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.

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.


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.


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.

When my 10yo gets into this sort of foolishness, she is invariably unhappy. I point out to her that she feels that way because she has no peace, and that is because, deep down, she is scared that instead of being raised by wise parents, she is being raised by an unwise 10-year-old. When you make your understanding a requirement for obedience, you are being led by Tom, not the Spirit. And we know who are the children of God - those led by the Spirit.

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.

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?

Nicely worded.

Arnold, I'm an SDA. I don't know why you make this comment in regards to me. Obviously I don't believe the Sabbath commandment is over-complicated. Regarding your father, I said nothing of the sort that he was correct in his disregard of God's plain instructions. You said that he was too proud to believe God would require obedience without understanding. I took issue with what you said here. God does not desire a slavish obedience.

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.

There are untold numbers of Christians who do not keep the Sabbath. Do you think they are all guilty of what you accuse me and your father of?



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.



This is exactly what I've been saying.



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



I disagree. I've been pointing out that *God* requires that we render an obedience by faith based on evidence, as stated above in SC.



For God, His commanding "blind obedience" without reference to reason or evidence is not desirable. God does not wish a slavish obedience. This isn't "Tom's wisdom." There are plenty more quotes like the above in SC:











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



This speaks of God's being "reasonable," and of His being a "kind Father." These go hand in hand.

It seems to me that it is the idea that God would be pleased with an obedience which involves neither evidence nor reason that is dangerous.

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



This is a FOTAP question. God gave more reasons than this.



This is a FOTAP question. Their obedience is not in question in the commandment, which is directed to the master of the house, not the stranger.



If a person has the mentality of an ignorant slave, and wishes to obey, I don't see why God would refuse such. God is very gracious, and may accept things He does not desire. But He would prefer us to be "friends, not servants," as Jesus explained.

Let me try this again for the 4th time: "Intelligent appreciation" is a good thing. (I'm going to be an expert at copy/paste before this is over, it seems.)

Why do you keep saying I believe something that I obviously do not? It is a straw man, and is beneath one of your skills as a logician.

Furthermore, I think I explained before that trusting that 1) God is good, and 2) God is wise constitute a good reason to do what He says. At least, for some of us it does. We walk by faith, not by sight - as in, "seeing" that He has a good reason for commanding what He does.

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


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


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. But their faith in following my instructions before they get my explanations may prove crucial to them surviving long enough to hear 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.

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.