You didn't answer my question.

Yes.

(Repost)

Exodus doesn't say anything about 10 explanations. I disagree with your take on what happened in Exodus. I don't believe God "wipes people out" because they don't do what He says. Jesus Christ was the revelation of God. Did He wipe people out because they didn't do what He said? No, He allowed Himself to suffer the most atrocious death rather than "wipe them out." He could have "wiped them out," as He explained to Peter, but this simply isn't God's character, as Jesus explained:




This is God's character! Rather than "wiping out" those who don't do what He says, He gives His life for them.




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.

Tom, I'm having a hard time understanding your position and understanding what you're opposing. It sounds like you agree God expects us to obey Him even if we don't understand all the reasons why. You also seem to admit that God wants us to seek answers as to why He requires us to obey because He prefers intelligent obedience. Then you seem to argue that God's ultimate goal is for us to obey Him as friends. There seems to be a progression.

If this is what you believe, and I'm not just misunderstanding you, then it sounds like people who obey God before they understand all the reasons why, are not rendering intelligent obedience, nor are they acting like God's friends.

MM, there's a context to this discussion. It started with the idea that God will zap our memories so that we no longer remember certain things. This is based on what I perceive to be an overly literal interpretation of a statement by Ellen White. I've presented the explanation of this statement by Waggoner, a contemporary of Ellen White who wrote at a time when Ellen White could have responded to correct him had he been wrong. Waggoner's explanation makes perfect sense to me.

From that discussion arose the current one. In the former discussion Arnold made the following comment, which is also posted on this thread:



I've taken issue with this idea. I don't believe the problem here (just based on this small description; of course, I'm sure there's much more to what's going on than this small description) looks to be that Arnold's father, along with the rest of his church, is too proud, but that they don't understand that there is a reason that they should keep the Sabbath.

This isn't a question of understanding "all the reasons why" but of not understanding *any* reason why. If you read through the thread, you will see I've pointed out that God will not remove every hook upon which a doubt could be hanged, which is akin to understanding "all the reasons why." "All the reasons why" has not been what this discussion has been regarding.

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.

I don't think this is the basis upon which God wants us to obey the principles of His government. I think He wants us to obey them because *we* have a conviction that these principles are right and true.

Again, the issue is not what's good enough for us, but what's good enough for God. I agree that it would be enough for *us* to simply do whatever God says, since God is good and wise, but, as I've been saying, I don't believe this is good enough for God. This would be the obedience of a slave. That's not what God wants. Jesus said that He's called not servants, but friends because a servant does not know what his master does, but He has told us all things. I understand this to mean that God desires obedience based on an intelligent understanding of His principles.



I think he was wrong in his attitude towards his business associate. This wouldn't affect his being correct in regards to not keeping a day for which he saw no reason.

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.

No, I've never said this.



If faith involves understanding, then this is harmony with what I've been saying.



No, I haven't been saying this. I've been saying that God does not desire slavish obedience. I've been saying it's not enough for God that He simply tells us what to do, and we do it, with no understanding of why. If we have no idea what we're doing, or why, how would we even know we are following God? This seems like a perfect formula for following an impostor.



If I'm arguing that obedience includes understanding, that means it includes light, so what you're writing here would not be in opposition to what I've been discussing, but in harmony with it.