Is it possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for giving the command?

But in any case, why God would do it is not something we need to answer in order for it to happen. God does not limit Himself based on our understanding or lack thereof.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm saying, if I read something which appears to be saying something that doesn't make sense, I think it through very carefully. Either it doesn't make sense because I'm thinking about something wrongly, or what I'm thinking is being said is not really what was meant. But just accepting something that doesn't make sense to us; I don't see the value in that. We should be able to give a reason for the things that we believe.

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

What I mean is that we should not trust ourselves so much that we can make assertions as to what God will or will not do based on what we think is or is not common sense. As for me, my wisdom is foolishness to God.

There are certain things for which we must be able to give an answer to all who ask, especially in soteriology. But there are other things that we don't understand, but still have to take by faith. This is especially true for people who don't yet know everything God has taught in Scripture.

For example, my father does not keep the Sabbath. Why? Because he, along with the rest of his church, does not see any reason why God would require it. They believe that every day is as holy as any other. They are too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding.

Yes, there are secret things that are not revealed to us.

We're not trusting in ourselves simply by trying to understand what God is communicating to us. If we read something, and it doesn't make sense to us, we have the duty to question it, and not simply accept it.

I think I agree with your father, if I'm understand what you're saying correctly. That is, God doesn't require obedience before requiring understanding.

One of the first lessons a child needs to learn is the lesson of obedience. Before he is old enough to reason, he may be taught to obey. By gentle, persistent effort, the habit should be established. Thus, to a great degree, may be prevented those later conflicts between will and authority that do so much to create alienation and bitterness toward parents and teachers, and too often resistance of all authority, human and divine. {Ed 287.1}

The object of discipline is the training of the child for self-government. He should be taught self-reliance and self-control. Therefore as soon as he is capable of understanding, his reason should be enlisted on the side of obedience. Let all dealing with him be such as to show obedience to be just and reasonable. Help him to see that all things are under law, and that disobedience leads, in the end, to disaster and suffering. When God says "Thou shalt not," He in love warns us of the consequences of disobedience, in order to save us from harm and loss. {Ed 287.2}

What good would that do?

Someone should be able to explain to your Father why God would have us remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy in a way that he can understand. Now if he refuses to listen, that's a different issue. But if he sees no reason to do something that he doesn't understand, I think he's right.

Certainly there are secret things, but I take this as referring to items of speculation, like for example things about the afterlife which haven't been revealed. I don't see this as referring to anything that would require obedience on our part.

That's an entirely different story from "I won't accept it because I don't understand it." Question it and try to make sense of it, no problem. Reject it if you don't get an answer that is acceptable to you, that's a problem.

Anyway, why do you require things of God that you don't require of physicists? You will accept Heisenberg's assertions without understanding why it is that way, and just accept that "that's just the way it is" but you can't accept God's assertions unless He explains it to your satisfaction.

Obedience should come before reason. When the child is capable of understanding, then reason should be enlisted on the side of obedience, obedience that is already there. To wait for understanding before teaching obedience is to give Satan a huge head start, because he doesn't mind unreasonable obedience to his commands.

There's a long story that goes along with that. But to give you a hint at what's going on, he had a business associate to whom he gave clear directions. This person refused to do what he was told unless my father explained to him why he wanted it done. His words were, "I can easily do it, but first I want to know why I should do it."

Did I say my father HAD a business associate?

But he sees no problem in disrespecting God in the same way.

I don't see any such restrictions in the verse. Before reason comes, we can be taught to obey. Even if reason never comes, we can still be taught to obey.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.(GC 541)

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.(GC 541)

T:To "obey" by doing things that have no basis in our reasoning would be the "slavish obedience" that God takes no pleasure in, wouldn't it?

I'm interested in your answer to this question:

Not necessarily. That quote corresponds to Ed 287.2. But it is rare if we do not pass through the experience of Ed 287.1 first.

If God intended to leave us at Ed 287.1, that would be slavish obedience. But to pass through Ed 287.1 on the way to Ed 287.2 is trust.

Tom, God required A&E to trust and obey Him before they were familiar with His character. Did that make Him a slave driver?

PS - I have asked you on several occasions if you have children and you have refused every time to answer. I take it the answer is - No. It is significant that you have never raised children, especially as it applies to your opinion about raising children.

God expected them to obey His law from the first day they were created. They weren't created with a knowledge of His character. On that first day of their lives they were unfamiliar with His character. Nevertheless, God required them to obey His law. There was nothing wrong with God requiring them to obey His law before they were familiar with His character.

As for us today, I think believing and following God's word are still important.

Even if I believed that God loves me, and I love Him back, it behooves me to learn what He said, believe them, and obey any instructions He may give.

God desires that we have an intelligent appreciation of His character, and that we obey Him because we are convinced that His principles are right. Not because He says so, but because we ourselves believe His ways are right and true. He doesn't desire the obedience of a robot, where He says, "do this," and the robot does it.

Certainly this is important, but not for reasons of authority. It's not like the Army, where someone who is in command says something, and the underling does it because he is outranked.

This is because His ways are right and true. The principles He espouses are the principles of self-sacrificing love, which are the principles of life.

I disagree with you here, and we'll discuss it more in the other thread where we started it (if I can find it again). You are treating God as your equal, as if you could stand in judgment of His words and decide for yourself if you should or should not follow. He gave 10 Commandments, not 10 Explanations.

When I deal with my kids, I want them to obey because they see the wisdom in my commands. But that sometimes requires more maturity than they currently have. In the meantime, I want them to obey what I said, even if they don't understand why I said it. If they don't, they might not survive long enough to gain the needed maturity. So I want them to trust that I want what's best for them, and I know what I'm doing, even if they don't.

That's how it is with God. If I was as wise as Him, maybe the two of us can sit around and dissect His commands and decide if I concur. But I'm not. So, I obey, with a child-like trust that He wants what's best for me, and He knows what He's doing, even if I don't.

If you don't understand the rationale for one of God's commands, or maybe even don't know that God commanded it, do you think there will be negative consequences for doing the opposite of God's will?

Are these principles still in effect if I don't understand why? IOW, is going against God's will inherently hurtful?

I am guessing for you to say this that you perceive desiring to understand why a certain thing is desired is equivalent to treating someone else as equal(?) That is, I'm a bit perplexed as to why you would think I'm treating God as an equal because I assert that He doesn't desire robotic obedience.

Does anyone have an example of a situation where obedience is rendered in spite of not knowing why it is required?

It was this implicit faith in God that made Moses what he was. According to all that the Lord had commanded, so did he. All the learning of the wise men could not make him a channel for God's working. But when he lost his self-confidence, and, realizing his helplessness, put his entire trust in God; when he was willing to obey Heaven's commands, whether they seemed to human reason proper or not, then the Lord could work mightily through him. {ST, July 12, 1905 par. 8}

What if, in the place of looking as Christ commanded them, they had said, "I do not believe it will do me the least bit of good to look. I am too great a sufferer from the sting of the poisonous serpent." Obedience was the object to be gained, implicit and blind obedience, without stopping to inquire the reason or the science of the matter. Christ's word was, "Look and live." ... {OHC 20.2}

None were compelled to look upon the brazen serpent. All could look and live, or distrust the simple provision God had made, refuse to look, and die. The people of God may not always see the reason for his requirements, and may not be able to understand his dealings with them; yet it is not their part to question and doubt his purposes. The lifelong recipients of his favor, they should yield him ready and willing obedience. All his commands are founded in infinite love and wisdom; and though we may not fully understand his purpose here, yet we shall know hereafter. {ST, October 28, 1880 par. 13}

Abraham might have pleaded that he was old and feeble, and could not sacrifice the son who was the joy of his life. He might have reminded the Lord that this command conflicted with the promise that had been given in reference to his son. But his obedience was without a murmur or a reproach. His trust in God was implicit. He did not stay to reason with his aching heart, but carried out the divine command to the very letter, till, just as the knife was about to be plunged into the quivering flesh of his child... {ST, June 2, 1887 par. 9}

Certainly this is important, but not for reasons of authority. It's not like the Army, where someone who is in command says something, and the underling does it because he is outranked.

Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death.--Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900. {Ev 648.1}

He stood up proudly and urged that he should be equal with God, and should be taken into conference with the Father and understand his purposes. God informed Satan that to his Son alone he would reveal his secret purposes, and he required all the family in heaven, even Satan, to yield him implicit, unquestioned obedience; but that he (Satan) had proved himself unworthy a place in heaven. {ST, January 9, 1879 par. 9}

I don't think obedience is possible without understanding, so I wouldn't view this as a "requirement," in terms of, "I refuse to do this unless I understand" but it's a requirement in terms of God "requires" that we understand before we can obey; or, to put it another way, obedience without understanding is not something desire by God, nor of interest to Him, because He doesn't care for slavish, or robotic, obedience.

I wouldn't view this as a "requirement," in terms of, "I refuse to do this unless I understand"

I think I agree with your father, if I'm understand what you're saying correctly. That is, God doesn't require obedience before requiring understanding. ... But if he sees no reason to do something that he doesn't understand, I think he's right.

Jesus does not ask this sufferer to exercise faith in Him. He simply says, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk." But the man's faith takes hold upon that word. Every nerve and muscle thrills with new life, and healthful action comes to his crippled limbs. Without question he sets his will to obey the command of Christ, and all his muscles respond to his will. Springing to his feet, he finds himself an active man. {DA 202.3}

Jesus had given him no assurance of divine help. The man might have stopped to doubt, and lost his one chance of healing. But he believed Christ's word, and in acting upon it he received strength. {DA 203.1}

“No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15)

So you're saying before we can obey God in a reasonable way (i.e, using reason) it is first necessary that we obey Him in a way He does not desire, the "slavish obedience" that EGW speaks of?

Was EGW wrong? Or are you misapplying Christ's words and making them more universal than He intended?

BTW, this post highlights one reason why I put little stock in your historical evidence and arguments (from other threads). You sometimes have difficulty understanding things that are very clear, such as my reply re: Ed 287.1 and Ed 287.2. I thought it was very plain, but you somehow missed the most crucial part of my statement.

I could just as easily ask, "Was Jesus wrong? Or are you misapplying her words and making them more universal than she intended?"

Regarding Jesus' intent, it seems pretty clear. He calls us "friends" because a "servant" does not know what his master is doing. This goes along perfectly with Ellen White's idea that God does not desire a slavish obedience.

Why shouldn't I respond the same way, Arnold? You often have difficulty understanding things that are very clear to me. Should I therefore put little stock in your arguments?

So you're saying before we can obey God in a reasonable way (i.e, using reason) it is first necessary that we obey Him in a way He does not desire, the "slavish obedience" that EGW speaks of?

For almost a century, there were no pre-lapsarian statements from any SDA publication.

For almost a century, there were no pre-lapsarian statements from any SDA publication.

With the notable exception of the SOP.

This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.

“No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15)

God does not require obedience on condition we understand why.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.(GC 541)

Slavish obedience = Obedience without understanding

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.(GC 541)

For example, my father does not keep the Sabbath. Why? Because he, along with the rest of his church, does not see any reason why God would require it. They believe that every day is as holy as any other. They are too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding.

All whom God has blessed with reasoning powers are to become intellectual Christians. They are not requested to believe without evidence; therefore Jesus has enjoined upon all to search the Scriptures. Let the ingenious inquirer, and the one who would know for himself what is truth, exert his mental powers to search out the truth as it is in Jesus. (Review and Herald, March 8, 1887)

God gives sufficient evidence to every soul. He does not promise to remove every doubt, but He gives a reason for faith. (RH 1/24/99)

Though all the record of all our sin, even though written with the finger of God, were erased, the sin would remain, because the sin is in us. Though the record of our sin were graven in the rock, and the rock should be ground to powder—even this would not blot out our sin.

The blotting out of sin is the erasing of it from nature, the being of man.

The erasing of sin is the blotting of it from our natures, so that we shall know it no more. 'The worshippers once purged' [Hebrews 10:2, 3]—actually purged by the blood of Christ—have 'no more conscience of sins,' because the way of sin is gone from them. Their iniquity may be sought for, but it will not be found. It is forever gone from them—it is foreign to their new natures, and even though they may be able to recall the fact that they have committed certain sins, they have forgotten the sin itself—they do not think of doing it any more. This is the work of Christ in the true sanctuary" (The Review and Herald, September 30, 1902).

Arnold, you didn't post the quotes here, but referred to them, so I have to surmise which you are referring to. Looking back over the posts on this thread, I see which one which speaks of Abraham's being willing to sacrifice his son, and another speaking of looking and living to be cured of the serpent's bite. These are the ones it seemed to me you would most likely be referring to.

It was this implicit faith in God that made Moses what he was. According to all that the Lord had commanded, so did he. All the learning of the wise men could not make him a channel for God's working. But when he lost his self-confidence, and, realizing his helplessness, put his entire trust in God; when he was willing to obey Heaven's commands, whether they seemed to human reason proper or not, then the Lord could work mightily through him. {ST, July 12, 1905 par. 8}

What if, in the place of looking as Christ commanded them, they had said, "I do not believe it will do me the least bit of good to look. I am too great a sufferer from the sting of the poisonous serpent." Obedience was the object to be gained, implicit and blind obedience, without stopping to inquire the reason or the science of the matter. Christ's word was, "Look and live." ... {OHC 20.2}

None were compelled to look upon the brazen serpent. All could look and live, or distrust the simple provision God had made, refuse to look, and die. The people of God may not always see the reason for his requirements, and may not be able to understand his dealings with them; yet it is not their part to question and doubt his purposes. The lifelong recipients of his favor, they should yield him ready and willing obedience. All his commands are founded in infinite love and wisdom; and though we may not fully understand his purpose here, yet we shall know hereafter. {ST, October 28, 1880 par. 13}

Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death.--Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900. {Ev 648.1}

He stood up proudly and urged that he should be equal with God, and should be taken into conference with the Father and understand his purposes. God informed Satan that to his Son alone he would reveal his secret purposes, and he required all the family in heaven, even Satan, to yield him implicit, unquestioned obedience; but that he (Satan) had proved himself unworthy a place in heaven. {ST, January 9, 1879 par. 9}

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.

God might have created man without the power to transgress His law; He might have withheld the hand of Adam from touching the forbidden fruit; but in that case man would have been, not a free moral agent, but a mere automation. Without freedom of choice, his obedience would not have been voluntary, but forced. There could have been no development of character. . . . It would have been unworthy of man as an intelligent being, and would have sustained Satan's charge of God's arbitrary rule. (Conflict and Courage page 13)

The law of love being the foundation of the government of God, the happiness of all intelligent beings depends upon their perfect accord with its great principles of righteousness. God desires from all His creatures the service of love--service that springs from an appreciation of His character. He takes no pleasure in a forced obedience; and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service. (LHU 50)

Christ attaches a weight of importance to the obedience of His people to the commandments of God. They are to have an intelligent knowledge of them, and bring them into their daily life. (This Day With God page 142)

God gives sufficient evidence to every soul. He does not promise to remove every doubt, but He gives a reason for faith. (RH 1/24/99)

If you are going to do something about which you have no understanding, how can you know you are obeying God and not the enemy?

Does your paradigm accept this kind of "intelligent appreciation"?

"If God intended to leave us at Ed 287.1, that would be slavish obedience." That means slavish obedience requires the intent to "leave us at Ed 287.1."

"But to pass through Ed 287.1 on the way to Ed 287.2 is trust." That means that if Ed 287.1 only happens "on the way to Ed 287.2" - as a temporary situation until one arrives at Ed 287.2 - then it is implicit, even "blind," obedience.

<snip>

These quotes are bringing out the points I've been trying to make.

I'm interested in your answer to this question:

Does that make any sense? "Intelligent appreciation" is a good thing. In case you missed it, "intelligent appreciation" is a good thing.

But I do not make it my god. My brain is too small and weak to trust its intelligence as the basis of my life. I would rather trust the God of heaven.

How about you? If you read instructions in the Bible for which you could not discern an acceptable rationale, would you disregard it until you understood why?

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.(John 15:15)

It is better to obey than to delay.

This is assuming we can obey without understanding. It seems unlikely to me this is even possible. For example, consider the commandment "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." How can this be kept without understanding?

For example, my father does not keep the Sabbath. Why? Because he, along with the rest of his church, does not see any reason why God would require it. They believe that every day is as holy as any other. They are too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding.

Disregarding His plain command will be painful for you, because if it wasn't, He wouldn't have commanded what He did. You just have to trust Him if you lack understanding.

But if any of you needs wisdom, you should ask God for it. He is generous to everyone and will give you wisdom without criticizing you.(James 1:5)

You wrote this earlier:


You write that your father, and other's are "too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding." because they feel every day is as holy as any other. What would you have them to do? Keep the Sabbath, even though they have no conviction it is a holy day? Why would they do this? Why would this please God?

Wouldn't it be better to gain understanding?


If God takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience, why would He want us to obey without understanding? Or, to ask another question, what would it say about God to suggest that He would want us to do what He says without caring if we understand why?

Jesus said that we were no longer servants, but friends, because He communicated to us all that He had received from His Father. Doesn't this suggest that God wants us to cooperate with Him from a foundation of understanding?

But more fundamental than that, God wants a foundation of faith.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 543)

God desires an obedience based on a right conception of His character, which is the foundation of faith. This agrees with the idea that He does not desire a slavish obedience, one which is not based on understanding.

T:God desires an obedience based on a right conception of His character, which is the foundation of faith. This agrees with the idea that He does not desire a slavish obedience, one which is not based on understanding.

A:Understanding His character, but not necessarily understanding the reasons for His commands. Those are two different things.[quote]

Jesus said He calls us "servants, not friends" because a servant does not know what His master is doing. This indicates, to me, that God intends that we understand the reasons behind His commands. In addition, I understand the statement from the SOP saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience to be communicating the same idea that Jesus is in John 15.

[quote]M:Tom, does God expect us to obey His commandments even if we don't completely understand all the reasons why?

Is it still a sin if we choose not obey a certain commandment until after we understand all the reasons why?

A sin is when you know something is right and you choose not to do it, or if you know something is wrong and you choose not to do it anyway.

T:A sin is when you know something is right and you choose not to do it, or if you know something is wrong and you choose not to do it anyway.

If God said to keep the 7th day holy, as opposed to another day holy or every day as equally holy, is the fact that God said it enough for you to conclude that it is right to do that?

Conversely (or is that inversely), if God said to not do something, is that enough for you to conclude that it is wrong to do that?

IOW, is God's word, apart from your understanding of His word, a sufficient guide to determine what is right or wrong?

IOW, in case the first set didn't make sense, if God said it, is that good enough for you?

The issue is what's good enough for God, and I don't think an obedience based on nothing other than "I said so" is good enough.

I gave this historical evidence earlier, but you didn't address it. I'll try again.

God gave the Israelites 10 commandments, rather than 10 explanations. Yet, He still expected them to do as He said while He was meeting with Moses and giving him more details. And when they disregarded His "say so" He almost wiped them out for it.

The Biblical evidence is that God's word is binding, with or without an explanation.

What is this from? Is this just your idea, or are you quoting this from something?

I don't think God is like what you're implying. I think the ideas you are presenting here are diametrically opposed to those taught by Jesus when He said, "I no longer call you servants but friends."

It seems you and I have very different ideas as to God's character.

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.(Luke 9:54-56)

The Biblical evidence is that God's word is binding, with or without an explanation.

I don't think God is like what you're implying. I think the ideas you are presenting here are diametrically opposed to those taught by Jesus when He said, "I no longer call you servants but friends."

It seems you and I have very different ideas as to God's character.

While God is your buddy, God is my Daddy. Yes, we may have very different ideas.

Do you ever submit to your friends?

Exodus doesn't say anything about 10 explanations.

That God is our Father is not opposed to the idea that He is our friend. Abraham was called the "friend of God," and he is the father of all who believe.

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.(Luke 9:54-56)

A:The Biblical evidence is that God's word is binding, with or without an explanation.

T:I don't think God is like what you're implying. I think the ideas you are presenting here are diametrically opposed to those taught by Jesus when He said, "I no longer call you servants but friends."

It seems you and I have very different ideas as to God's character.

A:While God is your buddy, God is my Daddy. Yes, we may have very different ideas.

Do you ever submit to your friends?

For example, my father does not keep the Sabbath. Why? Because he, along with the rest of his church, does not see any reason why God would require it. They believe that every day is as holy as any other. They are too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding.

This isn't a question of understanding "all the reasons why" but of not understanding *any* reason why.

If a person believes just two simple facts - God is good, God is wise - they will consider "God said so" as not just *any* reason, but a *really good* reason to obey. Anything short of that reveals a misapprehension of God's character.

BTW, you left out an important piece of context. My father gave instructions to a business associate, without giving any reasons for it. When the person refused to do it unless my father gave him a reason, my father cut off all business dealings with him. He said, "When I give instructions, he needs to obey, whether or not he knows my reasons for it."

Then I asked him, "Why don't you do that when God gives you instructions that you can't think of reasons for?" He changed the subject.

But the problem is that you are advocating disobeying God's clear instructions until YOU are good and ready to obey.

That is not faith. And whatever your theories are about what does or does not please God regarding obedience and understanding, it is impossible to please God without faith.

And if God wasn't expecting you to do what He says, why would He tell you in the first place? Basically, you're saying that God sometimes gives us commands that He does not want us to obey.

Opposed to that, I believe He gives us everything we need to walk in His will, including whatever light may be lacking.

Tom, it sounds like you're saying God expects us to obey Him so long as we understand at least one of all the reasons why. You also seem to think that expecting us to obey Him because He said so does not count as a reason why, that obeying Him simply because He said so would constitute slavish obedience, something God would never expect or require of us. Did I hear you right?

You've mentioned a few times you believe God's goal is for us to obey Him as friends rather than as servants.

You seem to think the difference has to do fully informed obedience versus partially informed obedience.

But, in cases where God has only revealed some of the reasons why, wouldn't it be impossible to obey Him as friends rather than as servants?

So the question is - If God is okay with people obeying Him as servants, because He hasn't revealed enough reasons to obey Him as friends, why would obedience under such circumstances be viewed less favorably since it is God who is to blame?

No, I've never said this.

A:But the problem is that you are advocating disobeying God's clear instructions until YOU are good and ready to obey.

T:No, I've never said this.

A:Then what do you mean when you say that my father is right to not keep the 7th day, even though it is clear that God said to keep the 7th day, just because he doesn't think there's a good enough reason to do it?

Not if it wasn't clear to him.

That assumes that God gives unclear instructions. I think He is more competent than that.

snipped

not really, i dont think. i was born into this church, like many others, and "knew" our doctrines and beliefs. but over the years ive had "aha" moments, then i did know.

before i didnt understand how people could not see the importance of the sabbath or see it clearly but i can better now. it doesnt have anything to do with "Gods competence". it has to do with our mental dullness for one and with the fact that God works on us individually. i mean God may be working on other issues with any particular individual.

That assumes that God gives unclear instructions. I think He is more competent than that.

And that assumes my father can't understand plain English. I can guarantee that he is more competent than that.

Communication involves a sender and receiver. The sender in this case is competent, but not necessarily the receiver.

A:That assumes that God gives unclear instructions. I think He is more competent than that.

T:Communication involves a sender and receiver. The sender in this case is competent, but not necessarily the receiver.

A:Right. And your stance makes your obedience dependent on your competence. I don't trust my competence that much.

If I were you, I would obey, regardless of my competence or lack thereof. Walk in the light you have, and you'll be better able to receive more light to clear up any confusion.

If one believes that "Keep the seventh day holy by abstaining from work" is so complicated so as to make it impossible to obey, then it is he who has no understanding.

Tom, you sound like my 10-year-old daughter when she's making up a bunch of excuses to avoiding doing that which she does not want to do.

Faith depends upon understanding - understanding God's character. If one has not the faith to obey God's word apart from the approval of fallen man, he has not the faith that will gain him entrance into eternal bliss, for his faith is in himself.

Who is suggesting this?

How so? Really, I don't understand why you would take the suggestion that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but wants us to obey Him based on reason and understanding as "making up a bunch of excuses" for doing something one does not wish to do.

The issue isn't us, but God. It is God who does not desire a slavish obedience. If He did, then He would ask us to do things for no reason.

I'm not seeing the connection here to our discussion, but I agree what you wrote here.

We should obey God if we are convicted to do so. Such conviction should include reason as an element, as God does not desire a slavish obedience from us. I don't believe it is enough for *God* to give a command to us for no other reason than "I said so."

. . . require convincing rather than commanding.

M:If one believes that "Keep the seventh day holy by abstaining from work" is so complicated so as to make it impossible to obey, then it is he who has no understanding.

T:Who is suggesting this?

M:You are, by saying that my father is correct in his disregard of God's plain instructions. You and he, apparently, both require convincing rather than commanding.

T:How so? Really, I don't understand why you would take the suggestion that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but wants us to obey Him based on reason and understanding as "making up a bunch of excuses" for doing something one does not wish to do.

A:Those who have ever raised smart but unwise kids know exactly what I'm talking about. This is, whether you realize it or not, a parenting issue. God is our Father, but you think you are qualified to enter into His thought processes before you are required to obey. You're not that smart; none of us are. As the Bible said, His ways are past finding out.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.... Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith." Steps to Christ 105

T:The issue isn't us, but God. It is God who does not desire a slavish obedience. If He did, then He would ask us to do things for no reason.

A:But what you say God does not require, the Bible record has shown that He does. So my conclusion is that your understanding of "slavish obedience" is not the same as inspiration's. Your position is incongruent with the SOP I quoted about "blind obedience" and how God's army works.

Here's the connection: You require your own stamp of approval before you will do what God commands.

For you, God's love and God's wisdom are insufficient reason to obey; you require a more compelling reason, namely, Tom's wisdom. That is trusting in the arm of flesh.

God gives sufficient evidence for the candid mind to believe." Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 232

God gives sufficient evidence to every soul. He does not promise to remove every doubt, but He gives a reason for faith. And sufficient evidence was given to the Jews." Review and Herald, January 24, 1899

Those who desire to doubt will have plenty of room. God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and teachable spirit. All should decide from the weight of evidence. Review and Herald, Sept. 16, 1873, emphaisis mine

There is always sufficient evidence upon which to base an intelligent faith. But God will never remove from any man all occasion for doubts. Those who love to dwell in the atmosphere of doubt and questioning unbelief can have the unenviable privilege. He who turns from the weight of evidence because there are a few things that he cannot make plain to his finite understanding, will be left to the cold, chilling atmosphere of unbelief and skepticism, and will make shipwreck of faith. Signs of the Times, December 30, 1886

Your persistence in thinking of God as a friend, while correct, has made you lose sight of the truth that He is our Father, first and foremost. It is a dangerous position you are in.

Here is an example of intelligent prayer,--an appeal to the reason and the sympathy of Jehovah; and Moses' prayer was answered, because God is reasonable and compassionate. The sorrows of his people touch his heart of love; and will he not hear our prevailing prayer? Will not our very urgency be regarded? His loving-kindness faileth not. As a kind Father, he does not mock the miseries of his children. (The Signs of the Times , August 14, 1884)

In the case of the Sabbath commandment, God simply said rest because I rested.

Is that reason enough to obey as a friend rather than as a servant or as a slave?

What about the stranger within thy gates? What is the status of their obedience - friend or servant or slave?

Is obeying God as a servant or as a slave acceptable to Him? Or, is it no better than rebelling?

You seem to have the idea that because God is our Father, that means He wants obedience that is not based on evidence or reason.

Regarding your convincing vs. commanding comment, we are told that God does not desire slavish obedience, and that Jesus said He calls us "friends, not servants. I agree with these sentiments.

I've quoted what Jesus Christ said. Your ideas are incongruent with what He said.

It seems to me that precisely because God is a kind and wise Father that He does not desire a slavish obedience.

I think this analogy, on this particular point, fails badly because children before the age of accountability to not have the capability to reason things out like an adult would.

T:Regarding your convincing vs. commanding comment, we are told that God does not desire slavish obedience, and that Jesus said He calls us "friends, not servants. I agree with these sentiments.

A:Jesus also says that God is our Father, and that a wise father commands his children. My view accommodates both convincing and commanding.

I've quoted what Jesus Christ said. Your ideas are incongruent with what He said.

So, the SOP about "blind obedience" is incongruent with Christ's teachings? I don't trust my hermeneutics enough to say that.

A:A kind and wise Father would not allow His children to raise themselves. Since I live in a dangerous place, I expect complete and immediate obedience, whether or not my children concur with or even know my reasons. Only after they walk in the light they already have - my instructions - will they be in a position to receive more light - my explanations.

If you've ever been in a position to have charge of souls, I don't need to spell it out. If not, no amount of spelling will make you see what I see.

I think this analogy, on this particular point, fails badly because children before the age of accountability to not have the capability to reason things out like an adult would.

It works fine.

What is greater, the gap between an infant's reasoning ability and his father's, or your reasoning ability and you Heavenly Father's? You seem to think that while an infant cannot understand his father, and therefore must fully trust his father's judgment, you have a better chance and understanding the reasons for God's judgments.

I believe that no matter how "adult" or smart or wise we get, His ways are still past finding out.

A:A kind and wise Father would not allow His children to raise themselves. Since I live in a dangerous place, I expect complete and immediate obedience, whether or not my children concur with or even know my reasons. Only after they walk in the light they already have - my instructions - will they be in a position to receive more light - my explanations.

It's the "also" idea that I'm responding to. You seem to be presenting the idea that as friend, God works with us on the basis of evidence and reason (convincing) but as Father, He doesn't (commanding). This would have God sometimes expecting our faith to be based on evidence on reason, and sometimes not, which I don't believe is correct.

If there's an apparent agreement between inspired statements, then something's not being understood fully.

The big difference is not that I don't require evidence to obey God, but that I believe His love and wisdom are evidence enough that His commands are always good and I should obey completely and immediately. You require more than that.

What you see is not difficult to follow. I simply disagree with it.

Then please explain how you reconcile them, since you feel that your understanding is complete enough to say that I am disagreeing with Jesus, even though I was only regurgitating what the SOP said.

Is it possible that you don't understand it fully?

I've simply been saying what the inspiration says:

1.God does not desire a slavish obedience.

2.Jesus calls us "friends, not servants."

3.God always provides us sufficient evidence upon which to make decisions and base our faith.

A:But your idea of slavish obedience is sometimes described by inspiration as a good thing.

1.My idea of slavish obedience is obedience not based on evidence, reason or understanding. Since inspiration says that God always provides sufficient evidence upon which we may base our decisions, inspiration would have to be disagreeing with itself for your suggestion to be true.

2.Jesus calls us "friends, not servants."

Abraham, the friend of God, did something that you would call slavish obedience.

3.God always provides us sufficient evidence upon which to make decisions and base our faith.

But you don't think God's love and wisdom are sufficient evidence. That's the biggest weakness of your position.

Your idea is that once we are convinced that God is loving and wise, He no longer desires that we obey His commands based on weighing evidence? (since we've already done this, and come to the conclusion that God is loving and wise).

If we take a specific command, say to keep the Sabbath, any sincere Christ would believe God is loving and wise. The decision to keep the Sabbath would therefore have to be based on the evidence in regards to the Sabbath. One would need to consider what the Bible says in regards to whether the Sabbath has been replaced by Sunday, if it was done away with, if the law as a whole should be kept by Christians at all, and similar arguments. So I understand the evidence that SC 105 and the other quotes is referring to is in regards to the specific command being considered, not simply to the general idea that God is loving and wise.

A:But your idea of slavish obedience is sometimes described by inspiration as a good thing.

1.My idea of slavish obedience is obedience not based on evidence, reason or understanding. Since inspiration says that God always provides sufficient evidence upon which we may base our decisions, inspiration would have to be disagreeing with itself for your suggestion to be true.

Apparently, we've been talking about different things. I am talking about whether or not to obey what God told you. But your problem is that you can't tell what God is telling you, or maybe even if it is God telling you those things. Your problem, then, is not lack of evidence, but lack of discernment. That's an entirely different topic.

There is no disagreement, because inspiration tells us that we have evidence of God's voice based on our previous experience with Him, reason to believe that He always wants what is best for us, and understanding that He knows what is best for us. You just don't understand how that can be sufficient, without more details. It is implicit faith in our loving and wise Father.

Is it possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for giving the command? Are we required to render obedience even if we don't understand why? Is it safe to refuse to comply with God's command while we don't know His rationale for giving the command?

I'm questioning the whole premise, that God would tell you to do something without providing evidence for why, by which I mean evidence as to the command itself (not simply evidence that God wants what's best for us, for example).

Regarding discernment/evidence, I asked you the question as to how you would know it was God telling you something if one accepts the premise that He will tell you to do things without your having to have any understanding as to why. Do you have something to go on beyond simply being confident of your ability to recognize God's voice?

I don't think this is what she's talking about in SC 105, or the other quotes I provided.

T:I'm questioning the whole premise, that God would tell you to do something without providing evidence for why, by which I mean evidence as to the command itself (not simply evidence that God wants what's best for us, for example).

A:God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt not kill, shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal." He gave no explanations. Do you think that God did not expect them to keep these commandments until He had explained His reasons for giving them?

T:Regarding discernment/evidence, I asked you the question as to how you would know it was God telling you something if one accepts the premise that He will tell you to do things without your having to have any understanding as to why. Do you have something to go on beyond simply being confident of your ability to recognize God's voice?

A: I don't know. Abraham didn't have much to go on either. Yet, he was going to kill his son.

In any case, you are now dragging a red herring into the discussion. You are now talking about not being sure if God is the one telling you stuff, and not someone else. What we have been talking about all this time was whether or not we should obey commands given by God, even if He gave no rationale. Those are very different things.

There is no disagreement, because inspiration tells us that we have evidence of God's voice based on our previous experience with Him, reason to believe that He always wants what is best for us, and understanding that He knows what is best for us. You just don't understand how that can be sufficient, without more details. It is implicit faith in our loving and wise Father.

I don't think this is what she's talking about in SC 105, or the other quotes I provided.

Just because she's not talking about that in any particular place, does not make it wrong. That's simple logic.

However, she does talk about it in the other quotes I presented. That, IMO, goes a long way toward the concept being right.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense.(3SM 217)

M: In the case of the Sabbath commandment, God simply said rest because I rested.

T: No He didn't. As an SDA, you should know there were reasons other than this to keep that Sabbath.

A: If you've ever been in a position to have charge of souls, I don't need to spell it out. If not, no amount of spelling will make you see what I see.

T: What you see is not difficult to follow. I simply disagree with it.

A: But the problem is not mental assent. If you ever get yourself into similar shoes, it will become clear to you. Maybe be a babysitter for a few hours, and see how you deal with it when the kid runs across the street after a ball. Do you give a command or an explanation?

Let me give you a glimpse of how it works in my family. We were visiting some friends and my son was playing in the backyard with the other kids. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw him running toward the area where the dogs relieve themselves. Not wanting to have to clean his shoes, I called out his name to tell him why he doesn't want to go there. Before I could even tell him anything else, when he heard his name, he immediately turned around and ran toward me. Without any explanation, he knew where safety was.

That instance didn't carry much risk, but it was training for bigger and better things. There was another time when he was playing about 30 yards away from me and he ran toward the street. When I saw it, I yelled out, "Stop!" With no more than that, he immediately stopped and waited for my next word. My sheep know my voice and follow me.

Do you train your children to know your voice and obey, or do you always give them a dissertation before you expect them to obey?

12Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

13Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:

14But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

15And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut. 5)

13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.(Ex. 31)

13If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

14Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.(Isa. 58)

He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)

What I've been saying is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, that He desires that we obey Him on the basis of weighing evidence and by using reason and understanding. In the case of "thou shalt have no other gods before me" there's a whole bunch of evidence involved here! Just think of all that happened before this command was given. There's the whole experience of the Exodus, and the happenings on Mt. Sinai.

Regarding stealing, don't you think it's likely that the Israelites understood stealing was wrong? If they understood it was wrong, then they could obey with understanding.

It's not a red herring. It's a very serious matter. This is one of the principle reasons I feel the point of view you are presenting is dangerous. IMO, it leaves one wide open to the deceptions of the enemy.

I think the idea that one can obey God with no understanding or reason is the sort of thinking behind fundamentalist extremism in many forms of religion. Once one takes reason out of the equation, that's very dangerous. People can do, and have done, very terrible things under the conviction that they were following God's orders.

These are the ideas I've been trying to share. God *never* asks us to believe without evidence upon which to base our faith. Why not? Because He does not desire a slavish obedience. He wants an obedience based on reason.

yes, it is an excellent point. now, why did your children obey instantly, assuming that they were raised with love, and not like my dad?

For me, I hope it is because they know that I always have their best interests in mind, and that I know what's good for them better than they do.

I also do this with friends I trust. With those who are not my friends, I always make them explain to me before I make my final decision based on my own understanding of the situation.

T:Regarding stealing, don't you think it's likely that the Israelites understood stealing was wrong? If they understood it was wrong, then they could obey with understanding.

A:This points out the danger I've been trying to show you. Your position has human understanding and reasoning as its foundation for obedience. If sinless man was a failure in this regard, so much more is sinful man.

T:It's not a red herring. It's a very serious matter. This is one of the principle reasons I feel the point of view you are presenting is dangerous. IMO, it leaves one wide open to the deceptions of the enemy.

A.It is a serious matter, but it is still a red herring because it is another matter.

T:I think the idea that one can obey God with no understanding or reason is the sort of thinking behind fundamentalist extremism in many forms of religion. Once one takes reason out of the equation, that's very dangerous. People can do, and have done, very terrible things under the conviction that they were following God's orders.

A:It is also dangerous to rely on human wisdom as the final arbiter of what should and should not be done.

Eve tried it, and it didn't work out so well.

Look at the part I underlined. His character has been established by reasonable evidence, at least for me it has. That alone is reason enough for me to trust Him implicitly, even with the "blind obedience" the SOP commends.

But you seem to argue that it is not enough.

Servants don't know what their master is doing, and so I don't speak to you as my servants. I speak to you as my friends, and I have told you everything that my Father has told me.(John 15:15)

It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny." Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 707,708 (1889)

God has to convince you every time He tells you something, that He knows what He's doing. I hope you never run across a busy street.

The issue has not to do with God's competence, but with His character. What is God like? Does He desire a slavish obedience, once that is based not on reason or evidence?

yes, it is an excellent point. now, why did your children obey instantly, assuming that they were raised with love, and not like my dad?

1.What does it mean that Jesus said He calls us "friends, not servants," because He has made things known to us?

2.What is "a slavish obedience," as spoken of here? "He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)

John
15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.
15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and [that] your joy might be full.
15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept that because we trust God, that we should be willing to do what He says just based on His say so. I'm disagreeing with the idea that this is something God would wish to do.

it seems like ive had so many lifetimes, that that is just one. mostly i was angry when i thought of it. i guess there were times when it hurt, but i cant say it does much anymore. for one thing its over. they cant do that anymore. i dont know, it just doesnt seem to hurt anymore.

T:I'm not disagreeing with the concept that because we trust God, that we should be willing to do what He says just based on His say so. I'm disagreeing with the idea that this is something God would wish to do.

M:Arnold isn't arguing we should be "willing" to obey; instead, he is saying we should obey Him, that God expects such obedience.

Remember, God is in a position where He cannot tell us everything He knows. We are too dense and dimwitted. So, He is often forced to command us to obey Him without providing better reasons than, Because I said so; or, You're just going to have to trust me on this one.

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.(John 15:15)

As a pastor, I have counseled many precious souls in a similar state as you seem to be in. Let me just say - There are good reasons to fear not hurting anymore. It is usually a bad sign. It can mean important things are in danger of dying in you, things you desperately don't want to lose. I nearly died inside because I mishandled the hurt. But, thank you Jesus, I was able to recover.

... Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." ...

Jesus wasn't dense or dimwitted, so God was able to communicate fine to Him, right? Jesus says He has called us "friends" because "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

T:Jesus wasn't dense or dimwitted, so God was able to communicate fine to Him, right? Jesus says He has called us "friends" because "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

A:So are you saying that Jesus revealed everything 2000 years ago, and there's nothing new to learn since then?

If so, how could Paul say "How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" many years after Jesus spilled all the beans? Was he not paying attention? Or was he not as friendly with Jesus as I had assumed?

First of all, you didn't answer my question. Here they are again:

The point is - The commandment to rest on the seventh day is based on, Because I rested on the seventh day, rather than on an elaborate explanation.

So, what did Jesus mean when He said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Again, I believe it must be understood within the immediate context. Here it is:

This is the context of the statement, "All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Especially, the following is what Jesus told them:

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

This is what it takes to be Jesus' friend. But being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant. He will always be our Lord and Master, and we will always be His servants and friends.

And, regarding your second question. "What is 'a slavish obedience,' as spoken of here?" It means doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. It means obeying the rules begrudgingly, not as a cheerful giver. In reality, though, all such obedience is offensive to God. It does not flow out of a heart of love and adoration for God. For example:

"God loveth a cheerful giver," and those who love Him will give freely and cheerfully when by so doing they can advance His cause and promote His glory. The Lord never requires His people to offer more than they are able, but according to their ability He is pleased to accept and bless their thank offerings. Let willing obedience and pure love bind upon the altar every offering that is made to God; for with such sacrifices He is well pleased, while those that are offered grudgingly are an offense to Him. {5T 269.2}

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.

The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that He taught nothing except that which He had received from His Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies." (GC 541)

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ.(PP 372)

I just quoted Jesus, so wouldn't your question have been better posed as, "Was Jesus saying that He revealed everything 2000 years ago, and there's nothing new to learn since then?"

Perhaps what you're suggesting is not what Jesus was saying.

I know it wasn't what Jesus was saying. Paul, whom He tutored personally for 3 years, still considered God's judgments unsearchable and His ways past finding out. Yet, you imply that His friends have all the info He has to give. And in this thread, you teach that God does not expect obedience simply based on trusting His character, but requires understanding from His dense and dimwitted creatures.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

You're not being accurate with your statements here. I quoted Jesus:


I didn't go beyond what He said. He said "for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." I have said nothing beyond this.

Jesus said:


Jesus wasn't dense or dimwitted, so God was able to communicate fine to Him, right? Jesus says He has called us "friends" because "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

Also I have not taught what you are suggesting. What I have said is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but rather one based on evidence, reason and understanding.

I've also said that Jesus said He calls us "not servants, but friends" because "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

MM was essentially saying, "God doesn't tell us everything that He could because we are too dumb. And sometimes we have to trust that He knows what He's doing even if we don't."

Were you agreeing with MM? It seemed to me that you were contradicting him by pointing out that Jesus wasn't too dumb. Am I right so far? Then, in this context, you throw in His statement that "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

MM said God knew stuff that He didn't tell the disciples. Are you agreeing with that or not?

T:Also I have not taught what you are suggesting. What I have said is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but rather one based on evidence, reason and understanding.

A:Slavish obedience is bad, we agree. What I'm taking issue with is the concept that taking God at His word because we trust His goodness and wisdom, and distrust our own competence, constitutes slavish obedience.

What I'm taking issue with is the teaching that God thinks it is good that we question His character, and make Him explain Himself every time He gives a command.

I don't want my children doing that; and I don't think God wants His children doing that.

T: it seems like ive had so many lifetimes, that that is just one. mostly i was angry when i thought of it. i guess there were times when it hurt, but i cant say it does much anymore. for one thing its over. they cant do that anymore. i dont know, it just doesnt seem to hurt anymore.

M: As a pastor, I have counseled many precious souls in a similar state as you seem to be in. Let me just say - There are good reasons to fear not hurting anymore. It is usually a bad sign. It can mean important things are in danger of dying in you, things you desperately don't want to lose. I nearly died inside because I mishandled the hurt. But, thank you Jesus, I was able to recover.

T: hmmmmm, i didnt realize anyone would come to that conclusion. i believe it doesnt hurt anymore for a variety of reasons. one because i understand somewhat of their circumstances, and another because i have forgiven them and only want their best.

T:I'm not disagreeing with the concept that because we trust God, that we should be willing to do what He says just based on His say so. I'm disagreeing with the idea that this is something God would wish to do.

M:Arnold isn't arguing we should be "willing" to obey; instead, he is saying we should obey Him, that God expects such obedience.

T: You're suggesting I'm saying we should be willing to obey but not actually obey? I'm not understanding why you felt compelled to comment here.

M: Remember, God is in a position where He cannot tell us everything He knows. We are too dense and dimwitted. So, He is often forced to command us to obey Him without providing better reasons than, Because I said so; or, You're just going to have to trust me on this one.

T: Jesus said: Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.(John 15:15)

Jesus wasn't dense or dimwitted, so God was able to communicate fine to Him, right? Jesus says He has called us "friends" because "all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

Where did Jesus say we should obey Him (or the Father) because "I said so." (or "He said so.")? This seems to be diametrically opposed to what Jesus is saying in John 15:15.

This hasn't been suggested either.

M: First of all, you didn't address my point or answer my question. Here they are again:

The point is - The commandment to rest on the seventh day is based on, Because I rested on the seventh day, rather than on an elaborate explanation.

The question is - Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only command people had for 2500 years. It could be argued that people also understood the commandment as it reads in Exodus 20:8-11. Even the post-exilic passages you cited do not provide significantly better reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day. That is, referring to it as a "sign" isn't an improvement on the original reason given, namely, because it's the day God rested on.

T: As I pointed out, there are several reasons given for keeping the Sabbath. The foundation of observing the Sabbath is that God rested on this day, the crowning act of creation. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation, and its observance recognizes God as the Creator.

It's also a memorial of redemption, a them which is explained in detail in Hebrews. By faith we enter into the rest of God, which is what the Sabbath is all about. The Sabbath is also the seal of God and a sign of sanctification. This is just scratching the service!

M: Now, as to your first question. Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Obviously, the kind of friendship Jesus is referring to isn't an ordinary friendship. How can it be? Jesus is, after all, God, and we're only human, and sinful to boot. My earthly friendships are not predicated on doing whatever they command me to do.

Jesus also said, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." This must be understood in a limited sense, because obviously Jesus didn't tell them everything His Father told Him.

For example, Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He left it to the Holy Spirit to explain certain things to the disciples later on. But not even the Holy Spirit could tell them everything. Elsewhere we read, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

"Henceforth I call you not servants." Even this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Well done, thou good and faithful servant . . . enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."

There is also the fact the disciples and apostles referred to themselves as servants. For example, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John."

"For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." Again, this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Obviously this servant was in the know. Nevertheless, he didn't obey his master. The end of such servants is less than desirable. "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

So, what did Jesus mean when He said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Again, I believe it must be understood within the immediate context. Here it is: [John 15:1-17 quoted]

This is the context of the statement, "All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Especially, Jesus made known to them the following:

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

This is what it takes to be Jesus' friend. But being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant. He will always be our Lord and Master, and we will always be His servants and friends.

T: MM, I hear you saying:

1.Jesus calls us friends if we do what He commands. (agreed)
2.Being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant.

However, regarding the second point, I still don't understand what you think Jesus meant by saying He no longer calls us servants but friends because He has told us all things He heard from His Father. Jesus makes two points here:

a.He calls us not servants, but friends.
b.His reason for doing this is because He has made known to us all things He heard from His Father.

You seem to be denying both of Jesus' points. Surely by saying "not servants but friends," Jesus did not mean "both servants and friends." He must have had something in mind in making this distinction. What was it?

He tells us what it is. "A servant does not know what his master is doing." That's the different. He calls us not servants but friends because He has told us what God revealed to Him, so that it cannot be said that we don't know what the master is doing, unlike the ignorant servant. Clearly this is Jesus' point, isn't it?

Those who live in close fellowship with Christ will be promoted by Him to positions of trust. The servant who does the best he can for his Master is admitted to familiar intercourse with the One whose commands he loves to obey. In the faithful discharge of duty we may become one with Christ, for those who are obeying God's commands may speak to Him freely. The one who talks most familiarly with his divine leader has the most exalted conception of His greatness and is the most obedient to His commands. {TMK 296.2}

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. . . . Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." . . . {TMK 296.3}

The character of the one who comes to God in faith will bear witness that the Saviour has entered into his life, directing all, pervading all. Such a one is continually asking, "Is this Thy will and way, O my Saviour?" Constantly he looks to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of his faith. He consults the will of his divine Friend in reference to all his actions, for he knows that in this confidence is his strength. He has made it a habit to lift up the heart to God in every perplexity. . . . {TMK 296.4}

M: And, regarding your second question. "What is 'a slavish obedience,' as spoken of here?" It means doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. It means obeying the rules begrudgingly, not as a cheerful giver. In reality, though, all such obedience is offensive to God. It does not flow out of a heart of love and adoration for God. For example:

"God loveth a cheerful giver," and those who love Him will give freely and cheerfully when by so doing they can advance His cause and promote His glory. The Lord never requires His people to offer more than they are able, but according to their ability He is pleased to accept and bless their thank offerings. Let willing obedience and pure love bind upon the altar every offering that is made to God; for with such sacrifices He is well pleased, while those that are offered grudgingly are an offense to Him. {5T 269.2}

T: MM, I agree that our obedience to God should not be egocentric, I point I've often made to you in our discussions regarding sins of ignorance, and I also agree that the points your are mentioning are elements of what slavish obedience encompasses. However, it is not what EGW is dealing with in the context of the statement I quoted, which is the following:


What she brings out here is that slavish obedience is in contrast to intelligent appreciation. These, by the way, are the differences of the Old and New Covenants.


The Old Covenant consists of a slavish obedience to laws written on stone, which is why it "gendereth to bondage." In the New Covenant the law is written in the heart, and one is constrained to obey by the agape of God, revealed in the cross of Calvary (which agrees with the 5T 269.2 quote you pointed out).

MM said that God didn't communicate everything that He could communicate because of dimwittedness. Therefore if there are things which were not being communicated by God, the reason for this is being dimwitted. Jesus said He told us "all things that I have heard from my Father." So everything that God communicated to Jesus, Jesus communicated to the disciples. I pointed out that Jesus wasn't too dimwitted to hear things from God. The communication was God ==> Jesus ==> disciples. Since Jesus communicated all things He heard to the disciples, if God was holding things back, He had to have been holding them back from Jesus.

There was even a time when I thought I was over the hurt. But I was only hardening my heart making matters worse. Now I welcome the pain.

Tom, you are taking Jesus' words out of context and applying it to everything. Moments afterward Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." How do you reconcile what you believe with what Jesus said here?

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

A:What I'm taking issue with is the teaching that God thinks it is good that we question His character, and make Him explain Himself every time He gives a command.

T:This hasn't been suggested either.

A:Perhaps I misunderstood you. Let me try to understand.

If God gave a command, e.g. keep the seventh day holy, and I could see no good reason for it other than God says I should do it, should I immediately do as He says or disregard it until I see a reason?

You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

It could be argued that people also understood the commandment as it reads in Exodus 20:8-11. Did these people render slavish obedience?

T:The Old Covenant consists of a slavish obedience to laws written on stone, which is why it "gendereth to bondage." In the New Covenant the law is written in the heart, and one is constrained to obey by the agape of God, revealed in the cross of Calvary (which agrees with the 5T 269.2 quote you pointed out).

M:I, too, agree with the points you raised here, except I do not agree that obeying God for less than optimum reasons constitutes slavish obedience.

I do not agree with you that obeying God based on reasons no better than, Because I said so, is slavish obedience.

All true obedience springs forth from a heart wherein the Holy Spirit dwells triumphantly even when such obedience has a foundation no better than, Because I said so.

The government of God is not, as Satan would make it appear, founded upon a blind submission, an unreasoning control. It appeals to the intellect and the conscience. "Come now, and let us reason together" is the Creator's invitation to the beings He has made. Isaiah 1:18. God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given.(SC 43)

I've been saying I don't think God would do this, because He does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, which involves one's reason, and understanding.

You don't think God can tell us something that is beyond our ability to comprehend?

If you believe that you will always see a good reason for God's commands, you have more faith in your abilities than I do in mine and Abraham's. And it looks like I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

I have a revival series to attend to; maybe we can pick this up again in a few months.

BTW, I used to think highly of my own ability to understand God's words and commands also.

If God gave a command, e.g. keep the seventh day holy, and I could see no good reason for it other than God says I should do it, should I immediately do as He says or disregard it until I see a reason?

If God gave a command, e.g. keep the seventh day holy, and I could see no good reason for it other than God says I should do it, should I immediately do as He says or disregard it until I see a reason?

You keep talking about what you believe God desires, but it all boils down to your ability to see the reason for it, because you don't think God will give you a command that is beyond your ability to find a reason for.

If your obedience is dependent on your ability to find an acceptable reason, it is assent, not submission.

The insult was in the word "also." If you had left that out, then you would have been simply stating "an unfortunate fact."

Regarding your question:


If you don't see the reason, how do you know it's a command? For example, how do you know that the Sabbath wasn't done away with, as so many think, unless you investigate the issue? Or that is was changed for Sunday?

...

This shouldn't be taken to mean that God will provide overwhelming evidence that would knock away any possible objection -- we will always have hooks available upon which to hang our doubts -- but God will provide enough evidence upon which a well-reasoned, intelligent decision can be made.

I don't see how the idea that God does not desire a slavish obedience, which is not based on evidence, reason, or understanding, why this would boil down to me and not God. If God doesn't desire such obedience, doesn't it behoove Him to provide evidence? From my reading of the SOP, this is something God "always" does; that is, He doesn't ask us to believe without providing sufficient evidence for that belief.

This is really a question of God's character, not of me or my willingness to do something. I've made no statements regarding my willingness or unwillingness to obey.

If you mean dependent at all, I disagree, as I think such obedience, which is completely divorced from understanding, evidence, or reason, is exactly what comprises a slavish obedience, which God does not desire. I believe God desires intelligent, willful obedience, based on an investigation of the evidence He has provided.

Unfortunately, I was stating it about both of us. But if you don't think I have assessed your position properly, given that you have chosen to leave out certain pieces of info, then feel free to ignore it. But in any case, iron sharpens iron, and it's not always a picnic.

You say that your position shouldn't be taken as God removing every possible hook to hang doubts on.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith....Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith. (SC 105)

But when I give a specific example, you use every conceivable hook, even hypothetical ones, to justify failure to obey.

Look at the excuses you gave. I presented the situation where God tells you to keep the seventh day. Then you come up with some hooks:
1) maybe it wasn't really a command
2) maybe it was done away with, notwithstanding that God just told you to do it
3) maybe it was changed

T:This is really a question of God's character, not of me or my willingness to do something. I've made no statements regarding my willingness or unwillingness to obey.

A:But you have said that if someone doesn't see any good reason to obey God's commands, they should not obey.

We agree on the need for evidence. I say that the evidence of God's goodness and wisdom - His good character - is a big enough blanket to cover any questions and confusion I may have. But you say that is not enough. And that is a slap in God's face - to say that you know His character, then to say that He has to explain Himself to your satisfaction at every command before you will obey. God may have died, but He certainly didn't put any of us in charge.

aaaahhh, you think im hardening my heart.

i havent seen any evidence of that in my life, since i still reach out to those i see in pain, and with much more wisdom and reliance on the Lord for Him to minister through me, i believe, than i ever did in my "pain".

but i dont "fear" hurting from what they did. i gave up the anger and felt the pain. its not the same as losing a loved one. that pain never goes away. we may forget at times, but when thinking about it it still hurts. but that is a different kind of pain. right now im worried about whether they will accept salvation and change than "feeling my pain".
maybe that is why it doesnt hurt anymore. its just not that important compared to whether they will come to know the Lord or not.

that is the struggle, staying in Jesus and out of myself.

another issue you touched on was repentence for what i have done. i have also had that experience. it seems repentence can go deeper and deeper.

Jesus said the following:


This looks to me to be saying that the reason He called them not friends but servants was tied to the fact that He told them things He had heard from His Father. He said, "for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth".

So what distinguishes the servant from the friend? Isn't it that the servant does not know that his lord doeth, but the friend does? And isn't the reason for this because the lord has communicated these things? So the difference between servant and the friend is understanding. This seems to me to be in harmony with EGW's statement that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on intelligent appreciation.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch.

M: It could be argued that people also understood the commandment as it reads in Exodus 20:8-11. Did these people render slavish obedience?

T: Since they were slaves, and needed to be educated in the things of God, it is not surprising that they would render a slavish obedience. Indeed, this is what the Old Covenant is about, rendering slavish obedience. However God was always interested in writing the law in their heart, and in obedience motivated by an intelligent appreciation of His character.

I don't understand how your points about friends has to do with Jesus' point, that He was calling His disciples not servants, but friends, because a servant does not know what his lord is doing, but Jesus told them all things He had heard from His Father. This seems to me like the same idea EGW communicated in saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on an intelligent appreciation of God's character.

T: The Old Covenant consists of a slavish obedience to laws written on stone, which is why it "gendereth to bondage." In the New Covenant the law is written in the heart, and one is constrained to obey by the agape of God, revealed in the cross of Calvary (which agrees with the 5T 269.2 quote you pointed out).

M: I, too, agree with the points you raised here, except I do not agree that obeying God for less than optimum reasons constitutes slavish obedience.

T: This is a bit vague. That is "less than optimum reason" is vague, but, depending upon how this is interpreted, I think this is exactly what constitutes slavish obedience.

M: I do not agree with you that obeying God based on reasons no better than, Because I said so, is slavish obedience.

T: Ok, we disagree on this point then. I don't see how this idea harmonizes with what Jesus said in John 15:15.

M: All true obedience springs forth from a heart wherein the Holy Spirit dwells triumphantly even when such obedience has a foundation no better than, Because I said so.

T: How would this be different than an automaton? "The government of God is not, as Satan would make it appear, founded upon a blind submission, an unreasoning control. It appeals to the intellect and the conscience. "Come now, and let us reason together" is the Creator's invitation to the beings He has made. Isaiah 1:18. God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given." (SC 43)

How does, "Because I said so" appeal to the intellect? How does this involve reasoning together?

On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch.

M:The only thing they had before the Exodus was what Moses wrote about in Genesis.

Job says nothing about the Sabbath. If you disagree, please post inspired passages that teach otherwise.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses [Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11] require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

M:Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?"

T:I don't understand how your points about friends has to do with Jesus' point, that He was calling His disciples not servants, but friends, because a servant does not know what his lord is doing, but Jesus told them all things He had heard from His Father. This seems to me like the same idea EGW communicated in saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on an intelligent appreciation of God's character.

M:Tom, please address each point I made. It took me quite awhile to write them out. I would like to discuss them.

T:I did address it. I said I didn't understand your points. Simply asking again that I respond isn't going to help, if you don't explain your points. I'll address your points in the same way I did before; I don't understand your points.

[quote]"Because I said so" is an example of a "less than optimum reason" for obeying God. Obeying God because He said so, if it is the fruit of faith that works by love, is righteousness and true holiness. As such there is nothing slavish about it. The concept of "slavish obedience" must necessarily apply to something else.

I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer, for the servant does not know what his master is doing. (John 15:15; Amplified)

Obedience that flows from a heart where the Holy Spirit resides is true obedience. There is nothing robotic or slavish about it. You seem to think true obedience is impossible if it is rendered in response to, Obey me because I said so. If what you say is right, how do you explain all the places in the Bible where God commanded people to do things without explaining why? On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

Tom, I just read your last post to Arnold (106514). If I were in your shoes I would wonder why three intelligent posters on this forum have so much trouble understanding your position. If you're open to ideas I would say it's because you rarely state your position clearly. For someone who spends so much time instructing others how to clearly state their position it seems strange to me that you often fail to do so yourself.

How many of us would survive inside of any animal?

did God send the whale to keep jonah from drowning? how many of us would survive inside of any animal?

I've repeated asked that what I have written be quoted, and things be questioned or commented on the basis of that. If people take it upon themselves to assert that I believe or have stated things I've never said, I don't see how I can be held responsible for that, especially when I've been asking all along to be quoted.

Now if you, or Arnold, or whoever *quotes* something I said, and *that* is unclear, then I bear the responsibility of what I wrote being unclear.

For example, you state here that I rarely state my position clearly. On this thread I've stated my position over and over again, which is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason and understanding. What's unclear about that? I've stated that God does not ask us to believe without giving us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. Isn't that clear as well?

"God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding."

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch.

M: The only thing they had before the Exodus was what Moses wrote about in Genesis.

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M: Job says nothing about the Sabbath. If you disagree, please post inspired passages that teach otherwise.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses [Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11] require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

T: I did answer this. Your assumption that this is all they had is incorrect.

M: God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

T: Same answer.

M: Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?"

T: I don't understand how your points about friends has to do with Jesus' point, that He was calling His disciples not servants, but friends, because a servant does not know what his lord is doing, but Jesus told them all things He had heard from His Father. This seems to me like the same idea EGW communicated in saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on an intelligent appreciation of God's character.

M: Tom, please address each point I made. It took me quite awhile to write them out. I would like to discuss them.

T: I did address it. I said I didn't understand your points. Simply asking again that I respond isn't going to help, if you don't explain your points. I'll address your points in the same way I did before; I don't understand your points.

1. Now, as to your first question. Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Obviously, the kind of friendship Jesus is referring to isn't an ordinary friendship. Jesus is, after all, God, and we're only human, and sinful to boot. My earthly friendships are not predicated on doing whatever they command me to do. Do you see a difference? If not, please explain why you think the kind of friendship Jesus referred to is no different than the kind of friendships you and I form on earth with other humans.

2. Jesus also said, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." This must be understood in a limited sense, because obviously Jesus didn't tell them everything His Father told Him. Do you agree? By the way, when and where did Jesus ever call them servants?

For example, Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He left it to the Holy Spirit to explain certain things to the disciples later on. But not even the Holy Spirit could tell them everything. Elsewhere we read, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Do you agree Jesus didn’t tell them everything His Father told Him, that the comment “all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” refers to a specific set of topics and not to everything else Jesus learned from His Father?

3. "Henceforth I call you not servants." Even this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Well done, thou good and faithful servant . . . enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." Do you agree that these passages imply Jesus still considers His informed and faithful followers as servants? If not, then please explain what you think they mean.

4. There is also the fact the disciples and apostles referred to themselves as servants. For example, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Why do you think these holy people of God continued referring to themselves as servants after Jesus said what He did about servants and friends?

5. "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." Again, this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Obviously this servant was in the know. Nevertheless, he didn't obey his master. The end of such servants is less than desirable. "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Do you agree this servant knew the will of his lord? If so, how do you reconcile this passage with what Jesus said about servants in the passage under discussion, namely, "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth."

6. So, what did Jesus mean when He said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Again, I believe it must be understood within the immediate context.

Here it is: [John 15:1-17 quoted] This is the context of the statement, "All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." In particular, Jesus made known to them the following things:

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

This is what it takes to be Jesus' friend. But being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant. He will always be our Lord and Master, and we will always be His servants and friends. Again, this type of friendship is unique in that it doesn't resemble normal earthly friendships. Beings friends with the Lord and Master of the Universe is not the same thing as being friends with angels or humans or any other FMA. For one thing, we are not His equal.

Do you agree with these observations? If not, please explain exactly what and why you disagree with them. Thank you.

7. Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" Why does Jesus call such people friends? In what sense are they His friend? Do they know everything Jesus knows and is that what makes them His friend? Satan knows everything they know, does that make him Jesus’ friend, too? If not, why not? Please explain what you believe about it.

M: "Because I said so" is an example of a "less than optimum reason" for obeying God. Obeying God because He said so, if it is the fruit of faith that works by love, is righteousness and true holiness. As such there is nothing slavish about it. The concept of "slavish obedience" must necessarily apply to something else.

T: The faith that works by love is based on evidence, as God always gives us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith: "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith (SC 105)". Because I said so is not evidence. This is probably where you and I (and Arnold and I) disagree. At least, this is what I'm understanding. You and he view "Because I said so" as evidence upon which to base our faith, because we already know God, and therefore that's all that's needed. What I'm understanding is that God, even after we know Him, still does not want an obedience which is not based on evidence, reason, or understanding in relation to the item under consideration.

Without considering evidence, it would be very easy to be under the delusion that one is obeying God while actually obeying the enemy. Regarding what the concept of slavish obedience encompasses, there's no need to speculate. We're told what it is. It's as opposed to "intelligent appreciation." Jesus describes it in terms of not knowing what the master is doing.

M: Obedience that flows from a heart where the Holy Spirit resides is true obedience. There is nothing robotic or slavish about it. You seem to think true obedience is impossible if it is rendered in response to, Obey me because I said so. If what you say is right, how do you explain all the places in the Bible where God commanded people to do things without explaining why? On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

T: Jesus said, "I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer" which implies there was a time when He did. So if one is unwilling to keep step with God, God will humble Himself and keep step with man. The Old and New Covenant is a perfect illustration of this theme.

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M:You would be hard pressed to prove your point, Tom.

You would have to turn to unbiblical sources to do so, and what good would that do? It wouldn’t prove a thing. Besides, do you know of any non-canonical sources which explain what people who lived before the Exodus knew about Sabbath-keeping above and beyond what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11?

M: Job says nothing about the Sabbath. If you disagree, please post inspired passages that teach otherwise.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses [Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11] require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

T: I did answer this. Your assumption that this is all they had is incorrect.

M:Insisting it is so is not the answer I was looking for, Tom.

Please post inspired quotes which clearly state what you think about it. BTW, do you agree the two passages referred to above lack the kind of evidence, reasoning, and understanding you think is necessary to qualify as sufficient to obey God intelligently and not slavishly?

Notwithstanding the prevailing iniquity, there was a line of holy men who, elevated and ennobled by communion with God, lived as in the companionship of heaven. They were men of massive intellect, of wonderful attainments. They had a great and holy mission--to develop a character of righteousness, to teach a lesson of godliness, not only to the men of their time, but for future generations. Only a few of the most prominent are mentioned in the Scriptures; but all through the ages God had faithfully witnesses, truehearted worshipers. (PP 84)

M: God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

T: Same answer.

M:You seem to expect me to render slavish obedience since your evidence is less than sufficient. Ha! That was an awkward attempt at humor. Perhaps I need to take lessons from Teresaq?

T:Without considering evidence, it would be very easy to be under the delusion that one is obeying God while actually obeying the enemy. Regarding what the concept of slavish obedience encompasses, there's no need to speculate. We're told what it is. It's as opposed to "intelligent appreciation." Jesus describes it in terms of not knowing what the master is doing.

M:Let’s apply your logic to a real situation and see if it pans out the way you think. Moses killed the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer on the basis he believed God commanded him to do so. Was he “under the delusion that [he was] obeying God while [he was] actually obeying the enemy”?

T: Jesus said, "I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer" which implies there was a time when He did. So if one is unwilling to keep step with God, God will humble Himself and keep step with man. The Old and New Covenant is a perfect illustration of this theme.

M:Are you implying rendering obedience in response to, Because I said so, is slavish? And, are you implying the obedience God required under the OC was slavish, that He compromised and required it to accommodate their less than favorable circumstances and mind set?

If so, are you not also implying that observing everything God required under the OC required slavish obedience, and that such slavish obedience was repulsive and unacceptable to God? Wouldn’t this include the feast days, the sanitary laws, the judicial laws, and dietary laws? If not, what else do you think God required under the OC that did not require slavish obedience?

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage. (The Glad Tidings)

1. Now, as to your first question. Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Obviously, the kind of friendship Jesus is referring to isn't an ordinary friendship. Jesus is, after all, God, and we're only human, and sinful to boot. My earthly friendships are not predicated on doing whatever they command me to do. Do you see a difference? If not, please explain why you think the kind of friendship Jesus referred to is no different than the kind of friendships you and I form on earth with other humans.

2. Jesus also said, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." This must be understood in a limited sense, because obviously Jesus didn't tell them everything His Father told Him. Do you agree?

By the way, when and where did Jesus ever call them servants?

For example, Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He left it to the Holy Spirit to explain certain things to the disciples later on. But not even the Holy Spirit could tell them everything. Elsewhere we read, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Do you agree Jesus didn’t tell them everything His Father told Him, that the comment “all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” refers to a specific set of topics and not to everything else Jesus learned from His Father?

3. "Henceforth I call you not servants." Even this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Well done, thou good and faithful servant . . . enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." Do you agree that these passages imply Jesus still considers His informed and faithful followers as servants? If not, then please explain what you think they mean.

4. There is also the fact the disciples and apostles referred to themselves as servants. For example, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Why do you think these holy people of God continued referring to themselves as servants after Jesus said what He did about servants and friends?

5. "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." Again, this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Obviously this servant was in the know. Nevertheless, he didn't obey his master. The end of such servants is less than desirable. "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Do you agree this servant knew the will of his lord? If so, how do you reconcile this passage with what Jesus said about servants in the passage under discussion, namely, "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth."

6. So, what did Jesus mean when He said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Again, I believe it must be understood within the immediate context.

Here it is: [John 15:1-17 quoted] This is the context of the statement, "All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." In particular, Jesus made known to them the following things:

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

This is what it takes to be Jesus' friend. But being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant.

He will always be our Lord and Master, and we will always be His servants and friends. Again, this type of friendship is unique in that it doesn't resemble normal earthly friendships. Beings friends with the Lord and Master of the Universe is not the same thing as being friends with angels or humans or any other FMA. For one thing, we are not His equal.

Do you agree with these observations? If not, please explain exactly what and why you disagree with them. Thank you.

7. Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" Why does Jesus call such people friends? In what sense are they His friend? Do they know everything Jesus knows and is that what makes them His friend? Satan knows everything they know, does that make him Jesus’ friend, too? If not, why not? Please explain what you believe about it.

Unselfishness, the principle of God's kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; its very existence he denies.(Ed 154)

I've repeated asked that what I have written be quoted, and things be questioned or commented on the basis of that. If people take it upon themselves to assert that I believe or have stated things I've never said, I don't see how I can be held responsible for that, especially when I've been asking all along to be quoted.

Now if you, or Arnold, or whoever *quotes* something I said, and *that* is unclear, then I bear the responsibility of what I wrote being unclear.

For example, you state here that I rarely state my position clearly. On this thread I've stated my position over and over again, which is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason and understanding. What's unclear about that? I've stated that God does not ask us to believe without giving us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. Isn't that clear as well?

God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6.

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7.

They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image.

They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}
The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2}
The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

Tom, the fact you must repeatedly restate your position suggests it wasn't clear enough the first time. I'm guessing the reason some people do not quote you is because what you posted wasn't clear enough to quote.

But perhaps you are improving. I don't know.

You wrote, "God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding." Are you implying people who obey God based on evidence alone counts as slavish?

And, aren't you also implying "slavish obedience" is not true obedience (in the sense it is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit dwelling within)?

You also wrote, "I've stated that God does not ask us to believe without giving us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith."

What do you consider sufficient?

Isn't it rather subjective? "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me." Does this song refer to sufficient evidence? For me it does. How about you?

For example, it matters not to me that I can't prove God exists, or that I can't prove He created everything in 7 days. Note: Some people argue God created everything in 6 days, but they overlook the fact God created the seventh day on the seventh day.

M: You wrote, "God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding." Are you implying people who obey God based on evidence alone counts as slavish?

T: Evidence not based on reason and understanding? No, I didn't have this in mind. In fact, the possibility of such a thing is not something I would have thought of without your mentioning it. Now that you have mentioned it, I must admit your concept doesn't make sense to me. How can you have evidence that doesn't involve reason or understanding? What good is evidence that is not understood?

M: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me." Does this song refer to sufficient evidence? For me it does. How about you?

T: How is this different than the slavish obedience which God does not desire? Where does evidence, reason, or understanding fit into this?

M: For example, it matters not to me that I can't prove God exists, or that I can't prove He created everything in 7 days. Note: Some people argue God created everything in 6 days, but they overlook the fact God created the seventh day on the seventh day.

T: Of course you can't prove this, but God has provided evidence for these things, so that a person looking for a faith based on evidence, reason and understanding can find the support needed for such faith.

What point are you making in posting this quote? This would be a good quote for the Covenant thread.

M: You wrote, "God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding." Are you implying people who obey God based on evidence alone counts as slavish?

T: Evidence not based on reason and understanding? No, I didn't have this in mind. In fact, the possibility of such a thing is not something I would have thought of without your mentioning it. Now that you have mentioned it, I must admit your concept doesn't make sense to me. How can you have evidence that doesn't involve reason or understanding? What good is evidence that is not understood?

M:God can tell us what to do without providing evidence or reason, and neither would it be conditional upon our understanding or comprehending why. The fact God said it is all the motivation we need to trust the Holy Spirit to empower us to cheerfully comply. This is not to say additional reasons and evidence wouldn’t be helpful in understanding why. It’s just that it wouldn’t be necessary to rely on the Holy Spirit to empower us to obey.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant.(SC 105)

God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and teachable spirit. All should decide from the weight of evidence. (Review and Herald, Sept. 16, 1873)

Here is a test which all may apply if they will. None need be left in uncertainty and doubt. There is always sufficient evidence upon which to base an intelligent faith. (Signs of the Times, December 30, 1886)

I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. . . . When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason...

Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them. . .

"It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. (5T 707, 708)

Faith in a lie will not have a sanctifying influence upon the life or character. No error is truth, or can be made truth by repetition, or by faith in it. Sincerity will never save a soul from the consequences of believing an error. Without sincerity there is no true religion, but sincerity in a false religion will never save a man. I may be perfectly sincere in following a wrong road, but that will not make it the right road, or bring me to the place I wished to reach. The Lord does not want us to have a blind credulity, and call that the faith that sanctifies. The truth is the principle that sanctifies, and therefore it becomes us to know what is truth. We must compare spiritual things with spiritual. We must prove all things, but hold fast only that which is good, that which bears the divine credentials, which lays before us the true motives and principles which should prompt us to action. (2SM 56)

He [Christ] maintained his disguise till he had interpreted the Scriptures, and had led them to an intelligent faith in his life, his character, his mission to earth, and his death and resurrection. He wished the truth to take firm root in their minds, not because it was supported by his personal testimony, but because the typical law, and the prophets of the Old Testament, agreeing with the facts of his life and death, presented unquestionable evidence of that truth." (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 214)

Christ saw that something must be done. Numerous ceremonies were enjoined upon the people without the proper instruction as to their import. The worshipers offered their sacrifices without understanding that they were typical of the only perfect Sacrifice. And among them, unrecognized and unhonored, stood the One symbolized by all their service. He had given directions in regard to the offerings. He understood their symbolical value, and He saw that they were now perverted and misunderstood. Spiritual worship was fast disappearing. No link bound the priests and rulers to their God. Christ’s work was to establish an altogether different worship. (DA 157)

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M: You would be hard pressed to prove your point, Tom.

T: Not at all. This is common knowledge.

M: You would have to turn to unbiblical sources to do so, and what good would that do? It wouldn’t prove a thing. Besides, do you know of any non-canonical sources which explain what people who lived before the Exodus knew about Sabbath-keeping above and beyond what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11?

T: It's an oral tradition, MM, not a written one.

M: Please post inspired quotes which clearly state what you think about it.

T: Scripture doesn't discuss how it was formed. It doesn't even define what is canonical. That there was knowledge obtained and passed along by holy men before the Bible is brought out here:

“Notwithstanding the prevailing iniquity, there was a line of holy men who, elevated and ennobled by communion with God, lived as in the companionship of heaven. They were men of massive intellect, of wonderful attainments. They had a great and holy mission--to develop a character of righteousness, to teach a lesson of godliness, not only to the men of their time, but for future generations. Only a few of the most prominent are mentioned in the Scriptures; but all through the ages God had faithfully witnesses, truehearted worshipers. (PP 84)

M: BTW, do you agree the two passages referred to above lack the kind of evidence, reasoning, and understanding you think is necessary to qualify as sufficient to obey God intelligently and not slavishly?

T: Regarding your question, no, I don't agree.

M: God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

T: Same answer.

M:You seem to expect me to render slavish obedience since your evidence is less than sufficient. Ha! That was an awkward attempt at humor. Perhaps I need to take lessons from Teresaq?

T: I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You asked, "Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?" This is based on a false assumption. I already explained this. "Same answer" was referring to this explanation.

T: Without considering evidence, it would be very easy to be under the delusion that one is obeying God while actually obeying the enemy. Regarding what the concept of slavish obedience encompasses, there's no need to speculate. We're told what it is. It's as opposed to "intelligent appreciation." Jesus describes it in terms of not knowing what the master is doing.

M: Let’s apply your logic to a real situation and see if it pans out the way you think. Moses killed the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer on the basis he believed God commanded him to do so. Was he “under the delusion that [he was] obeying God while [he was] actually obeying the enemy”?

T: Let me ask, do you disagree with what I wrote? If so, what did you disagree with? In response to your example, it doesn't apply, as Moses's faith was based on reason, evidence and understanding.

T: Jesus said, "I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer" which implies there was a time when He did. So if one is unwilling to keep step with God, God will humble Himself and keep step with man. The Old and New Covenant is a perfect illustration of this theme.

M: Are you implying rendering obedience in response to, Because I said so, is slavish? And, are you implying the obedience God required under the OC was slavish, that He compromised and required it to accommodate their less than favorable circumstances and mind set?

T: No. I think you're missing the whole point here.

M: If so, are you not also implying that observing everything God required under the OC required slavish obedience, and that such slavish obedience was repulsive and unacceptable to God? Wouldn’t this include the feast days, the sanitary laws, the judicial laws, and dietary laws? If not, what else do you think God required under the OC that did not require slavish obedience?

T: The following explains my point: [Glad Tidings quoted].

God's favor toward Israel had always been conditional on their obedience. At the foot of Sinai they had entered into covenant relationship with Him as His "peculiar treasure. . . above all people." Solemnly they had promised to follow in the path of obedience. "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do," they had said. Exodus 19:5, 8. And when, a few days afterward, God's law was spoken from Sinai, and additional instruction in the form of statutes and judgments was communicated through Moses, the Israelites with one voice had again promised, "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." At the ratification of the covenant, the people had once more united in declaring, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient," Exodus 24:3, 7. God had chosen Israel as His people, and they had chosen Him as their King. {PK 293.1}

Preparation was now made for the ratification of the covenant, according to God's directions. . . . {1BC 1107.2}

Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law. {1BC 1107.3}

If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts. Moses did not leave them to misconstrue the words of the Lord or to misapply His requirements. He wrote all the words of the Lord in a book, that they might be referred to afterward. In the mount he had written them as Christ Himself dictated them. {1BC 1107.4}

Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves--body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God (MS 126, 1901). {1BC 1107.5}

The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense....This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. {AG 142.2}

[Ex 19:7, 8 quoted, which includes, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do] This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. {1BC 1103.11}

M: What point are you making in posting this quote? This would be a good quote for the Covenant thread.

t: it backs up the quote from glad tidings in post #106735.

God's favor toward Israel had always been conditional on their obedience. At the foot of Sinai they had entered into covenant relationship with Him as His "peculiar treasure. . . above all people." Solemnly they had promised to follow in the path of obedience. "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do," they had said. Exodus 19:5, 8. And when, a few days afterward, God's law was spoken from Sinai, and additional instruction in the form of statutes and judgments was communicated through Moses, the Israelites with one voice had again promised, "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." At the ratification of the covenant, the people had once more united in declaring, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient," Exodus 24:3, 7. God had chosen Israel as His people, and they had chosen Him as their King. {PK 293.1}

Preparation was now made for the ratification of the covenant, according to God's directions. . . . {1BC 1107.2}

Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law. {1BC 1107.3}

If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts. Moses did not leave them to misconstrue the words of the Lord or to misapply His requirements. He wrote all the words of the Lord in a book, that they might be referred to afterward. In the mount he had written them as Christ Himself dictated them. {1BC 1107.4}

Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves--body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God (MS 126, 1901). {1BC 1107.5}

The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense....This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. {AG 142.2}

[Ex 19:7, 8 quoted, which includes, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do] This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. {1BC 1103.11}

Above you spoke of people who obey God on "evidence alone." I asked you what this means. You didn't explain this. Here you're talking about obeying God without evidence.

Regarding an example of slavish obedience, the whole history of the COI is an example of slavish obedience, with the notable exceptions of those who had faith. The Pharisees would be the epitome of slavish obedience.

Regarding the questions of God's existence: "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant.(SC 105)

I stand in perfect freedom, calling light, light, and darkness, darkness. I told them yesterday that the position of the covenants I believed as presented in my volume 1 [Patriarchs and Prophets]. If that was Dr. Waggoner's position then he had the truth. (Letter 82, 1890)

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.-- (Letter 30, 1890)

Here are some statements which deal with the importance of faith based on evidence. How Jesus proceeded on the road to Emmaus is a good example. He didn't just tell them the truth, so that they would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding. The last statement discusses what happens when people do things because "God said so," without understanding why.

Of course she's saying the same thing!

Oh, now I see. Thank you. Are you sure Ellen and Elliot are saying the same thing? Please consider the following passages:

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7.

They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image.

They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}


The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2}
The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

T:Above you spoke of people who obey God on "evidence alone." I asked you what this means. You didn't explain this. Here you're talking about obeying God without evidence.

M:I am simply asking questions. Is, Because I said so, sufficient evidence or reason to obey God intelligently and not slavishly? You seem to think not. Why?

T:Regarding an example of slavish obedience, the whole history of the COI is an example of slavish obedience, with the notable exceptions of those who had faith. The Pharisees would be the epitome of slavish obedience.

M:Explain why. What did they do differently than the faithful few you mentioned that resulted in slavish obedience?

What is the evidence, the abundant testimony that appeals to our reason? Is it based on more than a “Thus saith the Lord” or “It is written”? If so, please explain.

Oh, now I see. Thank you. Are you sure Ellen and Elliot are saying the same thing? Please consider the following passages:

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7.

They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image.

They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2}

The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

t: i dont understand. are you saying that the statements above cancel out this statement which is equally hers?


M: I see harmony in her statements. Do you see harmony in them? And, do you see harmony between Ellen and Elliot?

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage. (The Glad Tidings)

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M: You would be hard pressed to prove your point, Tom.

T: Not at all. This is common knowledge.

M:Indeed, so common you seem to think it is unnecessary to post inspired quotes to support it.

There is nothing more common, however, than he said, she said, and, might I add, nothing more worthless.

“God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience.” The way I read it, “slavish obedience” is purely hypothetical. Her definition involves God doing something He has never done, nor will He ever do, namely, forcing the will and judgment of someone to exact obedience from them. That's her definition of slavish obedience.

“God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.”

So again, I need to ask, Are you saying that the obedience the Jews rendered in fulfilling the requirements of the OC was slavish?

Here are some statements which deal with the importance of faith based on evidence. How Jesus proceeded on the road to Emmaus is a good example. He didn't just tell them the truth, so that they would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding. The last statement discusses what happens when people do things because "God said so," without understanding why.

M: I see harmony in her statements. Do you see harmony in them? And, do you see harmony between Ellen and Elliot?

t: so, youre saying that this glad tidings quote, in essence is not saying the same thing as egw in pp? that the quotes you provided cancel out the glad tidings quotes, but not her other statements in the pp?

Oh, now I see. Thank you. Are you sure Ellen and Elliot are saying the same thing? Please consider the following passages:

t: i dont understand. are you saying that the statements above cancel out this statement which is equally hers?

M: I see harmony in her statements. Do you see harmony in them? And, do you see harmony between Ellen and Elliot?

so, youre saying that this glad tidings quote, in essence is not saying the same thing as egw in pp? that the quotes you provided cancel out the glad tidings quotes, but not her other statements in the pp?

This is in reference to #106965.



Perhaps I didn't state my questions clearly. Here they are again reworded for clarity:

1. I see harmony between her statements. Do you see harmony between them?

2. Do you see harmony between Ellen and Elliot? Do you see harmony between their statements (posted previously on this thread)?

PS - Please note that I didn't express an opinion regarding harmony between Ellen and Elliot. I can express my opinion if you'd like me to, but in this post I am more interested in your opinion.

This post is in reference to #106957.

T: Of course she's saying the same thing!

M: Prove it.

What are the key points they hold in common? On what points do they differ? Lay the quotes side-by-side so we can compare them. Also, do you think she contradicted what she wrote in PP in the quotes I posted above? If so, please explain.

Tom, you seem to think Waggoner got it all right, whereas the angel told Ellen that his position was not perfect, that it was lacking light. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren [E.J.] Waggoner and [A.T.] Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1SM 234, 5)

M: I see harmony in her statements. Do you see harmony in them? And, do you see harmony between Ellen and Elliot?

t: so, youre saying that this glad tidings quote, in essence is not saying the same thing as egw in pp? that the quotes you provided cancel out the glad tidings quotes, but not her other statements in the pp?

The Glad Tidings

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

Patriarchs and Prophets

Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18. {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them His power and His mercy, that they might be led to love and trust Him. He brought them down to the Red Sea--where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible--that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then He wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God and with confidence in His power to help them. He had bound them to Himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage. {PP 371.2}

But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught. {PP 371.3}

God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2}

The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

Assorted Quotes

God's favor toward Israel had always been conditional on their obedience. At the foot of Sinai they had entered into covenant relationship with Him as His "peculiar treasure. . . above all people." Solemnly they had promised to follow in the path of obedience. "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do," they had said. Exodus 19:5, 8. And when, a few days afterward, God's law was spoken from Sinai, and additional instruction in the form of statutes and judgments was communicated through Moses, the Israelites with one voice had again promised, "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." At the ratification of the covenant, the people had once more united in declaring, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient," Exodus 24:3, 7. God had chosen Israel as His people, and they had chosen Him as their King. {PK 293.1}

Preparation was now made for the ratification of the covenant, according to God's directions. . . . {1BC 1107.2}

Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law. {1BC 1107.3}

If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts. Moses did not leave them to misconstrue the words of the Lord or to misapply His requirements. He wrote all the words of the Lord in a book, that they might be referred to afterward. In the mount he had written them as Christ Himself dictated them. {1BC 1107.4}

Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves--body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God (MS 126, 1901). {1BC 1107.5}

The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense....This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. {AG 142.2}

[Ex 19:7, 8 quoted, which includes, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do] This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. {1BC 1103.11}

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M: You would be hard pressed to prove your point, Tom.

T: You're not taking into account all this knowledge these super intelligent holy men had developed for centuries.

M: So again, I need to ask, Are you saying that the obedience the Jews rendered in fulfilling the requirements of the OC was slavish?

T: Yes, it was slavish. God exclaimed, "If only these people had a heart to obey my law." They had the law written on stone, but not in the heart.

Since EGW said Waggoner's teaching on the Covenants was as clear as sunlight, and "truth," we can quote it, can't we?

Found this interesting quote:

He [Ellen White's angelic guide] stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: "Neither have all the light upon the law, neither position is perfect. 'Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart' (Psalm 97:11). There are hundreds that know not why they believe the doctrines they do."--Letter 21, 1888, pp. 6,7. (To G. I. Butler, October 14, 1888.) {9MR 218.1}

Tom, you seem to think Waggoner got it all right, whereas the angel told Ellen that his position was not perfect, that it was lacking light. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

Would greater evidence, more powerful manifestations, break down the barriers that have been interposed between the truth and the soul?--No. I have been shown that sufficient evidence has been given. Those who reject the evidence already presented would not be convinced by more abundant proof. They are like the Jews to whom Christ said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The greatest miracles performed before them would not sweep away their caviling and unbelief. They have sown stubbornness, and it has borne fruit according to the design of Satan. Unless the transforming grace of Christ cleanses and purifies the soul, they will go on from darkness to greater darkness. (1888 Mat. 1057)

The manner in which the Pharisees sought to evade the truth, and to turn the attention of the people away from vital lessons,--by starting questions that did not bear upon the subject,--is one in which the opposers of truth in all ages have taken refuge. Satan, who is proficient in all manner of arts for the resisting of truth, suggests to his agents plans whereby they may reject the counsel of God against themselves. He incites the opposers of truth to start false issues, to discuss questions that are not to the point, in order that those who are convicted and half convinced, may be turned aside from their investigation and acceptance of truth. Ever since the days of Christ there have been men whose attitude toward truth has said, "Depart from me, O God. I want not thy way, but my own way." (1888 Mat. 1061)

My brother, why do you cherish such bitterness against Elder A.T. Jones and Elder Waggoner? It is for the same reason Cain hated Abel. Cain refused to heed the instruction of God, and because Abel sought God, and followed His will, Cain killed him. God has given Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner a message for the people. You do not believe that God has upheld them, but He has given them precious light, and their message has fed the people of God. When you reject the message borne by these men, you reject Christ, the Giver of the message.(1888 Mat. 1353)

Insisting that people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 does not prove it, Tom. Please post a quote from the SOP that specifically says so, that is, that specifically says the people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11. The quote you posted earlier was too generic to prove your point. It didn’t mention anything in particular, and it certainly didn’t say anything about why people kept the Sabbath.

Ellen wrote, “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant . . . If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts.”

She also wrote, “The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense . . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel . . . “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days.”

How do you reconcile what you wrote with what she wrote?

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. (PP 372)

I didn't understand your questions in 107085.

T: Here are some statements which deal with the importance of faith based on evidence. How Jesus proceeded on the road to Emmaus is a good example. He didn't just tell them the truth, so that they would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding. The last statement discusses what happens when people do things because "God said so," without understanding why.

M: Which scriptures did Jesus quote which contain more information than a mere "Thus saith the Lord"? Also, where in the Pentateuch did Moses explain that the animal sacrifices symbolize the future sacrifice of the Son of God?

From that session on Ellen White was clear that God had given Waggoner a message, and that rejecting that message was rejecting Christ, and many other strong endorsements.

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch. Your assumption that this is all they had is incorrect. You're insisting all they had was Gen. 2:1-3. I'm pointing out this isn't the case. It's an oral tradition, MM, not a written one.

M: Insisting that people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 does not prove it, Tom. Please post a quote from the SOP that specifically says so, that is, that specifically says the people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11. The quote you posted earlier was too generic to prove your point. It didn’t mention anything in particular, and it certainly didn’t say anything about why people kept the Sabbath.

T: I never asserted they had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath. Is it not possible for you to assert something or ask something that corresponds to something I actually wrote? Why don't you do what I suggest and quote something I wrote? The quote I provided establishes that there was a great degree of knowledge developed and passed along by very intelligent men who studied for centuries. Do you think the Sabbath would have been of no interest to them?

M: Ellen wrote, “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant . . . If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts.”

She also wrote, “The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense . . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel . . . “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days.”

How do you reconcile what you wrote with what she wrote?

T: In PP she says: “The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. (PP 372)

Obedience involved this. That is, the law cannot be obeyed if it is not written in the heart. If the law were written in their heart, they would not be following the inclinations of their unregenerated heart. Understanding that obedience involves obedience from the heart explains the first paragraph.

Regarding the Second, there is only one Covenant under which one may be saved, which is the Everlasting Covenant. This is the Covenant which God proposed to Israel. Regarding the statement, "All that the Lord has said, we will do" there is nothing necessarily wrong with these words or the sentiment behind these words. The COI did not have a heart to keep God's law, but made this statement in unbelief. That was their problem, and why they came under bondage. Had they responded in faith, the law would have been written in their heart, and they would have been under the Everlasting Covenant (also known as the "New Covenant") which is the only one under which a person can be saved. Saying the words "All that the Lord has said, we will do" in faith is what she had in mind for God's people.

God's favor toward Israel had always been conditional on their obedience. At the foot of Sinai they had entered into covenant relationship with Him as His "peculiar treasure. . . above all people." Solemnly they had promised to follow in the path of obedience. "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do," they had said. Exodus 19:5, 8. And when, a few days afterward, God's law was spoken from Sinai, and additional instruction in the form of statutes and judgments was communicated through Moses, the Israelites with one voice had again promised, "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." At the ratification of the covenant, the people had once more united in declaring, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient," Exodus 24:3, 7. God had chosen Israel as His people, and they had chosen Him as their King. {PK 293.1}

Preparation was now made for the ratification of the covenant, according to God's directions. . . . {1BC 1107.2}

Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law. {1BC 1107.3}

If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts. Moses did not leave them to misconstrue the words of the Lord or to misapply His requirements. He wrote all the words of the Lord in a book, that they might be referred to afterward. In the mount he had written them as Christ Himself dictated them. {1BC 1107.4}

Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves--body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God (MS 126, 1901). {1BC 1107.5}

The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense....This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. {AG 142.2}

[Ex 19:7, 8 quoted, which includes, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do] This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. {1BC 1103.11}

M:I included in the box above everything you said about it. As you can see, you said that through oral tradition they had more reasons for keeping the Sabbath than the one Moses recorded in Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11.

Insisting that people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 does not prove it, Tom. Please post a quote from the SOP that specifically says so, that is, that specifically says the people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11.

Regarding my first paragraph, it seems like you are agreeing with me that the Jews were able to experience the blessings of the NC while also obeying and observing the OC rules and rites, that it wasn’t an obstacle.

Regarding my second paragraph, it seems like you are saying she is referring to the EC/NC and not to the OC.

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins.(PP 372)

The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. (ibid.)

Do we have any record of any additional reasons Jesus gave the guys on the road to Emmaus for believing the passages He quoted to them from the OT?

T: Here are some statements which deal with the importance of faith based on evidence. How Jesus proceeded on the road to Emmaus is a good example. He didn't just tell them the truth, so that they not would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding. The last statement discusses what happens when people do things because "God said so," without understanding why.

Also, where in the Pentateuch did Moses explain that the animal sacrifices symbolize the future sacrifice of the Son of God?

Yes, Ellen very clearly endorsed whatever Waggoner was preaching about at the time. Do know precisely what it was that she so wholeheartedly endorsed? I read through the Ten Truths on that link you posted (don't know where) but didn't find anything all that startling. I do remember having concerns regarding several things. Do you know where that post of mine is?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe all the quotes I posted agree with the PP quote you posted. And, no, I didn't say one way or another if her statements agree with Waggoner's statements in the Glad Tidings quote that was posted. I was interested in what you think. You expressed your opinion about it when you wrote, The PP quote “backs up the quote from glad tidings”. I was merely hoping you would elaborate on how and why. At any rate, here's what I think about it.

Here’s the Glad Tidings quote:


Here’s the Patriarchs and Prophets quote:


Here are the other quotes I posted:


Waggoner wrote, “The covenant from Sinai . . . consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep the law . . . it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works . . . He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai.”

Whereas Ellen wrote, “The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense . . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel . . . “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days.”

The OC was a necessary inconvenience. It was “contrary” (Col 2:14) to them in that it was a huge hassle to operate and observe day after day, year after year. But it was needful to remind the “prone to forget” Jews 1) just how bad sin is, 2) that sin and salvation cost the death of Jesus, and 3) the importance of trusting in Jesus to empower them to experience “righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24).

But all those feasts and ceremonies were a big burden. They were tedious, costly, and time consuming. It was a form of “bondage” (Gal 4:24). They had to work like slaves to keep everything up and running right. It’s a good thing it all ended on the cross with Jesus. But we still need to work hard every day to remember what the OC stood for. In this sense it has "just as much force today" as it did back then. In its place, however, Jesus gave us the Communion Service, which is far less wearisome and far more rewarding.

The OC was, therefore, initiated, designed, and implemented by God to teach the Jews and us how to live in harmony with the conditions of the NC. It was never intended to replace the NC. “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant . . . If the Israelites had obeyed God's requirements, they would have been practical Christians. They would have been happy; for they would have been keeping God's ways, and not following the inclinations of their own natural hearts.” But Waggoner seems to have felt differently about it. On this point I disagree with him.

Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

...The good works of the believer are wrought through the human agent by Christ himself. They are doers of the words of Christ, and will not only impart blessings of the highest order to others, but as they render implicit obedience to Christ, they represent his character, and bring joy to the heart of Christ, and to all the holy ones of heaven. {SSW, July 1, 1894 par. 6}

....While it is God that works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure, we are to co-operate with him while he works through us. We must guard against lifting up our souls in self-esteem. But you will say, How am I to know that Christ is in my heart? If, when you are criticised or corrected in your way, and things do not go just as you think they ought to go,--if then you let your passion arise instead of bearing the correction and being patient and kind, Christ is not abiding in the heart. {RH, July 12, 1887 par. 9}

M: Insisting that people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 does not prove it, Tom. Please post a quote from the SOP that specifically says so, that is, that specifically says the people who lived before the Exodus had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11.

T: Here you wrote "more reasons" instead of "better reasons." In regards to what you actually claimed, that I was "insisting" that they had "better reasons" I responded, "I never asserted they had better reasons for keeping the Sabbath." As you can see from what you quoted, what you asserted is wrong; indeed, I did not assert they had "better reasons."

Regarding the rest of the post, I think there's a confusion in regards to the ceremonial law, which was a celebration of the Gospel promises in Christ, and the OC.

That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. {PP 310.1}

These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. {PP 311.3}

The definite directions which the Lord gave to Moses in regard to the duty of His people to one another, and to the stranger, are the principles of the Ten Commandments simplified and given in a definite manner, that they need not err. {SR 149.1}

He didn't just tell them [on the road to Emmaus] the truth, so that they not would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding.

Please reread what I wrote, with the "not" in place, and see if that makes more sense. Sorry for any confusion.

M: Yes, Ellen very clearly endorsed whatever Waggoner was preaching about at the time. Do know precisely what it was that she so wholeheartedly endorsed? I read through the Ten Truths on that link you posted (don't know where) but didn't find anything all that startling. I do remember having concerns regarding several things. Do you know where that post of mine is?

T: No, I don't know where your post is. I wouldn't look for something "startling" however. Rather, look for principles of truth. In particular, what Colin suggested was foundational, is a good thing to look for.

I believe Gen 3:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11 give as reason for keeping the Sabbath the fact God rested on that day. This reason is sufficient to trust and obey God intelligently rather than slavishly. No other reasons are needed. Do you agree?

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts . . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34.

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ.(PP 372)

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything. (The Glad Tidings)

Did obeying any of these “additional precepts” engender bondage?

If not, which precepts do you think engendered bondage, which “was contrary” to the Jews?

Of everything God commanded Moses in addition to the Ten Commandments, what do you think engendered bondage? Please state your position in your own words. Thank you.

What did the passages Jesus quoted to them say that constitute more than a “Thus saith the Lord”? They only describe who, what, when, and where. They do not explain why. If you think otherwise, please prove it. Post one of the passages Jesus might have quoted that explains why He had to become a man and die on the cross.

Reasoning from prophecy, Christ gave His disciples a correct idea of what He was to be in humanity. (DA 799)

Did Waggoner say anything that I cannot find clearly spelled out in SC or FW?

When I went through the Ten Truths link I found myself questioning several key points. Here they are again:

1. I do not agree that Jesus died the second death.

He “tasted” and consumed and conquered it. Satan is the one who will die our second death with our sins.

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. (EW 294)

2. I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost.

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (DA 176)

None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ.(DA 387)

I believe sinners are already lost and must do something to be saved, namely, embrace Jesus.

4. I do not think lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character. They are lost because they know not God. Most do not understand why they are lost.

6. I do not agree that the NC is a one-way promise.

It is conditional upon our consent and cooperation. Ellen wrote, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days.”

9. I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith. This kind of faith makes both justification and sanctification realities in the life.

Faith is understood in its true biblical sense—a heart appreciation of the agape of Christ.

M: So, are you saying that this Glad Tidings quote, in essence is not saying the same thing as EGW in PP, that the quotes I provided cancel out the Glad Tidings quote, but not her other statements in the PP?

t: people seem to read items differently. guess there isnt much that can be done about that. no sense arguing over it.

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. ...{PP 371.4}

M: Let’s back up and start over. I believe Gen 3:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11 give as reason for keeping the Sabbath the fact God rested on that day. This reason is sufficient to trust and obey God intelligently rather than slavishly. No other reasons are needed. Do you agree?

T: This is a different question than you asked before. I view this as a hypothetical question, as I don't think anyone has been limited to the reasons given here. In particular, why ignore the other reasons given in the Pentateuch, all of which was written by Moses? In answer to your hypothetical question, I don't think just those 7 verses are enough to intelligently obey the Sabbath.

MM, regarding the OC and the NC, we're thinking about this differently. You are thinking of all the laws and regulations which were given at Sinai. I understand the OC to be the vain promises which the people made to God, to try to establish their own righteousness.

Basically the people were rejecting Christ. Christ spoke out against the same mindset when He said to them, "You seek the Scriptures, because you think in them you have life, but they are the which testify of Me. And you won't come to Me that you might have life."

The OC is trying to establish one's own righteousness by trying to keep a law written on stone. The NC is to believe in Christ, accepting His righteousness by faith, having the law written in the heart.

Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. {PP 371.2}

All this they must be taught. {PP 371.3}

Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. {PP 372.1}

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. {PP 372.2}

M: What did the passages Jesus quoted to them say that constitute more than a “Thus saith the Lord”? They only describe who, what, when, and where. They do not explain why. If you think otherwise, please prove it. Post one of the passages Jesus might have quoted that explains why He had to become a man and die on the cross.

T: This seems an odd assertion and request. Much of the Old Testament speaks of Christ, with teachings as to why things would be done and not simply what. If you read Romans, and see the passages which Paul quotes from, those are good examples.

Isa. 53 is a good example, and many other places in Isaiah. A text which says that God would create a man finer than the Gold of some place, can't remember the name; doesn't matter. Anyway, this speaks to God's plan of creating men with character.

There are many Psalms which testify of Christ.


A correct idea of what He was to be in humanity would have to include why, not just what.

Did Moses explain why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross? Also, where does Moses say the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God?

M: Did Waggoner say anything that I cannot find clearly spelled out in SC or FW?

T: Yes. Just to mention one thing, I don't think she speaks at all about the Covenants in these books. To name another, I don't think she addresses Christ's taking our nature in these books either.

"Nothing but His righteousness can entitle us to one of the blessings of the covenant of grace. We have long desired and tried to obtain these blessings but have not received them because we have cherished the idea that we could do something to make ourselves worthy of them. We have not looked away from ourselves, believing that Jesus is a living Saviour. We must not think that our own grace and merits will save us; the grace of Christ is our only hope of salvation. " {FW 36.1}

"When the principle of love is implanted in the heart, when man is renewed after the image of Him that created him, the new-covenant promise is fulfilled, "I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them." Hebrews 10:16. {SC 60.2}

"In the Word of God the honest seeker for truth will find the rule for genuine sanctification. . . 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.' {FW 97.2}

M: When I went through the Ten Truths link I found myself questioning several key points. Here they are again:

1. I do not agree that Jesus died the second death. He “tasted” and consumed and conquered it. Satan is the one who will die our second death with our sins.

T: I disagree with the wording chosen there. I would say He "tasted" the second death, or "experienced" it. I'd be more careful how I put this. Satan doesn't die with our sins, but he suffers for his part, his responsibility, not just for our sins, but for his responsibility in regards to everyone.

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest. Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

M: 2. I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost. I believe sinners are already lost and must do something to be saved, namely, embrace Jesus.

T: The SOP clearly states this in a number of places. The thing they must do they will do if they don't resist.

M: 4. I do not think lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character. They are lost because they know not God. Most do not understand why they are lost.

T: I think you're misunderstanding something here, that is, I believe you're understanding something to have been said which was not said. Could you please quote what you had in mind here?

M: 6. I do not agree that the NC is a one-way promise. It is conditional upon our consent and cooperation. Ellen wrote, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days.”

T: You cut this off in mid-sentence. What was written is that it is a one-way promise to write His law in our heart. This is just what Jeremiah says. Read Jeremiah 31:31-34. There's no promise by anyone in this passage but God. This is the declaration of the New Covenant.

Ellen White, in the PP passage I quoted previously, states that in the NC the law is written in the heart, as opposed to on stone, and that instead of seeking to establish our own righteousness, we accept the righteousness of Christ. She was explaining the different between the OC and the NC in writing this.

M: 9. I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith. This kind of faith makes both justification and sanctification realities in the life.

T: This isn't a definition of faith. It's a declaration of what genuine faith does.

Yes, it is a different question. That’s why I said, “Let’s back up and start over.” And you finally gave me an answer

What are the terms and conditions of the NC? What are the terms and conditions of the OC? Also, in light of what you wrote above, please explain the following points Ellen raised in PP:

I've read the passages you cited and I did not see where God explains why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Please be more specific. Thank you.

Did Moses explain why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross? Also, where does Moses say the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God?

I don't see where you addressed this question.

The real intent of my question is - I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?

The Lord has raised up Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner to proclaim a message to the world to prepare a people to stand in the day of God. The world is suffering the need of additional light to come to them upon the Scriptures,--additional proclamation of the principles of purity, lowliness, faith, and the righteousness of Christ. (1888 Mat. 1814, 1815)

M: 2. I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost. I believe sinners are already lost and must do something to be saved, namely, embrace Jesus.

T: The SOP clearly states this in a number of places. The thing they must do they will do if they don't resist.

M:Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

M: 4. I do not think lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character. They are lost because they know not God. Most do not understand why they are lost.

T: I think you're misunderstanding something here, that is, I believe you're understanding something to have been said which was not said. Could you please quote what you had in mind here?

M:I was responding to number 4 of the Ten Truths.

Do you think God writes His law in the hearts of sinners without their consent and cooperation? Or, do you think their consent and cooperation are required?

M: 9. I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith. This kind of faith makes both justification and sanctification realities in the life.

T: This isn't a definition of faith. It's a declaration of what genuine faith does.

M:Actions speak louder than words. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."

16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. (Eph. 3)

M: Let’s back up and start over. I believe Gen 3:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11 give as reason for keeping the Sabbath the fact God rested on that day. This reason is sufficient to trust and obey God intelligently rather than slavishly. No other reasons are needed. Do you agree?

T: This is a different question than you asked before. I view this as a hypothetical question, as I don't think anyone has been limited to the reasons given here. In particular, why ignore the other reasons given in the Pentateuch, all of which was written by Moses? In answer to your hypothetical question, I don't think just those 7 verses are enough to intelligently obey the Sabbath.

M: Yes, it is a different question. That’s why I said, “Let’s back up and start over.” And you finally gave me an answer, which was, No, you do not believe keeping the Sabbath because God rested on that day is a sufficient reason to trust and obey God intelligently rather than slavishly. End of story. No more questions. Thank you.

T: What's up with this? You recognize this is a different question, a question which I immediately answered, the first time you asked it, and you respond, "And you finally game me an answer." What did you want me to do? Answer the question before you asked it?

M: Here is how the creation account and commandment read. I've underlined the words that explain why God commanded people to rest on the seventh day.

Genesis
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
20:11 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.

The question is - Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain better reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

T: As I pointed out, there are several reasons given for keeping the Sabbath. The foundation of observing the Sabbath is that God rested on this day, the crowning act of creation. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation, and its observance recognizes God as the Creator.

It's also a memorial of redemption, a them which is explained in detail in Hebrews. By faith we enter into the rest of God, which is what the Sabbath is all about. The Sabbath is also the seal of God and a sign of sanctification. This is just scratching the service!

M: What are the terms and conditions of the NC? What are the terms and conditions of the OC? Also, in light of what you wrote above, please explain the following points Ellen raised in PP:

T: The terms of the OC were the proud and unbelieving promise of the people to do all that the Lord had commanded. Ellen White characterizes this as the people seeking to establish their own righteousness. The NC was established upon "better promises," the promises of forgiveness and the writing of the law in heart. She characterized this as accepting the righteousness of Christ. The condition is faith.

M: I've read the passages you cited and I did not see where God explains why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Please be more specific. Thank you.

T: You've read Isaiah 53, and you don't understand why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can improve on Isaiah.

M: Did Moses explain why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross? Also, where does Moses say the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God?

I don't see where you addressed this question.

T: I think I've asked you several times why you are asking this.

M: The real intent of my question is - I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?

I don't think this is the point.


Ellen White never claimed this of herself. She said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she, and that the Lord had given him special light on this question. Over and over she exhorted that the light that God sent through Waggoner and Jones be heeded.

You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?" I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

T: Regarding Satan, I don't see what you said in the quote you provided. The quote I provided was clear that Satan suffers for his responsibility towards both the wicked and the saved. This is not something arbitrarily imposed upon Satan by God, but simply the result of Satan suffering the guilt of his actions.

M: 2. I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost. I believe sinners are already lost and must do something to be saved, namely, embrace Jesus.

T: The SOP clearly states this in a number of places. The thing they must do they will do if they don't resist.

M: Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

T: I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.

M: 4. I do not think lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character. They are lost because they know not God. Most do not understand why they are lost.

T: I think you're misunderstanding something here, that is, I believe you're understanding something to have been said which was not said. Could you please quote what you had in mind here?

M:I was responding to number 4 of the Ten Truths.

T: Point 4 doesn't say "lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character."

Do you disagree with something point 4 actually says? If so, what?

M: Do you think God writes His law in the hearts of sinners without their consent and cooperation? Or, do you think their consent and cooperation are required?

T: Why are you asking this? I'm not a Calvinist. God does not unilaterally convert people.

M: 9. I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith. This kind of faith makes both justification and sanctification realities in the life.

T: This isn't a definition of faith. It's a declaration of what genuine faith does.

M:Actions speak louder than words. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."

T: This has nothing to do with the point. Robert Wieland has suggested as a definition for faith that faith is a heart appreciation of the love of God, especially as revealed at the cross. I think this is a fine definition for faith.

When we appreciate the love of God, that love transforms us, motivates us. This is the love of which the phrase "faith which works by love" is in reference to.

The SOP speaks a number of times of the love of God shining from the cross which leads us to repentance if we do not resist. There is something special in the love of God, which is why Paul prayed:

Please post the verses you think explain why Jesus had to die on the cross. Thank you. I do not see where you did this.

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53)

M: Did Moses explain why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross? Also, where does Moses say the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God?

I don't see where you addressed this question.

T: I think I've asked you several times why you are asking this.

M:Because it is important to me. If you don't know the answer that's fine. I just thought maybe you did.

T:You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?" I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

M:I'm not sure how this answers my question. If you don't know the answer that's fine. If Waggoner didn't say anything vital that cannot be found in the SOP then I see no reason to read Waggoner. Do you?

Also, if Waggoner explained something "more clearly" than Ellen did, please show me. Post something he said that is "more clearly" explained. Place his and her explanations side-by-side so we can compare them. Thank you.

T: I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.

M:Now that you've clarified what you meant, I have a different question I'd like you to answer. Here it is - Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (DA 176)

I believe most people cannot identify misunderstanding the character of God as the reason why they are lost. Does this contradict anything in point 4 as you see it?

Thank you for clarifying what you believe. But I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith.

From the beginning you have insisted that people before the Exodus had more reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what is contained in the seven verses above. Not until now, 13 pages later, did you finally admit that, yes, those verses do not contain enough reasons to obey God intelligently.

T: This is a different question than you asked before...

M:Yes, it is a different question.

While under the terms and conditions of the OC, did you think God required them to obey and observe everything He commanded (i.e. the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)?

While under the terms and conditions of the NC, did you think God required them to obey and observe everything He commanded (i.e. the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)?

So how can you say I didn't answer a question for 13 pages which you hadn't even asked?

No and yes.

“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him.”

I'm not really understanding your question. There are a number of Gospel promises, including Gen. 3:15 and so forth. Jesus said that Moses saw His day and wrote of Him.

T:You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?" I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

M: Also, if Waggoner explained something "more clearly" than Ellen did, please show me. Post something he said that is "more clearly" explained. Place his and her explanations side-by-side so we can compare them. Thank you.


T: I think this would be a better exercise for you to do on your own. Ellen White said that Waggoner could explain righteousness by faith better than she, but she didn't point to specific passages she wrote which were less clear than things that she wrote, and I don't feel impressed to go beyond where she went.

One area I think Waggoner wrote particularly clearly is in regards to the covenants, which EGW described as "truth" and "as clear as sunlight." I'd be happy to quote some passages of Waggoner on this subject if you'd like.

T: I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.

M:Now that you've clarified what you meant, I have a different question I'd like you to answer. Here it is - Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

T: Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement

T:So how can you say I didn't answer a question for 13 pages which you hadn't even asked?

M:Are you calling me a liar?

M: Let’s back up and start over. I believe Gen 3:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11 give as reason for keeping the Sabbath the fact God rested on that day. This reason is sufficient to trust and obey God intelligently rather than slavishly. No other reasons are needed. Do you agree?

T: This is a different question than you asked before. I view this as a hypothetical question, as I don't think anyone has been limited to the reasons given here. In particular, why ignore the other reasons given in the Pentateuch, all of which was written by Moses? In answer to your hypothetical question, I don't think just those 7 verses are enough to intelligently obey the Sabbath.

M: Yes, it is a different question.

I don't see where you answered my question. While under the NC did God require the Jews to obey and observe everything He commanded them {the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)? Was there anything God commanded them that stands in contradiction to the law of love, the moral law?

Saying that God required this may give a wrong impression. The NC is simply the writing of the law in the heart. Since love is the fulfilling of the law, it's equivalent to saying that God requires love. But love is not something one can require, it has to be voluntarily given. You don't meet a girl you like, and the require that she love you. It doesn't work that way. Love is awakened by love. We love God because He first loved us. His wonderful character inspires us to love Him, and love our neighbor too, if we do not resist the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Again, Isa 53 does not explain why Jesus had to die. It merely describes how He died. It also says it pleased God to bruise him.

Please show me where Moses explained why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Genesis 3:15 does not explain why. Also, show me where Moses explained why the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God.

T:You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?" I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

M:What vital truths are you referring to? And, how does my view differ from the view presented by Ellen and Elliot? Please post quotes from the SOP to support a view you believe contradicts what I believe. I cannot think of anything she taught that contradicts what I believe.

M:As you know I have already compared Ellen and Elliot and have come to conclusions, namely, I have found nothing he explains “more clearly” than she does. I doubt there is anything you can post which explains something “more clearly” than she did.

T: I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.

M:Now that you've clarified what you meant, I have a different question I'd like you to answer. Here it is - Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

T: Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement

M:Yes, sinners would be saved if they responded to the loving entreaties of God.

I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost.

If you don't see that Isaiah 53 explains Christ's death, I don't think I can help you. I'm sorry about that.

Please show me where Moses explained why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Genesis 3:15 does not explain why. Also, show me where Moses explained why the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God.

T: I don't understand why you're requesting these things. What's your point?

T:You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?" I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

M:What vital truths are you referring to? And, how does my view differ from the view presented by Ellen and Elliot? Please post quotes from the SOP to support a view you believe contradicts what I believe. I cannot think of anything she taught that contradicts what I believe.

T: I already suggested a course of action. Read what Waggoner wrote, being open to the possibility that when you disagree with him that he's right. I already explained that simply reading the SOP isn't likely to help, because you'll simply read her the same way you've been reading her. My opinion is that you could use something to give you a different perspective.

She said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she. You disagree with her on this, thinking she is clearer than Waggoner. I see another possibility. It might be that she is right about this, and that you are wrong. It might be that Waggoner's teachings are clearer than hers, and that you have been misunderstanding her teachings. So, again, my suggestion is that you read Waggoner's teachings with an open mind, ready to investigate candidly the areas where you disagree with him, open to changing your mind about his being wrong and disagreeing with the SOP.

If you wish a specific point to study, I would suggest the covenants, and I suggest you start by reading Waggoner's comments in "The Glad Tidings" to Gal. 3:16-18, as well as his comments to Gal. 4:24.

T: I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.

M:Now that you've clarified what you meant, I have a different question I'd like you to answer. Here it is - Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?

T: Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement

M:Yes, sinners would be saved if they responded to the loving entreaties of God.

T: To be clear, you are disagreeing with what you said previously? Namely, this: I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost.

Regarding your question to me, I don't think that sinners are either lost nor saved by default.

I am amazed you think it does. Nowhere does it say so. It merely describes Him suffering. You are mistaken if you think it describes why Jesus had to die.

I'm getting the impression you do not want to take the time to prove that Waggoner explains RBF or the NC/OC "more clearly" than did Ellen.

Fine. Suit yourself. But I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. It would serve you well to take the time to substantiate you claims. Simply saying it is so, or quoting the SOP as saying so, does not cut it any more. Please lay their quotes side-by-side and prove that he explains it "more clearly" than she does. That should settle it once and for all. But if you don't think you can do it, then please stop insisting it is so.

I agree with both of my statements above. Sinners are lost until they embrace Jesus and abide in Him.

T:Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement

"The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (DA 176)"

T:says that if one does not resist one will be saved?

M:Yes, sinners would be saved if they responded to the loving entreaties of God.

To be clear, you are disagreeing with what you said previously? Namely, this:

M:I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost.

Please elaborate on what you mean by - "I don't think that sinners are either lost nor saved by default." If they are neither lost nor saved what are they? Are they lost because they have sinned? "All have sinned." Who does this exclude? Does it mean, Not all have sinned.

None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ.(DA 387)

Perhaps. Perhaps your mistaken in not seeing something that many others have seen. Peter, to name one.

M: I'm getting the impression you do not want to take the time to prove that Waggoner explains RBF or the NC/OC "more clearly" than did Ellen.

T: The proof is in her own comment. If you don't believe what she said about it, how could I possibly prove it?

M: Fine. Suit yourself. But I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. It would serve you well to take the time to substantiate you claims. Simply saying it is so, or quoting the SOP as saying so, does not cut it any more. Please lay their quotes side-by-side and prove that he explains it "more clearly" than she does. That should settle it once and for all. But if you don't think you can do it, then please stop insisting it is so.

T: MM, I've laid out a course of action which I think would be helpful for you if you followed it. I've explained why I don't think your suggestion would work. You have a bias. You need to take a course of action which would allow for the bias to be corrected. This is, of course, simply my opinion, but given it is my opinion, I have suggested a way of proceeding which would have a chance of doing that.

It's not a question of my not being able to do what you have requested, but of my not believing it would serve a useful purpose. I have outlined what I believe might help, if you followed the suggestion.

M: I agree with both of my statements above. Sinners are lost until they embrace Jesus and abide in Him.

T: I didn't ask this. I asked the following: Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement . . .

"The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (DA 176)"

. . . says that if one does not resist one will be saved?

You responded: Yes, sinners would be saved if they responded to the loving entreaties of God. Since this was a rejection of your previous statement, I asked for confirmation on this: To be clear, you are disagreeing with what you said previously? Namely, this: I do not agree sinners must resist Jesus’ love to be lost.

You didn't respond to my question. Are you disagreeing with your previous statement that sinners must resist Jesus' love to be lost? I'm asking this because you said "yes" in answer to my question if you agreed that the statement I quoted taught that sinners must resist in order to be lost.

M: Please elaborate on what you mean by - "I don't think that sinners are either lost nor saved by default." If they are neither lost nor saved what are they? Are they lost because they have sinned? "All have sinned." Who does this exclude? Does it mean, Not all have sinned.

T: People enter the world as infants, without the ability to reason. Before the age of accountability, their being saved or lost depends upon a range of factors, including things beyond their control (such as the spiritual condition of their parents). So they are neither saved nor lost by default. The SOP says:


This tells us no one can be lost unless they resist the drawing love of God.

M: Please show me where Moses explained why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Genesis 3:15 does not explain why. Also, show me where Moses explained why the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God.

T: I don't understand why you're requesting these things. What's your point?

Please point out the verses that you feel describe why Jesus had to die, and then explain how you think they do it.

21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.(1 Pet. 2:22-25)

You're right, I do not believe Ellen's comment applies to everything she wrote about it. It reflected her opinion at the time. I think she was being humble or modest. Taken as a whole her insights regarding RBF and the NC/OC are equally as clear as Elliot's explanations.

Your unwillingness to place their insights side-by-side suggests you cannot prove your assertion that his insights are "more clearly" explained.

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16)

T: MM, I've laid out a course of action which I think would be helpful for you if you followed it. I've explained why I don't think your suggestion would work. You have a bias. You need to take a course of action which would allow for the bias to be corrected. This is, of course, simply my opinion, but given it is my opinion, I have suggested a way of proceeding which would have a chance of doing that.

It's not a question of my not being able to do what you have requested, but of my not believing it would serve a useful purpose. I have outlined what I believe might help, if you followed the suggestion.

M:You are dodging the point. Either you don't want to spend the time or you know you can't prove your assertion. I have read and compared their insights on RBF and the NC/OC and I know he does not explain them "more clearly". I don't have a burden for people to believe otherwise.

2:19 For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
2:20 For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.
2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that judgeth righteously:
2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

M: Please show me where Moses explained why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Genesis 3:15 does not explain why. Also, show me where Moses explained why the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God.

T: I don't understand why you're requesting these things. What's your point?