When the delegates of the 1987 General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement convened, they affirmed a foundational principle:
“Resolved that when the church acts and makes decisions in harmony with the will of God as delineated in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, only then will they be ratified in heaven” (Resolution No. 36, citing Isaiah 8:20; John 17:17; 7T 263).
This resolution articulates what should be self-evident to any Adventist: our practices must rest on biblical foundation, confirmed by prophetic counsel, not merely on tradition or ecclesiastical consensus.
In this spirit, we appeal to the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement to reconsider its position on making vegetarianism a test of fellowship.
For many within our movement, this matter has long been assumed as settled. Yet this assumption deserves scrutiny, not to weaken the health message, but to ensure that our practice rests on a sound biblical foundation, is consistent with the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy, and serves rather than hinders our gospel mission.
We approach this question over a 3 part series from three complementary angles:
- Part 1: biblical, examining whether Scripture itself authorizes vegetarianism as a requirement for baptism;
- Part 2: prophetic, considering both the Spirit of Prophecy’s clear advocacy for health reform and its repeated warnings against making diet a test of fellowship;
- Part 3: missional, evaluating how our position impacts our ability to meet people where they are.
The central question is not whether God desires His people to embrace a plant-based diet – the evidence for this ideal is abundant – but whether we possess clear biblical authority to make it a boundary for church membership. At stake is the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone as the standard of doctrine. Also at stake is our professed commitment to follow all that the Spirit of Prophecy has revealed on this issue.
If we are to be faithful to these principles, we must ask questions we are not used to: Have we placed the Testimonies ahead of Scripture in establishing membership standards? Have we applied sound hermeneutical principles consistently? And ultimately, do we have a clear “Thus saith the Lord” for making vegetarianism a requirement for baptism?
Restoration of the Edenic Diet
SDARM maintains that because God’s people will resume a plant-based diet prior to Christ’s return the church must elevate vegetarianism to a test of fellowship.
This is reasoned by linking four ideas:
- Creation: In Eden, before sin, God gave a plant-based diet of fruits, seeds, and herbs (Gen 1:29).
- Restoration motif (Elijah/John): Elijah prefigures John the Baptist’s work of “restoring all things” (Matthew 17:11) before Christ’s first coming; who also symbolised a final end-time restoration before the second coming (Malachi 4:5, 6).
- This predicted restoration is also found in Acts 3:19–21 where Peter speaks of a coming “restitution of all things,” which is read to include a return to the Edenic diet prior to Christ’s return.
- Church legislation is required to achieve this restoration.
The logic concludes: if Eden represents God’s perfect will, then the original plant-based diet remains the standard for the church today, particularly as we are engaged, with the same spirit of Elijah, in the work of restoration of all things.
The idea of God’s ideal diet for us finds support in the Spirit of Prophecy, and we affirm it without reservation. The question, however, is not whether this represents God’s ideal for his people today – it clearly does – but whether this ideal must be achieved before baptism as a test of fellowship.
To emphasise the point – while we see the original diet for pre-sin humanity as an aim to restore to, this ideal in a post-Eden world is nowhere in Scripture plainly equated with a test of fellowship at the point of baptism.
The psychology of setting a test of fellowship
We should remember that a “test of fellowship” is not the “maximum” requirement by means of which to gain admittance to the church; it is, rather, the “minimum” condition to be met by one desirous of church membership. In other words, there is room to grow. It is a common-mistake, however, for one to equate a ‘test of fellowship’ with a ‘test of eternal life’.
In SDARM, all our Principles of Faith have generally been regarded as tests of fellowship, and therefore essential to be adhered to prior to baptism.
But we should consider the following questions:
What criteria determine which beliefs must be accepted and professed before baptism, and which can be taught afterward? In short, how do we decide what becomes a test of fellowship?
In the commission to the church, Christ showed that some teaching would be necessary prior to conversion and baptism, and some after (see Matthew 28:18-20).
When the standard becomes the destination
The SDA Church formally prohibited unclean meats in their Fundamental Beliefs in 1981. The SDARM set its standard at vegetarianism in 1925. Yet both have encountered the same challenge: members often view the set standard as the destination, rather than the starting point, of health reform.
When SDARM set the bar for fellowship at vegetarianism and the SDA Church at clean meats only – especially when prophetic counsel calls God’s people generally toward a fully plant-based (vegan) diet – it has the following result:
- Members may feel that by becoming vegetarians or abstaining from unclean meats, they have “arrived” and no longer need to pursue deeper reforms, even though further light has been given about a fully plant-based diet. This is especially evident in the SDA Church. The church’s standard unintentionally becomes the endpoint, rather than the starting point, of health reform.
- The original intention of health reform – as a means to greater physical, mental, and spiritual vitality – can be overshadowed by a single compliance-focused checklist, missing the transformative purpose God intended. Health reform is much greater than diet – particularly in an age where lifestyle related diseases are commonplace.
So how does SDARM come to the conclusion that vegetarianism must be made a test of fellowship? For this, we must turn to the arguments presented in the book Fundamental Christian Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement.
Biblical Arguments Examined
The Day of Atonement: Interpreting Types Consistently
In the section “Flesh Eating in the Last Days” (page 91), the SDARM Fundamental Beliefs states: “Isaiah 22:12–14 has a special application during the antitypical day of atonement, which began in 1844.”
The passage reads:
“And in that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die. And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of hosts”.
Isaiah 22:12-14
The issue with the SDARM interpretation is that the historical context of this passage has nothing to do with the day of atonement. It rather speaks of the Assyrian invasion during Hezekiah’s reign. After pronouncing judgments on foreign nations, Isaiah 22 shifts focus to Jerusalem itself. God called His people to turn to Him with weeping and mourning – a call meant to produce humility and repentance in the face of imminent danger. Instead, the people ignored the warning and turned to feasting, partying, and reckless fatalism: “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
The mention of “slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine” isn’t a condemnation of these items per se – they were normal elements of diet and celebration in Israel at the time. The problem was timing and attitude. It was not a time for ‘joy and gladness’. At a moment of crisis and divine warning, they numbed their perceptions in indulgence instead of turning to God.
Isaiah’s point is not dietary law, but spiritual rebellion in Judah. The passage condemns their defiant refusal to respond to God’s call, not their menu selection.
But perhaps the reason the SDARM sees a special application of this passage to the Day of Atonement is found in verse 22, which speaks of an individual who has the key of David, who “shall open, and none shall shut; and shall shut, and none shall open.” In Revelation 3:7, Christ identifies Himself as the one who holds “the key of David” and possesses that same authority to open and shut – a prophetic reference to the commencement of Christ’s work in the Holy of Holies in 1844. But In Isaiah 22, the individual holding the key of David is also called a “nail in a sure place” (v. 23), yet that same nail is later said to be removed and fall (v. 25) – details that cannot be transferred wholesale to Christ without producing contradictions.
We must be careful not to take interpretive liberties beyond what the Spirit of God intended. Sound interpretation requires us to acknowledge the full context and allow inspired writings to indicate where a prophetic type truly extends beyond its immediate historical fulfillment.
To summarise, the challenges in SDARM’s interpretation arise because:
- God’s words “joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine” are descriptive, not prescriptive.
- Problematic, since consistently applying all connected elements of Isaiah 22 to a future setting creates inconsistencies.
- There is an absence of inspired confirmation supporting SDARM’s application of Isaiah 22:12-14.
For these reasons, this interpretation appears to rest more on speculation than on conclusions firmly grounded in clear biblical evidence.
Another aspect of the Day of Atonement typology that is used to support a dietary test of fellowship is the requirement to fast on that day. It was the only annual occasion when the entire congregation was commanded to fast:
“Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls”.
Leviticus 23:27
The consequence for non-compliance was severe:
“For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people”.
Leviticus 23:29
The interpretive chain runs as follows: the typical Day of Atonement corresponds to the antitypical Day of Atonement beginning in 1844; the Israelites’ fasting on that day corresponds to our vegetarianism today; therefore, vegetarianism should be required for fellowship, just as fasting was required then.
However, this reasoning raises a critical question. By what rules of interpretation do we apply one aspect of the congregation’s duty on the typical Day of Atonement literally to ourselves, while applying another aspect spiritually?
The Israelites were commanded to do two things on that day: afflict their souls (including fasting) and refrain from work. We interpret fasting as corresponding to vegetarianism – a literal dietary practice. Yet we interpret refraining from work as meaning abstaining from “works of sin”- a spiritual application. How is this consistent?
If we must interpret the no-work principle spiritually (since a literal application would contradict 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “if any would not work, neither should he eat”), on what basis do we claim that fasting should be interpreted as literal vegetarianism rather than the spiritual acts described in Isaiah 58:6-7?
“Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?”.
Isaiah 58:6-7
If we follow this logic consistently – interpreting “fasting” as helping the oppressed, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, visiting prisoners, and pursuing justice – then any member failing in these areas should face church discipline. Is this the conclusion we’re prepared to accept?
The problem isn’t with drawing spiritual lessons from types (provided it’s not a private interpretation). The problem is being selective with our interpretation – choosing which elements to apply literally and which spiritually without consistent hermeneutical principles.
While not quoted as proofs in the SDARM Fundamental Principles booklet, the following Biblical arguments are common within the church and also deserve some consideration.
Church Authority to Bind
Some argue that the church possesses authority to set fellowship standards based on Christ’s words in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where He gave the church power to “bind and loose.” This, they contend, grants permission to establish progressive standards – abstaining from all meat, and eventually eggs, dairy, and milk.
We must be exceedingly careful how we apply Christ’s words here. Unlike the Catholic Church, Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in the authority of dogma.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“The Church’s Magisterium asserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation.” Source.
Catholic dogma has two elements:
- public revelation of God as contained in Scripture and tradition, and
- a proposition of the Catholic Church that declares this dogma binding through ex cathedra papal decision or ecumenical council definition. Source
According to Catholic teaching, the power to “bind and loose” justifies the Church’s right to legislate doctrine and establish binding norms. It is not merely spiritual or symbolic, but actual authority to create church law.
But God’s people do not hold the same regard for ecclesiastical legislation. Notice how the Spirit of Prophecy addresses church authority in context of the gospel commission:
“In the commission to His disciples, Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message. Teach the people, He said, ‘to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught. That which He had spoken, not only in person, but through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament, is here included. Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ’s servants to teach”.
DA 826.1
And again:
“But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support”.
GC 595.1
The power to bind and loose given to the church by Christ relates to church discipline and the authority to formally recognise or refuse fellowship based on biblical standards – not to create new doctrinal requirements or tests not found in Scripture. An example of this would be Acts 15 where the church convened by delegation and made a doctrinal judgment based on applying principles of the law – interestingly, setting a precedent in the early church to be more lenient than previously thought possible. In other words, the church actually declared a traditional practice (circumcision) no longer a test of fellowship.
“I Will Eat No Flesh While the World Standeth”
Some cite Paul’s declaration—”Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13) – as establishing vegetarianism as a fellowship standard.
But what did Paul actually mean? Context is decisive.
First Corinthians 8 addresses a specific first-century controversy: eating food sacrificed to idols. The chapter opens with this precise issue: “Now as touching things offered unto idols…” (verse 1). For some believers, their surrounding practices of idol worship made eating such food feel like participating in idolatry. Others understood that idols are nothing and food itself is morally neutral.
Paul sought to bring peace between these often contentious parties – not by issuing a new dietary regulation, but by encouraging believers to prioritize love over liberty. As he explains in verse 9: “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”
Crucially, Paul affirms that eating food offered to idols is permissible for those with liberty in Christ:
“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake”.
1 Corinthians 10:25-28
Pau’s words align perfectly with the instruction of Jesus regarding ceremonial defilement:
“And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
Matthew 15:10-11
The instruction in 1 Corinthians 8:13 is not a command to adopt vegetarianism or to forbid meat altogether. Rather, it demonstrates Paul’s willingness to surrender a legitimate liberty for the sake of love – choosing to abstain when exercising his freedom might harm another’s spiritual growth. The principle is about prioritizing others over self, not about imposing dietary restrictions as church fellowship requirements.
Lusting After Evil Things
Some argue that since the Israelites were destroyed for lusting after flesh, and these events serve as examples for us “upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11), we are therefore required to make the use of flesh a test of fellowship.
However, we must first observe that Paul includes himself and his contemporaries in this counsel. When he refers to “the ends of the world,” he speaks not of a far-distant future only, but of a period that had already begun in the first century. Consider the use of the term in another one of his letters:
“But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”.
Hebrews 9:26
When did Christ appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself? In the ‘end of the world’ – evidently, the phrase ‘end of the world’ includes a time period since the Lord was on earth.
Therefore, if the phrase “lusting after evil things” was meant to prohibit all flesh eating, Paul would be condemning his own practice and that of believers under his ministry – something the New Testament plainly does not support.
Conclusion
We have examined the primary biblical arguments used to justify making vegetarianism a test of fellowship. What have we found?
These examinations lead to a single conclusion: Scripture does not provide the clear “Thus saith the Lord” necessary to make vegetarianism a requirement for baptism and church fellowship.
This is not a trivial matter. We are not discussing whether vegetarianism is beneficial, healthful, or ideal—it is all of these things. We are discussing whether we have divine authority to make it a condition for entering covenant relationship with God’s people. These are categorically different questions.
If we are to maintain the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura—if we are to uphold our 1987 resolution that church decisions must be “in harmony with the will of God as delineated in the Bible”—we must be willing to acknowledge when our practices exceed our biblical warrant. To do otherwise is to place tradition above Scripture, to elevate what we think ought to be true above what revelation actually establishes.
But Scripture is not our only source of inspired counsel. We have been blessed with the prophetic gift, and Ellen White’s writings provide extensive instruction on both health reform and the proper application of doctrinal standards. Perhaps what Scripture does not plainly establish, the Spirit of Prophecy does?
This is the question we must now examine. In our next study, we will turn to the Spirit of Prophecy evidences that have been used to support vegetarianism as a test of fellowship. We will ask: Do the Testimonies, when read comprehensively and contextually, support this position?