ideas the Matthew 1-20 passage, with this CONTEXT borne in mind, we see that
Jesus, IN CONTEXT, declared all foods clean by simply saying the acceptable food they ate as
Jews obeying God [i.e. ANY BIBLICALLY ALLOWED FOOD AT ALL; PLANT OR ANIMAL], all of it
was *ceremonially clean even if you ate with unwashed hands (and disregard the man-made
TRADITION of the Pharisees), since it is the evil in our hearts (of varying kinds) which defile
usand, of course, when we disobey the words of God we defile our souls as well!!

When we consider that despite Peter was with Jesus for over three years, yet after Jesus left
Peter (the leader of the disciples) still never knew of any change to the laws on diet (as
referred to earlier in his vision of Acts 10), and when we consider that, just as Noah in
Genesis 9:4 knew, and just as Moses taught, eating blood or strangled animals with the blood
not drained out is considered still unhealthy and ungodly after Jesus left earth (see Acts
15:19-21), or that John in the Revelation showed that some birds could still be deemed
"unclean and hateful [abominable]", while Paul made plain we're not to touch "the unclean
thing", I am left to believe the Bible over men's opinions like Lauriston!! It was NOT the case
that Jesus removed the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. Animals remain either "clean" or
"unclean" for God's true people (a principle which PREDATED the Mosaic Law), and eating
blood, in opposition to what Noah and Moses taught, is still today against health principles!!

We KNOW that the distinction between "clean" and unclean" animals for food was NOT
abolished at the Cross, since, apart from the fact that the GLOBAL fiery Judgment day of Isaiah
66:15-19 would have been FUTURE to the Cross (its still future to today in 2017), the Bible
itself makes plain the following IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PORTION:

"Revelation 18:2 And he [the angel] cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great
[i.e. false and confused Christianity] is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils,
and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."

Now, if the distinction between animals was abolished, as some claim, then Revelation's use
of the symbol of certain people being LIKE "every unclean and hateful [abominable] bird"
would have no parallel in nature at the time when John wrote the book of Revelation (to
both the Jew and Gentile Christian audience). And remember, John wrote this book some
time long *AFTER 70 A.D., when the Temple was already destroyed, when the old covenant
was no longer, and of course long after the Cross. For John to be making the comparison
means clearly the distinctions remained so that he could draw on that reality in nature.

Most importantly, since Peter's vision in Acts 10 was *AFTER he was filled with the Holy Ghost
in Acts 2 (long after Jesus ascended), it is plain that Peter knew that Jesus had not removed
the distinctions between "clean" and "unclean" animals while he was here on earth, and so
was able to insist in the vision that "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Acts 10:14! Clearly the vision had a symbolic meaning (NOT a literal one), and Peter himself
revealed the symbolic meaning or the real message the vision was communicating, because he
plainly said:

"Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a
Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that
I should not call any *MAN common or unclean [notice "MAN"; not meat or food]."

For the vision to have been communicating this symbolic meaning about MEN OR PEOPLE,
then clearly the distinctions between animals remained in place in nature (to be an intelligent
communicator of a message), and this distinction continued to be so even after Peter's vision
so that John could speak in symbol (many years after that) of certain people being
symbolically like "every unclean and hateful [abominable] bird" in "Babylon" (the symbol of
false religion or false Christianity).

So in the end we see that if God made the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals to
be existent both BEFORE and AFTER Israel or the Jewish nation, and the old covenant and its
ceremonial system, as well as *AFTER the Cross, then it is simply misguided to be contradicting
the Bible making it plain that it is a universal principle!! But some may want me to further prove
this pre-Mosaic universal principle. As mentioned before, the "clean" and "unclean" distinctions
between foods (as seen in Deut. 14:3-20 and Leviticus 11) existed long BEFORE any Jew or Israel
or the old covenant existed, and long AFTER The Cross and the old covenant ended at the Cross.
Now lets flesh out the details hereafter. Under the ceremonial system of Israel God simply
mixed health and dietary laws with ceremonies to teach symbolic lessons, but the dietary and
health principles could not be abrogated, despite the ceremonial aspects may have been!!

The distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals (as seen described in Deut. 14:3-20) DID
NOT originate with Israel, or with the covenant connected to them after their Exodus from
Egypt. Rather this was in existence loooooong BEFORE Israel, and actually we see the
distinction clearly known from even before the Flood of Noah. In Genesis 7:1-8, Noah clearly
knew what animals were "clean" and what animals were deemed "unclean", so that he could
intelligently follow God's directives in Genesis 7:1-9, and save on the Ark over three times the
number of "clean" animals compared to the "unclean" (both for nutrition as well as sacrificial
purposes, since unclean animals couldnt be sacrificed to represent the coming Saviour).

Since this reality of the revelation of all clean animals made for consumption after the
Flood, and the prohibition to not eat blood (Gen. 7:1-8; Gen. 9:3-4) both predated the Jews
and the old covenant, then it is clear God himself (not man) made this principle a universal
principle for all people, since all the descendants of Noah would actually form the population
of the entire earth after the Flood (remember everyone else died in the Flood because of
disobedience and sinfulness). Paul would never give another story about this reality in
Romans 14, since he was inspired by the same Spirit inspiring Moses account in Gen. 7 & 9.
 Now, I am quite sure Lauriston does NOT understand the CONTEXT of Romans 14:1-17 (despite
all his voluminous and bombastic material in his book seeking to prove that he does). I will
keep it simple for the benefit of the normal reader (and not speak above the head of the
normal man; a principle of true education I learned long ago as a classroom teacher for nearly
thirty years). I think Lauriston is using Christendoms misunderstanding of that popularly
misused Romans 14 passage as an 'escape' from being obedient to ALL of the Ten
Commandments (the same ones transferred into the new covenant; Hebrews 8:10-12) ALONG
WITH others not included in the Ten, but are still effective. And in effect he has made the Bible
seem contradictory!! Romans 14 was, on one hand, speaking about man-made days of fasting
(see Luke 5:33-35) that were voluntarily esteemed as better fast days than others, and which
were traditionally set up by religious authorities, and not by the command of God, and how
these should be related to. And the apostolic document the Didache (written after Pauls
Roman 14 instructions) reflected that ongoing controversy among Christians in the first
century (obviously lasting for several years). And, on the other hand, Romans 14 addressed
the bothersome matter of eating "meat" (in the context of *food in general, usually sacrificed
animals) offered to idols in pagan Rome and later sold in markets; an issue that Paul
addressed elsewhere in his writings (see 1 Cor. 8:4-13), and how the matter should be related
to!! NOTHING MORE!! Paul simply made plain, in the context of what was being discussed
(just like Jesus in Matthew 15 spoke, in context), that, in this context, offering animals to
idols dont make them unclean in and of themselves just because of that. Only God
certainly can make or *declare an animal abominable for food, as he did in Deuteronomy
14:3-20 and Isaiah 66:15-19, so its OK to eat the ones OK with God (as seen in his Word),
being free in ones conscience even if it was offered to idols and sold in the marketsunless
eating it in the presence of a weak brother causes him to stumble (with him not
understanding what the strong brother knows); and hence should refrain under those
circumstances, out of love for his weak brother.

God does not contradict himself (like what homosexuals today think, in order to escape God's
commands on their lives), and he does not give a command that relates to our well-being,
spiritual-wise and health-wise (e.g. see Ex. 20:8-11 and Deut. 14:3 with Isaiah 66:15-19) and
then say it matters not how someone relates to those commands (such as regarding the weekly
Sabbath, or to not to eat "abominable" or unhealthy foods, or to observe the Communion
Service or Jesus' Passover Meal, as seen in 1 Cor. 11:23-26). This principle alone proves why
Paul was dealing with *man-made days of fasting and about food/"meat" offered to idols;
issues that bothered the Gentile Christians in Rome as to how to relate. Simple!

Finally, Elce Lauriston has adopted the popular and widespread sentiment about grace relaxing
certain restrictions for Christians, including dietary health laws and the Sabbath law of the
Decalogue, but the Bible itself proves what grace through faith does and doesn't do, by saying:

"Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin [*see what sin is in 1 John 3:4],
that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin [or disobedience to the law], live any
longer therein?"

"Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,[not just to
New testament Christians] Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world..."
Grace (or God's forgiveness and unmerited favor) does NOT abolish the moral laws, health
laws or dietary laws, nor the need to obey God to take care of our bodies, but the complete
opposite is true, since grace teaches us to, and gives us the courage and power to live
"godly", "righteously" and "soberly"; all of which requires that we no longer live in sin, or in
disobedience to God's laws (as 1 John 3:4 proves "sin" to be disobedience to God's laws).
In fact, Ephesians 2:8-10 makes plain that it is grace that saves us to then enable us to walk in
the ways or "works" that God had "foreordained" for us to "walk in them".

"Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works [i.e.
obedience], which God hath before ordained [or from old] that we should walk in them."

Many people want to ignore the obedience part of faith and grace, and yet the Bible over and
over again makes plain what it is that PROVES we are saved, and what cannot be ignored once
we are saved:

"James 2:17 ...faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without
thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

In fact, the very last chapter in the very last book of the Bible makes the following point:

"Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to
the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are *dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and
idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches."

The above is plain, and it is also interesting because *DOGS were considered "unclean"
animals that no one in the entire Bible was ever seen eating, and IN THE VERY LAST CHAPTER
OF THE LAST BOOK OF THE BIBLE DOGS ARE STILL DEEMED AS THE SYMBOL OF UNCLEANNESS
AND BEING UNACCEPTABLE!! If John the Revelator still used "dogs" to show who would be
unclean spiritually, then it is plain that in terms of food they remain unclean and
unacceptable for the Christian to consume!! Anyone who claims the name of Christ and
deems it appropriate for Christians to eat dogs like the un-Christianized Chinese, they have
not yet begun to understand the Bible!!
Thus it is totally a false claim that God/Jesus abolished all laws because of the New Covenant,
and that this would include dietary laws which were, according to Elce Lauriston and his liberal
cohort in Christendom, its simply 'ceremonial' in principle!! It is plain from the Bible that to
take care of one's health via proper diet, exercise, rest, avoiding drug abuse, etc., is a MORAL
obligation, since the Christian's body is the temple of God, and because, as stewards of all we
receive from God (including our bodies), John (Jesus' beloved disciple) made plain via
inspiration from the Holy Spirit that:

"3 John 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even
as thy soul prospereth."

Notice, good health is as important as one's soul condition, and John wished ABOVE ALL
THINGS that the Christian be healthy. Now if God made all animals, and yet he himself
declares that some are "abominable" for food (see Deut. 14:3-20), and we ourselves know
that by nature some creatures are deadly poisonous (e.g. certain frogs), while some are filled
with toxic waste and disease carrying micro-organisms because they are scavengers (e.g.
vultures, pigs, etc.), then by no stretch of the imagination could it be true that, as some
foolishly argue, "every creature of God is good for food", as stated in 1 Timothy 4. That is a
shameful rape of and adding to Scripture (a Scripture passage I will highlight and exegete
shortly), and that actually makes both God and the Bible seem to be contradictory and
dangerous in their pronouncements!!

As shown before, God sees some animals, birds, insects, etc., as "abominable" and "unclean"
both before and after the old covenant, the ancient Jewish nation and the Cross, and just like
how he sees lying, pride, homosexuality, idolatry, idols, etc., as abominations, and his laws are
still in place to guide the Christian to avoid these things, so too are his health laws against
eating abominable things still in force.
The New Testament is filled with statements debunking those who claim that God's moral laws
and requirements are now abolished, and a few quoted below will make it plain:

(Good News Bible) "Does this mean that by this faith we do *away with the Law? No, not at
all; instead, we uphold the Law." - Romans 3:31

(International Standard Version) "Do we, then, *abolish the Law by this faith? Of course not!
Instead, we uphold the Law." - Romans 3:31

(King James JV) "Do we then make *void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish
the law." - Romans 3:31

"James 2:10 Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all.
James 2:11 For the same one who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit
murder." Even if you do not commit adultery, you have become a lawbreaker if you commit
murder.
James 2:12 Speak and act as people who will be judged by the law that sets us free." - Good
News Bible

" 2 Corinthians 6:17 Come out from among them [i.e. the unsaved pagans], and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you..." - KJV
Finally, the very New Covenant makes plain that the laws of God are part of that covenant,
and those commandments will actually be used to judge everyone. It is so plain that its hard
to miss:

"Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, saith the Lord; I will put MY LAWS into their mind, and write them in their hearts" - KJV

Clearly you cant write in the heart of the new covenant Christian what is abolished!! Its the
Ten Commandment Laws which were deemed the actual heart of the old covenant (see 1
Kings 8:9, 21), and (under a new covenant) to put those laws (along with other relevant ones)
in the heart/mind of the Christian where God is enthroned, instead of written on stone
stored in a box on earth, means they still exist, but its location is changed spiritually, as its
now being written on the heart. And obeying it is no longer by human will, but via the Spirit
living within (Hebrews 8:10-12); thus a new covenant is indeed seen in those terms, but with
the same major laws involved (along with some others not abolished).

And another indication that the Ten Commandments are still in force is seen by the fact that
God cant judge the world in the future with what is totally abolished (i.e. the laws of God
housed in the ark of his covenant under the old covenant; 1 Kings 8:9). Therefore notice
carefully:

"Revelation 11:18 ...the time for your wrath has come. It is time for the dead to be judgedto
reward your servants, the prophets, the saints, and all who fear your name, both
unimportant and important, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."
Rev 11:19 Then the Temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was
seen inside his Temple [see 1 Kings 8:9]. " ISV

Now if all of this obvious truth could have been missed and misrepresented by Elce Lauriston, it
is no surprise he also missed and misrepresented the true meaning of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as well.
Lets now briefly see what he missed. As I close this Section A dealing with debunking
Lauristons misguided notion that All Foods Are Clean, I must end by bringing to your
attention the crazy way people like Lauriston misinterpret/corrupt this 1 Timothy 4:1-5
Scripture to mean that every creature [or animal] of God is good FOR FOOD, and that
"nothing is to be refused". The Bible's prophecy in 1 Tim. 4:1-5 has been largely misunderstood
and misapplied by so many.
I am not sure, dear reader, if you are aware of the practices of the early ascetics in the Greek
world during the first and second centuries, where, after some of them became 'converts' in
the apostolic Church, they wanted to impose their aversion to food (via extreme and
extended fasting), and their avoidance of sex and marriage via lifelong celibacy (or what they
deem to be "earthly" weaknesses) as a means to showing 'high spirituality!! Did you know
too that "the last days" cover the entire period of the Church since the first century (after
Jesus ascended), and hence this asceticism of certain Greek 'converts' who wanted to impose
this on the early Church easily fulfilled the 1 Tim. 4:1-5 prophecy? Did you realize that the
1 Tim. 4:1-5 prophesy MUST involve heretics *both forbidding people to marry and to abstain
from eating food generally ("meats" in Old English) as a measure of how spiritual they are?
How can one apply this prophesy to the very words of God himself declaring some animals
"abominable" for food? This application doesn't hold water because God is NOT the author of
confusion, he doesn't contradict himself, and he himself knows that not every creature of
God is good for food (considering the ones that are poisonous, and others that are filled with
diseases as natural scavengers).

What is being focused on in 1 Tim 4:1-5 is the "creature" or created thing called food in
general (but the foods determined to be wholesome by God himself), and the creation or
created thing called *heterosexual marriage (and the gift of *heterosexual sex involved); both
of which were created to be enjoyed and not shunned, in contradistinction to the Greek
ascetics in the early Church who felt they should be avoided/shunned.

The Bible is consistent throughout, and so at this point I rest my case in this matter. Near the
end of the study I will address (in the Appendices) Lauristons wild application of the above
prophecy to Mrs. White and the SDA health message, as we live in the final days of earths
history, ready to return to Eden, as it were, and so must overcome where our first parents fell,
and where Israel in the wilderness had serious issues as well the often overlooked matter of
the appetite and control of self as it relates to appetite!!

CONCLUSION FROM SECTION A?

All of the foregoing renders Elce Lauristons theories explored in this section A (i.e. All Foods
Are Clean) as simply TOTALLY DEBUNKED!! His second of two pet Scriptures, Colossians 2:14-
16, will now be dealt with in Section B as we now address his theory that Every Day is the
Sabbath.

REFUTING OR DEBUNKING ELCE LAURISTONS KEY ARGUMENTS.

SECTION B. Every Day is the Sabbath?? REALLY????

Again, where would Elce Lauriston get this misguided notion from, and where in the Bible did
he find words to label this misguided notion of his? Simple! Its found in the recycled
arguments of misguided teachers in Christendom (along with Dr. Clinton Baldwins heresies)
who all BUTCHERED Pauls words in the Bible, and Lauriston, since his departure from SD
Adventism, has lapped and up their errors with wild abandon, and he is now what the Bible
described in symbol as he being drunk with the wine of Babylon.

It is all based on the false notion long in Christendom (hence a recycled argument) that the
Sabbath was created to point forward to Jesus, who would himself become the Sabbath, and
hence when he came the literal weekly Sabbath observation (once per week) would be
abolished (like all other Jewish feasts or occasions of solemn assembly), and replaced by
Jesus being our Sabbath everyday.hence the false notion of Every day is the Sabbath!!

But this notion is so easily debunked, and this video link show how easily it can be (click). The
Bible is consistent and clear from beginning to the end, beginning in Genesis 2:1-3, that the
Sabbath was created to point back to creation and God as the Creator. And when God
officially codified (or put in writing) the Sabbath command, he first spoke it himself and then
wrote it himself (he actually wrote it TWICE with his own finger on the tables of stone), and
he himself gave the reason for the Sabbath:

Exodus 20:11 For [because] in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it. KJV

Exodus 20:11 That is because the LORD worked six days and made the sky, the earth, the
sea, and everything in them. And on the seventh day, he rested. In this way the LORD blessed
the Sabbaththe day of rest. He made that a very special day.
ERV (Easy to Read Version)

I see Lauriston desperately trying to make the Sabbath the independence day for the
founding of the nation of Israel, and saying this was the reason for Israel to observe it (based on
God saying in Deuteronomy 5:15 that they were slaves in Egypt so, he argues, thats the
primary reason they should observe the Sabbath). But thats another denial and corruption of
Scripture. Before God gave the entire list of Ten Commandments he reminded Israel that they
were in Egypt and in bondage and that he God emancipated them (see Exodus 20:1-2
compared with Deuteronomy 5:6), thus they were to have no other God before him. Thus he
being their Emancipator from bondage (not only that he was their Creator, et al) was given as
an additional reason to obey all his Ten Commandments; it was not just related to the Sabbath
commandment. This not only takes the wind out of the sails of Lauristons argument described
above, but it also shows plainly, that we cannot use the popular liberal argument that because
Gentile Christians were not slaves in Egypt they shouldnt keep the Sabbath. It just doesnt fly!
That argument, if true, would have applied to ALL of the commands in the Decalogue, since God
prefaced them ALL with a reminder that Israel was in Egypt and God delivered them. And yet in
the New Testament we see those laws re-stated and being obeyed by Gentiles. So that
argument flounders and fails significantly!!
And God himself REPEATEDLY tells us the reason for the Sabbath being in existence in the first
place; it was in existence loooong before Israel, and was simply created, made holy, set apart
for holy use, and blessed AT CREATION, and it pointed back to the creation event as a
memorial of the Creator; NOT to the origin of Israel as nation!!!

The above is obvious, but the reason Lauriston tried to circumvent all of that biblical truth was
because he wants to set up a false theory related to Israel, which would mean that if Sabbath-
observation originated with Israel in the wilderness and with its ceremonial system it would end
with Israel as a temporal nation, and not apply to Gentiles who were not Jews!! But its all a
blatant falsehood concocted by mistaken people in Christendom, and Elce Lauriston is now
drinking the cool aid and is totally drunk with confusion!!

Lauriston further tried to lump the weekly the Sabbath with the annual Jewish feasts or
festivals, and tried to make it a shadow of Jesus to come, and, using Colossians 2:14-16, tried
to argue that it ended along with all other shadows grouped with it, and thereafter Jesus
became the Sabbath. He even went as far as claiming in a YouTube video online (Romans 14
and Colossians 2 Destroy Mandatory Sabbath Keeping ) that no reputable Greek scholar
(except so-called "misguided" SDA preachers) would ever claim that the "sabbaton" (sabbaths)
"nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2 can and does refer to the other "sabbaths" other than the
weekly Sabbath.

Well lets test that claim. Here are *non-SDA bible commentaries throwing out Elce's mistaken
ideas right out the window. As the following quotes will show, arguing that the sabbaton in
Colossians 2: 14-16 is the abolished annual sabbaths, this is actually the commonly held view
of some respected NON-SDA writers of several Bible Commentaries (Greek scholars themselves
who didn't even keep the seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, and yet they could
not deny seeing the same thing in the Colossians passage). They clearly saw a distinction
between the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments and the other sabbaths (proving its not
original with SDAs to think so), and they rightly felt it could never be considered a part of any
"handwriting of ordinances" which were "blotted out" among any written laws of the Old
Testament. Hence they too saw a distinction in the perpetuity of some laws as opposed to
others:
ALBERT BARNE'S COMMENTARY SAYS:

"There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no
obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he
meant to teach that one of the Ten Commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If
he had used the word in the singular number - the Sabbath, it would then, of course, have
been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and
that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number,
and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were
observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to
the moral law, or the Ten Commandments... These [Ten] commandments are, from the nature
of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation."

JAMEISON, FAUSSET AND BROWN'S COMMENTARY SAYS:

"(not *the Sabbath but) SABBATHS" of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have
come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev_23:32, Lev_23:37-39).
The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in
Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev_23:38 expressly
distinguished "the sabbath of the Lord" from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right
because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is
commanded eternally, because it is eternally right."

N.B. *In the above quotes it was recognized by non-SDA scholars that while the weekly Sabbath
is usually written in the plural, yet it is designated in the plural with the definite article, "the"
("ho" in Greek), and hence the absence of the article "the" in Col. 2:162:16arly meant Paul was
not focusing on the weekly Sabbath, but the numerous other Sabbaths which the weekly
Sabbath is usually distinguished from (as seen in Leviticus 23:37,38).

" MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY SAYS:

"The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the
Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the shadows
fled...[BUT] The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and service of God [as in
the Ten Commandments], is a moral and unchangeable duty..."

Thus it can be seen from just three non-SDA authoritative sources that the view that there was
a distinction in ceremonial and moral laws (with the moral laws being the Decalogue
primarily, but not exclusively) its not doctrinally unique to the Seventh-day Adventist Church
whom this writer represents, and, as even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
(another non-SDA publication) indicates, we have to be careful of the word "law" in the New
Testament.
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA SAYS:

"[in] the Gospels.. the word law always refers to the Mosaic law, although it has different
applications. That law was really threefold: the Moral Law, as summed up in the Decalogue,
the Ceremonial Law, prescribing the ritual and all the typical enactments, and what might be
called the Civil or Political Law, that relating to the people in their national, political life. The
distinction is not closely observed, though sometimes the reference emphasizes one aspect,
sometimes another.."
---International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, M.A., D.D., General Editor

In fact, the distinctions inherent in the laws of the one Mosiac code was recognized by the
Church fathers of the first three centuries, and by several of the Protestant Reformers, and thus
its no SDA invention. Now, what is very evident is that if some form of "handwriting of
ordinances" was blotted out, and then Paul immediately turned around and cautioned Gentiles
to not allow anyone to "judge them" in terms of things clearly related to ceremonies and
"shadows" or types, then obviously he meant something related to these were abolished? But
what? THIS IS WHERE THE SIMPLE RULE OF SOME LAWS BEING TEMPORARY, AND SOME
LAWS BEING PERMANENT MUST BE APPLIED; CLEARLY SHOWINGA DISTINCTION OF LAWS!!
And that is why so many scholars saw in Colossians 2:14-16 a reference to the "meat" [food]
offerings (both from plant and animal source), and "drink" offerings, and various national
holidays of the Jewish calendar, since the Jews were at that very time in which Paul lived
preaching that Gentiles must still be circumcised and keep *all Jewish rituals of the past.
But Paul, already knowing that Gentile Christians would not confuse the binding nature of the
Ten Commandments (as proven earlier) with the temporary ritual laws, or confuse the Lord's
Supper (newly instituted as a new type of Passover celebration) with all other now non-
obligatory Jewish holidays, he was able to speak as he did in Col. 2:16. Seventh-day Adventists
strongly feel that here is where Paul strongly signaled to *Gentile Christians that while Jews
by blood (like himself) could still respect their own national history with all its national
holidays related to the temporal nation of Israel, yet they did not apply to Gentiles, and they
should not allow themselves to be "judged" by anyone for them not keeping them all!! But
since the weekly Sabbath was from creation and pointed back to the Creator of all humans
(Jews and Gentiles alike), and is part of the forever binding Decalogue, it was therefore
applicable to all!! And, I must say as an SD Adventist I am yet to see any doctrine which can
defeat the very strong possibility of Col. 2:14-16 actually presenting this message.

I see Elce Laursiton appealing to the Reformer John Wesley in some of his writings, therefore
indicating he respects John Wesley's insights on theology. But am sure as soon as he sees the
following NON-SDA thoughts from John Wesley about Colossians 2, he will immediately oppose
him on it (trying to have his cake and eat it too). With reference to Colossians 2:14 the famous
Reformer, and founder of a major Sunday keeping Church (the Methodist Church), indicated
the classical Protestant understanding of what was 'abolished' in terms of the "handwriting of
ordinances" Paul referred to. Remarkably, this respected Protestant writer did not think it was
the Ten Commandments which was abolished but notice:

JOHN WESLEY SAID:

The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel, containing all the
injunctions and ordinances which related to the old sacrifices and service of the temple, our
Lord did indeed come to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish. To this bear all the apostles
witness This *hand writing of ordinances [Col. 2:14] our Lord did blot out, take away, and
nail to his cross. BUT THE MORAL LAW CONTAINED *IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, AND
ENFORCED BY THE PROPHETS, HE DID NOT TAKE AWAY. It was not the design of his coming to
revoke any part of this. This is a Law, which never can be broken, which *stands fast as the
faithful witness in heaven [Rev. 11:18-19].

The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual lawEvery
part of this Law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending
either on time or place, or any other circumstance liable to change, but on the nature of God,
and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each otherIn the highest rank of
the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly judge the Law itself,
and speak evil of the Law; who teach men to break (to dissolve, to loose, to untie, the
obligation of) not one only, whether of the least, or of the greatest, but all the
commandments at a stroke O Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Father, forgive them; for
they know not what they do

The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is, that they who
are given up to it, really believe that they honor Christ by overthrowing his Law, and that they
are magnifying his office, while they are destroying his doctrine. Yea, they honor him just as
Judas did, when he said, Hail, Master and kissed him. And he may as justly say to every one
of them, Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? It is no other than betraying him with a
kiss, to talk of his blood, and take away his crown; to set light by any part of his Law, under
pretence of advancing his gospel.
--- John Wesley, Sermon 25, Upon Our Lords Sermon on the Mount, Sermons on Several
Occasions, Vol. 1 (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1836), pgs. 221, 222,
and 317.

This is the shared view of Seventh-day Adventists on this passage!!! Read it, Elce Lauriston, and
recognize we SDAs are not the inventors of this doctrineunless you think John Wesley
founded Adventism???
Now I could tackle every major false argument coming from Elce Lauriston in his book as well as
his videos, but I dont need to in this presentation. All I need to do is debunk his overarching
premise that the Sabbath was abolished and Every Day is the Sabbath, and here I will leave
the reader to determine whether I have accomplished that or not at this point. I now aim to
bring this matter to a climax by showing clearly that the early Church (cooperatively) NEVER
had this notion of every day being the Sabbath (despite Elce Lauriston seeks to eisogetically
impose this thought on the writings of Paul in his epistles). Lets look at some potent historical
sources.I WILL DISPROVE THE CLAIMS OF LAURISTON ABOUT EVERY DAY IS THE SABBATH BY
USING NON-ADVENTIST OR NON-SABBATARIAN SOURCES TO PROVE THE TRUTH.

I am going to go as far into the future after the Cross as the fourth and fifth centuries to prove
my point, because if the weekly Sabbath was really abolished and Jesus was now considered
the Sabbath by Christians all over, and every day was deemed the Sabbath, by then that
would be clearly seen in the fourth and fifth centuries, but now carefully notice in the
following quotes (and there are many more I could furnish):

*Sabbath and Sunday, in 5th-Century LiteratureAugustine, Bishop of Hippo (354430 A.D.),

on Fasting on the Sabbath in Rome, Not in Milan

Source: Augustine, Letter 54, to Januarius, chap. 2

In some places no day is omitted, on which the communion is not offered; in some [it is
offered] only on the Sabbath *AND the Lords day [Sunday]; in some only on the Lords Day

*Sabbath and Sunday, in 4th-Century LiteratureJohn Cassian (395 A.D.) on Sabbath and
Sunday Church Services Among Monks in Egypt

Source: John Cassian, The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia, bk. 3, chap. 2; bk. 5,
chap. 26, translated in NPNF, 2d series, Vol. 11, pp. 213, 243.

Wherefore, except Vespers and Nocturns, there are no public services among them [monks in
Egypt] in the day except on Saturday and Sunday, when they meet together.

*Sabbath and Sunday, in 5th-Century LiteratureAsterius of Amasea (400 A.D.) on Sabbath and
Sunday as a Beautiful Team

Source: Asterius of Amasea, Homily 5, on Matt. 19:3, in MPG, Vol. 40, col. 225. Greek.

It is beautiful to Christians and to the industrious that the team of these two days comes
together; I speak of the Sabbath *AND the Lords day [Sunday], which time in its course brings
around weekly. For as mothers and nurses of the church they gather the people, set over
them priests as instructors, and lead both disciples and teachers to have a care for souls.

I could quote even more telling sources, but one thing is clear: The weekly "Christian"
observance of Sunday -- whenever it did arise -- did not at first generally become a
*substitute for the Bible seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday; for both Saturday and Sunday were
widely kept side by side for several centuries in early Christian history. Socrates Scholasticus,
a church historian of the fifth century A.D., wrote:

SOURCE: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 22, in The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers (NPNF) Second Series, Vol. II, p. 132.

"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the
Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on
account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."
And Sozomen wrote about that same period:

SOURCE: Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chap. 19, in NPNF, Second Series,
Vol. II, p. 390.

"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on

the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never [or no
longer]observed at Rome or at Alexandria."

Thus, "almost everywhere" throughout Christendom, except later in Rome and Alexandria,
there were Christian worship services on both Saturday and Sunday as late as the fifth century.
What then became clear is that, despite the Sabbath was still being observed weekly by many
Christians (and not seen as an everyday matter and Jesus being the Sabbath), the *Roman
Church (!!!) led the way to have the weekly Sabbath REPLACED and Sunday elevated, both by
its own example, and by a series of decrees via the secular powers and Church Councils
(starting earlier with Constantine and later effected through Roman-led Church Councils, like
the Council of Laodicea ordering Christians not to Judaize and keep the Sabbath). Gods
Sabbath was then gradually downtrodden and CHANGED by the very same Roman power
prophesied to arise out of Daniels fourth kingdom (Rome), and which would think to
CHANGE times and laws (Daniel 7:25). Today the Papacy (the very Roman power prophesied
about) boasts it did make the change (i.e. after the fourth century it was no longer allowing
both the Sabbath and Sunday to be observed side by side, as seen earlier in the apostolic
church; but sought to have it replaced !!!!), and thus Daniel 7:25 has been fulfilled by the very
Roman power predicted to do!! So while the worship of God is certainly valid every day, any
day for that matter, but never forget that only one day weekly was ever blessed, sanctified,
and declared holy and to be observed in full in honor of God as Creator!!

Sunday has no such God-blessed, God-sanctified, and God-hallowed background IN THE

BIBLEit was all a man-made tradition without God ever commanding it to be so esteemed.
Nothing would have been wrong observing this Sunday tradition (in honor of the
resurrection) if it never sought to take the place of Gods true holy day or his true Lords
day (Isaiah 58:13-14) which he himself instituted, and thats what the Daniel 7:25 prophecy
is all abouta prophecy about Gods ways being CHANGED by a power arising out of Rome.
And I repeat. The only CHANGE we have seen which fulfills that Daniel 7:25 prophecy is the
Sabbath change (since it relates to Gods times and laws), and this accounts for the urgency
of the Sabbatarian (SDA) call in these final days of the Reformation, to return to full loyalty to
Gods commands (Rev. 14:6-7, 12); and to not worship him in vain by making of none effect
his command via human tradition (just as the Pharisees did in their time with other
commandments of God). Jesus himself made plain that this type of worship would be in vain,
since we would be teaching for doctrine the commandments of men!! Matthew 15:9.

CONCLUSION FROM SECTION B?

The false notion of every day is the Sabbath or Jesus is the Sabbath (popular as may be in
Christendom) it is clearly proven to be a mistaken notion!! If it is not, then all of the above
described would have to be otherwise accounted for biblically, prophetically and historically,
and it cant be properly explained otherwise via the false notions which Elce Lauriston subscribe
to!
CLOSING APPEAL
It is the case that the crowd in Christendom are united in preaching that all foods are clean
and that the Sabbath is abolished and every day is [now] the Sabbath. Never follow the crowd
(since Jesus prophesied that most Christians will be lost for disobedience; Matthew 7:21-23;
Psalm 40:8), and never forget that often the most hated, and vilified of Gods messengers may
just have something more vital and destiny-related to offer than many realize (just like the
prophets of ancient Israel were mocked hated, persecuted and killed by their own fellow
Israelites). SDAs as Reformers (in these days when reformation is more and more not deemed
as an attractive option by many in Christendom) we do have something to offer thats either
vehemently hated and opposed, or it appeals to millions and many are waking up to accepting
it. Love us or hate us, but we do have a message no one can ignore (even when they oppose it
fiercely like Elce Lauriston does). We continue to say to the world:

Rev 14:7 Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship
him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and
do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not
do any work For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them
is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed
it.
"Isaiah 66:15-19 The LORD will come with fire. He will ride on the wings of a storm to punish those he
is angry with. By fire ... he will punish all the people of the world whom he finds guilty---and many will
be put to death. The LORD says, "The end is near for those who purify themselves for pagan
worship...and who eat *pork and *mice and other *disgusting [abominable] *foods.
I know their thoughts and their deeds. I am coming to gather the people of all the nations. When they
come together, they will see what my power can do and will know that I am the one who punishes
them..." --- Good News Bible (GNB).

HE THAT HATH AN EAR LET HIM HEAR!!

IGNORE THIS WARNING AT YOUR
OWN RISK!!!
 *Appendix -TYING UP THE LOOSE ENDS
Under this appendices section let me address in brief some of the side-issues mentioned in
passing, but needing further clarification, which might benefit the reader:

Isaiah 66:15-18 -
As I indicated in the earlier presentation, lest it be said I am unaware that Isaiah 65-66 also
speaks of not just a future fiery judgment against eaters of unclean foods, and about the new
heavens and new earth, but also of future priests, future sacrifices, a future temple, future new
moon celebrations, old age and death in the future as well after the fiery Judgment day (things
which will no longer be in existence after the ultimate Judgment day, therefore, it would be
argued, that this must only be referring to post-exilic life only in ancient Israel after their
Babylonian captivity), let me now address the matter in brief here. Considering that its those
very same chapters the apostles used in the only Scriptures they had (the Old Testament
Scriptures) to prophecy about the ultimate new heavens and new earth after the ultimate future
fiery judgment day, et al, it is plain that God prophesied of the future world to come in the
ancient language of literal Israel, and thus in their ancient language:

1. Their name and their seed would remain (Isaiah 66:22), but obviously via the Christ the true
Seed (Gal.3:16, 29).
2. Their temple, sacrifices, priests, circumcision ritual, new moon celebrations, annual feasts,
etc., would all, IN PRINCIPLE, still be in existence under the new covenant, but would change
to a spiritual application (as explained earlier in this presentation)involving the church as the
spiritual temple, involving perpetual worship (yearly, monthly, weekly and daily), spiritual
sacrifices offered by spiritual kings and priests looking to the Lamb the ultimate sacrifice,
heart circumcision, et al, and, of course, involving the annual feasts being fulfilled in Christ
(since, as shadows coming into being after sin, they pointed to him and his ministry)

However the Sabbath, since it came before sin, or predated all of the literal Israel-related realities
which came into being after sin, it, along with Gods unchangeable moral code of behavior,
would continue, pointing back to the Creator and Creation, just as the Lords Supper points back
to Jesus Atoning death (in reality it is the case that the Sabbath is forever pointing back to the
first creation of man through Jesus in the physical sense, and the Lords Supper is now pointing
back to the new creation of man in the spiritual sense through Jesus dying on the Cross).

Thus Isaiah 65-66 offers no real a challenge, despite what Elce Lauriston may think, since
even where old age and death was depicted when those prophecies were given through Isaiah, it
still pointed to a golden age for Israel in the spiritual sense when death and aging would be no
more. Thats why John the Revelator could draw on those new heavens and new earth
prophecies, given, admittedly, in the language of ancient Israel as a temporal nation, but applied
in the spiritual sense. Peter the apostle applied those same passages to the new heavens and new
earth to come, and he too saw no difficulties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabbath feast known BEFORE Even Exodus 16:
In Exodus 5:1-7, when Moses tried to give the Israelites in Egypt "rest" in order for them to
keep God's only "feast" (or solemn assembly) in existence at that time (i.e. the Sabbath already
in existence from creation) Pharaoh refused and doubled their work, so that they could not
worship God as they should. Thus their liberation from Egypt was certainly mentioned as
additional reason for them to keep the Sabbath faithfully (just like it was additional reason for
keeping all other commandments) but that was NOT the fundamental reason for the Sabbath
being kept. Genesis 2:1-3 coupled with Exodus 20:8-11 and Exodus 31:17 makes it plain!! God is
Creator and by virtue of the fact that we owe him our very existence, that's the FUNDAMENTAL
reason to honor him as Creator always BUT ESPECIALLY ON HIS "HOLY DAY" HALLOWED AND
BLESSED, AND WHICH WILL ALWAYS BE HIS MEMORIAL OF CREATION!!

The "rest" in Exodus 5:1-7 was connected to the only "feast" or 'solemn assembly' in existence
while they were in Egypt---i.e. the weekly Sabbath--- since all other "feasts" of Israel begun
after their Exodus or "Departure" from Egypt; with the first annual/yearly "feast" being the
Passover originating as they came out of Egypt (and all the others, Tabernacles, day of
Atonement, etc., all originating after that). If you recall in Leviticus 23:1-3, the weekly Sabbath
was called one of the "feasts" for "holy convocation" or for solemn assembly of the people to
worship God. Thus with the other "feasts" not yet in existence in Egypt, the only one Moses
could have been seeking "rest" to observe at the time was THE WEEKLY SABBATH, but slavery
prevented them from doing so.
Hence the Deut. 5:15 passage takes on more meaning for a people who already knew of the
weekly Sabbath "feast" in existence from creation (Gen. 2:1-3), but were prevented from
observing it for centuries while in slavery, and now they were free to observe it (see Exodus
10:9). And if you recall, its on the Sabbath feast most sacrifices were done, thus connection
between sacrifice and feast in Egypt.

P.S. The word "feast" (from either Hebrew "chagag" or "moed") does not mean eating much
food (the modern and western meaning), but rather means a solemn assembly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. White on vegetarianism, meat and spirituality:

THE BENEFITS OF VEGETARIANISM:

Many are becoming well aware of the growing scientific proofs of the health benefits of a
vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet, and also of the well documented ills of a purely meat-based
diet, and its correlation with heart disease, hypertension, cancers, et al.
Here is the latest to support this fact (click the link):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324423904578523190441042514.html?mod=
wsj_streaming_stream
Just ask the health-keen sport stars and health conscious persons of the world today, just ask
the sports coaches and gym instructors, just ask the objective diet specialists and health experts
of the world, and the truth becomes self-evident. Just compare the well documented health
studies done on SDAs over the years (and done on Mormons, who, like many SD Adventists, are
near-vegans, or who use meat "sparingly"), compared to people who consume much meat all
over the world, and the undeniable health benefits of the SDA lifestyle of limited meat eating
becomes a non-debatable health issue.

While it is certainly true the Bible does not oppose meat eating per se, and neither does it
command a vegetarian diet, yet the Bible is replete with health principles that can argue
powerfully in favor of the health reform principles advocated by Mrs. White, including the
spiritual benefits attached (see God's view of lusting after a flesh-based diet in Psalm 106:13-15
compared to Numbers 11:1-34; notice how it is seen as bringing "leanness to the SOUL" in Ps.
106:14,15). It is not lost on me that the original diet of all humans and animals in ORIGINAL
paradise, or the pre-sin state of the world was A MEATLESS DIET (EVEN WHEN ALL CREATURES,
ANIMALS INCLUDED, LACKED DEFECTS)!! This is clearly recorded in Genesis:

"Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon
the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that
creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it
was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good..."

What is instructive is that this was clearly Gods PRE-SIN ideal, and would have remained so if
Man had not sinned, and the resultant Flood (very many years later) had not later taken place.
See God allowing the contingency plan for meat consumption (THE LESS THAN IDEAL) in
Genesis after the Flood:

"Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and
upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the
sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I
given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

When one also considers that God makes it plain in Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 that there
will be no killing of animals or predation on animal life in the new earth (i.e. a restoration of
ORIGINAL paradise), then we do see the Bible powerfully arguing for Mrs. Whites messages of
God intending to bring back Man to his original vegan diet, despite God does allow for meat to
be eaten (since the Flood; both for ceremonial and circumstantial dietary reasons) despite it is
not ideal (just as he allowed, FOR A TIME, polygamy, and slavery among his people of Israel,
despite not the ideal scenario). When one also considers the example of John the Baptist (who
had the special task of announcing the first coming of Jesus in his earthly ministry), in he
observing the Nazarite vow for life (consisting largely of a vegetarian diet and avoiding alcohol
consumption; Matt. 3:4), and when one considers the results of Daniel and his three friends
proving (within a short period of time) the mental and physical benefits of a vegetarian diet in
Daniel 1:8-20, then the clear connection to its SPIRITUAL BENEFITS is easily demonstrated.

Meat as a staple food is certainly not the best or NOT THE IDEAL. Remember Mrs. White was
mostly against meat as a staple food. A staple food, sometimes simply referred to as a staple, is
a food that is eaten routinely and in such quantities that it constitutes a dominant portion of a
standard diet. Meat being a staple is what she wrote against mostly, especially for spiritual
leaders in Adventism. And I see no real problem there from the Biblical standpoint (only the
critics would). When the mind is clear, and the body free from disease, and the blood not laden
down with health debilitating substances connected with a high meat diet, then one can
certainly be in a better position to function spiritually, it could be certainly argued. No wonder
for very many centuries, those religions and religious sects that tended to be ascetic in practice,
and which devoted much to spiritual enlightenment, largely practiced vegetarianism (e.g. a
variety of temple monks, and spiritualists), or used meat sparingly.

The anecdotal evidence of a connection between healthy diet and mental clarity, and hence
ones preparedness for spiritual elevation, is self-evident. No wonder God called the priests and
specially called leaders to a higher standard of health-related lifestyle than the common man.
He strictly restricted them from consuming alcohol, for instance, while they were serving in
spiritual leadership capacities, and it therefore strongly suggests that nothing is inherently
wrong in Adventism holding its spiritual leaders to a higher standard of healthy living as
spiritual leaders. Critics are the only ones who have a problem!! If a vegetarian or near
vegetarian diet has so many demonstrable health benefits, hence preparing the mind for
spiritual upliftment, and if vegetarianism will most likely return in paradise or the new earth,
then it CANNOT be denied that Mrs. White is advanced in her teaching on the issue. To the
critic and the common man, it may seem extreme for her to be making it a rule for spiritual
leaders in Adventism (i.e. strongly advocating the original diet of paradise for spiritual leaders),
but all things considered, it is NOT something to warrant condemning Mrs. White over. But of
course, Elce Lauriston and the critics would naturally fulfill the role of being accusers of the
brethren, despite it is demonstrably true that NOTHING IS WRONG TO PREPARE PEOPLE IN
THE LAST DAYS TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL DIET OF VEGETARIANISM, OR TO THE DIET THAT
WILL BE THE NORM IN THE EARTH MADE NEW!!

And if it be claimed that sola scriptura has no vegetarianism insisted on in it, I would simply
say sola scriptura OBLIGATES the Bible believer to follow the command in 1 Thessalonians
5:19-21, and recognize that God can and does give additional messages of truth through his
prophets, ancient and modern. Despite the Scriptures are already there, there is SOMETIMES a
certain present truth that only the prophet is the vehicle to bring it to the people for
application at the present time, and I strongly believe that the health message through Mrs.
White is one such present truth, rejected or not by critics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. White and animalism from meat eating:

Some of the SDA critics make much ado about Mrs. White's pronouncements on *MUCH meat
eating strengthening "animalism", or "lustful propensities". Here is where they demonstrate
their lack of insight, in my view, because:

1. First, as it concerns Mrs. White contending that meat eating strengthens "animalism", or
influences the behavior to be like animals in some senses (e.g. sexuality controlled by pure
instinct; not reason), they totally ignore Mrs. White's emphasis on the possible effects of eating
meat as a "STAPLE", or one's diet consisting "LARGELY" of flesh

2. Critics forget that if God's initial ideal for man was a meatless diet (Gen. 1:29-31), and that if
God fed Israel with manna for forty years and was angered when they lusted for flesh (Numbers
11:1-34 with Ps. 106:13-15), and if the diet in future Paradise will no doubt return to the
original ideal as God initially intended (Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25), then what's there to
defeat the strong possibility that there is more to meat eating (as a staple), i.e. it being NOT
ideal for body and soul, than we may now realize? God knows best, and who's to say, as
knowledge increases more and more, that certain new things will not be probably discovered
and proven about the effects of flesh on the system than is now presently recognized?

3. If for hundreds, yea, thousands of years "unclean" meat was denounced by God, yet humans
are just beginning to learn scientifically of the dangers of pork on the health, for instance (with
the high levels of toxins inherent in the flesh, the difficulty for the system to digest it, and its
connection to a weakened health system; do you own research online , dear reader), then
who's to say greater scientific knowledge will not later reveal that by consuming much animal
meat (with all its high content of animal hormones which drive animal instinct) we can have our
natures at the hormonal level impacted "animalistically"? Science at the moment is far from
perfect, and hence is both an imperfect yet a growing body of knowledge, and by the very
nature of science it demands being open to further knowledge which may be discovered via
research. I learned this principle well, when it is considered that only lately the real connection
between zinc-deficiency and a myriad of diseases which can result was made (remembering
how zinc is NOW DISCOVERED to be crucial to the operation of the brain, nervous system, and
the proper functioning of the immune system, and that its concentration in semen can result in
zinc-deficiency if masturbation is excessively practiced and the lost zinc is not sufficiently
replaced in the correct foods rich in that substance). Sometimes we must recognize that truth is
not readily seen for what it is when it is presented.

4. finally, science cannot prove or disprove the effects of certain things on the spirituality (e.g.
such as engaging in selfish and self-centered sexual activities, such as masturbation), since that
dimension of human existence is not subject to the laws and methods of science and the test
tube. But we must trust the OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE that if God, for instance, initially left flesh
out of the diet of man, then there must be a whole host of reasons for this wisdom, and hence
there is much more to learn scientifically about it not being ideal. Incidentally, if God also made
plain that "it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9), then it is plain that masturbation is
not God's ideal plan for sexual fulfillment, but rather a loving heterosexual relationship of
mutual love involving the sharing of bodies and soul (and again, science lacks the ability to give
proper directives on this spiritual dimension of human sexuality).

IT IS UPON THE ABOVE BASIS THAT I REJECT ALL OF THE OBJECTIONS TO MRS. WHITE'S
COUNSELS ON THE MATTER (S), AS COMING FROM THE CRITICS,, AND FEEL SAFER TO TRUST
THE "WISDOM" THAT STAYS ON GOD'S SIDE...APPEALING TO THE ORIGINAL IDEAL OF A
MEATLESS DIET , OR AT LEAST USING MEAT SPARINGLY (AND, OF COURSE, AVOIDING
MASTURBATION)!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the Holy Spirit the "seal" of God (i.e. an inanimate object or token to signify God's
ownership) or is He the Agent whereby one is "sealed" with the token of God's ownership?

ANSWER: A seal is always something *inanimate that's stamped or affixed or associated with
something or someone to indicate ownership, and while the authoritative person is he who
"seals" what is owned, the actual "seal" itself is NEVER the person who does the "sealing". Go
to any government and or tax office, and we see this in operation everyday. The much
respected Encarta Encyclopedia defines a seal as:

"SEAL [seel]
noun (plural seals)

- authenticating *stamp: a ring or stamp with a raised or engraved symbol or emblem that is
pressed into wax in order to certify a signature or authenticate a document
- wax marked with seal: a piece of wax bearing the mark of a seal
- *symbol of office: a *device, *emblem, or *symbol that is a *mark of office
- ornamental adhesive stamp: an ornamental adhesive stamp used to close a letter or package
- *something giving confirmation: something that gives confirmation or assurance
e.g. Mother gave our plans for the party her seal of approval.

Word origin (etymology) --[12th century. Via Anglo-Norman < Latin sigillum "little mark" <
signum "sign, token"]
---Microsoft Encarta 2009. 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Notice carefully that nowhere is a "seal" ever a PERSON (it is always *something), but a person
certainly is the agent who authenticates a "seal" on anything. This is important to consider
whenever we read passages of the Bible speaking of the Holy Spirit as related to God's "seal" or
the "sealing" of his people:
For instance, note carefully:

"Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, WHEREBY ye are *sealed unto the day of
redemption."

"Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he [God] might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according
to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with [by] that holy Spirit of
promise"

Now if one believes the Holy Spirit is an inanimate thing, then this will certainly cause one to
misinterpret the Scriptures and think the Spirit is the inanimate "seal" of God, but if one
recognizes that the Spirit is a divine being who acts on God's behalf (Acts 13:1,2 with 1 Cor.
12:11), and is God to us (2 Samuel 23:2-3 with 2 Cor. 3:17, 18), then it is easy to see why the
Spirit is the AGENT *"whereby" (Eph. 4:30) one is "sealed" and not that he is the inanimate
"seal" itself (just as God himself is represented as being/doing in 2 Cor. 1:21-22). Its just like the
Bible says the Ten Commnadments were written "with" [or by] the finger of God" (Ex. 31:18),
meaning God Himself via the Holy Spirit was the Agent whereby the Ten Commandments were
written; and not that the "the finger of God" is the Ten Commandments themselves. Anyone
who makes the Holy Spirit God's INANIMATE "seal" is making the Holy Spirit into a THING; not
recognizing he's a divine person!!

In the book of Revelation, in chapter 7 verses 1-7 and Rev. 14:1, 4-5 we see the "seal" of God is
AGAIN proven to be an *inanimate subject equal to God's name that's symbolically placed on/in
the foreheads/minds of those who are saved. Nowhere is the Holy Spirit ever deemed to be
God's "name", but certainly God's holy character or lifestyle are often designated his "name",
and when Christians pattern the character of God, by living in obedience to him (see Rev.
22:14), they are deemed to have his "name" in them, or in their minds!!

Of course, the Holy Spirit (just like God is depicted in 2 Cor. 1:21-22) is the Agent "whereby"
God's "name" or character is re-produced in the Christian who lives in willing obedience to all of
God's commandments, including obeying the only commandment the Bible ever calls God's
INANIMATE "sign" or "seal" to show his ownership of his people or true worshippers:

"Ezekiel 20:19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do
them;
Eze 20:20 And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign [mark, token, seal] between me and
you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God."
Thus, we see that the Holy Spirit is the Agent "whereby" God's true people will be empowered
to obey his laws under the new covenant (Heb.8:8-10); laws which were never abolished, but
are placed in their heart or minds, or laws which MUST have the only inanimate subject/object
ever called God's "sign" or "seal" or "mark" to prove that we are his true worshipers...the
Sabbath!!

How does John 13:35 reconcile with Ezekiel 20:19, 20, where in John 13:35 love for people is
the sign others see to know the disciples of Christ, and yet in Ezekiel 20:19, 20 the Sabbath is
the sign for God's people themselves to know him as their Creator God?

ANSWER: It is plain that many/some people fail to read carefully and reconcile all parts of the
Bible; often setting it in tension against itself, and subsequently making God and his Word look
contradictory (despite what 1 Cor. 14: 33 says).

If love for the *brethren alone was the only way to know God's true people, then there is no
way John (the disciple), who heard when Jesus spoke in John 13:35, could have written the
following:

"1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his
commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments
are not grievous."

Here John, UNDER INSPIRATION, is adding the portion of truth many like to escape from, when
he said "love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."

Obviously, John understood that Jesus was not saying loving people is the only thing needed to
be identified as his disciples, but at that juncture in John 13:35 he [Jesus] was focusing only on
that aspect at the time. In other places Jesus made plain that the two greatest requirements for
his disciples is to love God supremely and then love one's neighbor as one's self. He them
makes plain that on BOTH these two requirements hang all the law and the words of the
prophets. Thus it cannot be that one who is a true disciple would neglect the part which says
love God and keep his commandments to show one's love for HIM. And notice carefully that
John who heard Jesus speak, later made plain:

"1 John 5:2 By this we know [i.e. you are people of God who love others]...when we love God,
and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments
are not grievous."

Thus it is a full package!! When we love God and keep his commandments, it automatically
covers love for our fellowmen as well. But it doesn't do away with the commandment to love
God, and to honor him by not making and worshiping idols, not taking his name in vain, and not
ignoring his "sign" of Creator-ship (i.e. the Sabbath) given to his followers to know HIM as their
God, and for the world to know who is the Creator!! See. Exodus 20:8-11.

When one reads the whole Bible carefully (not just cherry pick portions to suit the masses), and
then harmonizes it properly, then the whole truth and nothing but the truth becomes plain!!

*NoteThis e-book (PDF), (second edition released) is subject to revision and new future
editions being published as time goes by.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---THE END ---

Right throughout this presentation I HAVE APPEALED TO THE BIBLE!! Now I leave God to do his
work of convicting hearts, as only he knows how to do.
Dear brother Elce Thunder Lauriston, and others who may share his views, I leave these firmly
held words again with you, that:

Gods Church Will Weather the Thunder, Wind and the Rain!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a
member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.

(Email: ddgillespie@live.com; Webpage: https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)