Certainly, God is the source of the initial seed of faith. And I'm pretty sure that He is also the source of its growth, through various manifestations of His character. But I don't have anything solid.

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

Or maybe, Jesus was saying, "I tell you WHAT I am doing" as opposed to, "I explain everything to you so you know WHY I command certain things." There's a huge difference.

You misunderstand what I'm saying.

"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.

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?"

I doubt Ellen White intended to contradict Jesus.

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?

It's seems pretty incredible to me that you would just not consider the historical evidence because you think I don't understand some things which are clear to you. For almost a century, there were no pre-lapsarian statements from any SDA publication. I think 1947 was the first year anything appeared, when something appeared in a Ministry magazine.

The historical argument is very strong. It's easy to interpret Ellen White in different ways, but not so easy to deal with the historical facts.

The same principle applies to Scripture. For example, Paul is interpreted in many different ways, but if one considers the historical setting, certain interpretations can be ruled out, even if grammatically they might be possible.

You could, but it would be misapplied. You are a competent enough logician to easily see why that is.

You are making a universal claim that God never requires obedience before understanding. To refute that universal claim, I only need to find one counterexample. I found several.

I, OTOH, am not making a universal claim. I don't claim that the examples I posted are always the way it works. I am saying that God neither requires nor forbids understanding before obedience. He requires obedience, whether or not you understand the reasons for His commands. An example of either obedience without understanding or obedience with understanding poses no problem for me whatsoever.


You said (with my emphasis), "He calls us 'friends' because a 'servant' does not know WHAT his master is doing." That is true, and I agree with you.

However, you extrapolate that to mean that Jesus expects us to always know WHY He does something. Furthermore, you claim that God does not want us to obey a command unless we understand its rationale. Both are unwarranted from the verse you cited, or from any other verse I can think of.

It's not a matter of difficulty of understanding (or in some cases, simply disagreeing) the subject. But it is seeing that which is not there, and not seeing that which is.

Look at our short exchange:

You interpretation of my statement is so foreign to my intent that it could even be considered diametrically opposed to my meaning. I'm not saying you did that on purpose, but it happened anyway. And if this can happen to something so recent and simple as our discussion, how much more likely it is to happen when studying articles written over a century ago, involving the evolution of ideas which span decades.


With the notable exception of the SOP. There are many statements about Jesus not being just like us.

Regarding obedience and understanding, I am questioning that it is possible to render obedience without understanding.

Secondly, I have stated God does not desire a slavish obedience. Do we agree on this point?

Third, I quoted Jesus Christ saying that we are friends, and not servants, because a servant does not know what His master does. Doesn't this agree with the principles I've been suggesting?

Ok, I see from your response later on that you don't understand this to mean that we should know why the master is doing something. So your idea is that we are called friends because we are told what God does, but not why. This seems like a weird understanding of friendship to me. I understand the concept of friend to include implicitly why as well as what. A friend is someone with whom you share confidences; indeed, this seems to have been Jesus' whole point in saying this. To a servant you simply say, "Do!," and the servant does. To a friend, however, one shares confidences, and hopes for understanding and cooperation. It's a completely different mind-set.



No, not excepting her. This isn't a viable historical possibility, which is my point. The historical points involve her

a.Explicitly endorsing post-lapsarian teachings.
b.Explicitly defending post-lapsarian teachings that she was a part of.
c.Her contemporaries including her in their post-lapsarian understandings.

For example, on the last point "c," S. N. Haskell, to demonstrate that "we" believed that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall read from the Desire of Ages, and stated:



Ellen White was aware of what S. N. Haskell wrote.

It's hard to conceive how all of EGW's contemporaries could be post-lapsarian, and believe that EGW was a post-lapsarian, quote her with her knowledge to establish this point, while in reality she was believing something completely different, without anyone knowing it, while endorsing people whole would be in reality holding a different view than hers.

Tom, does this passage describe your walk in the Lord? That is, do you understand everything as clearly as Jesus did while He was here?

The passage describes Jesus' intent for His followers. He desires that we be not servants, but friends. Why? Because He has told us about His Father.

The passage is not specifically describing my experience. It's as applicable to you or me or anyone else who chooses to respond to Jesus' wishes.