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?

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."



I've quoted what Jesus said, that He has called us "not servants but friends," and that He explained the reason why as being because a servant does not know what His master is doing. I have suggested that EGW's statement that God does not desire a slavish obedience from us is in harmony with Jesus' teaching.



No. I don't think I've written anything to indicate this. I've been discussing the difference between an obedience in which reason plays no part vs. an obedience in which reason does play a part.



No.



Your premise is false. God isn't OK with what you're suggesting; He does not desire a slavish obedience.

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? And having been an SDA for 20 years, he's probably heard a few sermons and studies on this. But then, it's not just the Sabbath that is unnecessary, but all of God's law.

BTW, the leader of his church was an SDA elder for many years, running countless evangelistic and revival meetings. His father was a pastor who was very prominent in the Filipino SDA community. His father-in-law was such an influential figure in the history of Adventism in the Philippines that the book he wrote on evangelism is the standard text used to this day among the lay people, and is referred to, not by the title, but by the author's last name. So it's not likely that ignorance is a factor there either.

Not if it wasn't clear to him.

Regarding the rest of your post, I wasn't commenting on any of this, but simply on the point that I quoted, which had to do with your comment that your father was "too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding."

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.

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.

I've had my aha moments as well. There were times of clarity when I said, "Oh, so that's what He meant about keeping the day holy."

However, there has never been a time when I said, "Oh, so He meant don't go to work when He said 'thou shalt not do any work' on the Sabbath" or "Oh, so He meant the seventh day when He said 'seventh day,' not any day I want."

There are some things that are clearer than others. But confusion in the things that are unclear is not a license to disregard the things that are clear.

I should note that there were times when I did go to work on the Sabbath. But that was not because I didn't understand, but because I rebelled.

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



I was just taking your statement at fact value. As I pointed out, I'm not privy to additional information.

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.

Obedience depends upon faith. Faith depends upon understanding. You don't need to put trust, or have faith, in your competence, but trust, or faith, depends upon understanding.

God has given to each one a measure of faith. He has made us in His image, with the ability to reason. God desires that we use our ability to reason to weigh the evidence and act accordingly. He does not desire a slavish obedience which does not involve the mind or reason. This isn't to say that faith is only reason, or understanding, but these are certainly elements of faith.



If you have no understanding, you have no light; you just have darkness.