Regarding #106147, I think my first comment below addresses this.



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.



As adults, we have the ability to weigh evidence and reason, and this is what God expects us to do. "All should decide from the weight of evidence." (RH 9/16/73) "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith" (SC 105). The "instructions" which God gives come with sufficient evidence so that a reasoned choice may be made. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to decide from the weight of evidence.



What you see is not difficult to follow. I simply disagree with it. I disagree because you are considering beings who cannot reason to be equivalent, in terms of the point you are making, to beings who can.



It doesn't work because of the lack of ability to reason. It's not how much better one is able to reason than another, but the lack of ability to reason at all that causes the analogy to fail.

His ways are past finding out in the sense that we cannot know all that He considers, but this doesn't mean we can't know something about it. In particular, we are told that God gives us enough evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision. Certainly we can and should trust God in regards to the things we do not understand.



As adults, we have the ability to weigh evidence and reason, and this is what God expects us to do. "All should decide from the weight of evidence." (RH 9/16/73) "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith" (SC 105). The "instructions" which God gives come with sufficient evidence so that a reasoned choice may be made. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to decide from the weight of evidence.

No, you misunderstand me. What I'm presenting is that a friend needs to convince his friend of the merits of his suggestions, while a father only needs to convince his son of his overall love and wisdom. Therefore, a friend requires reasons, while a son obeys implicitly.

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.

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.

I've been pointing out that I don't believe *God* is willing to give us commands that are not based on evidence or reason. I think God is correct in this, for a number of reasons. One is that it would be dangerous to have a faith not based on evidence or reason. It is this kind of "faith" that the enemy desires.

Another is that I don't believe this to be in harmony with God's character. Given that He does not desire a slavish obedience, that He desires obedience based on intelligent appreciation, evidence, and reason, why would God give us commands which would be contrary to these aspects of His character?

You keep framing things in terms of things which are not acceptable to me, but I don't see that as the issue. I see the issue as involving what's acceptable to God. I don't believe that "obedience" which is not based on understanding, evidence, or reason is something God desires, because of His character.

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?

I simply responded to what you said *using your own words* in regards to what Christ said as opposed to something Ellen White said. Therefore *you* must have felt your understanding was sufficient to say to me that I was disagreeing with Ellen White, even though I was "only regurgitating what the SOP said."



IMO, without question, neither you nor I understand this issue fully.

In regards to reconciling the statements, I think in the army quotes, Ellen White was dealing with a different issue. If she were dealing with the same issue, this would be a contradiction, since in SC 105, and other places, she says that God always provides evidence sufficient for us to base our decisions. The issue I think she is dealing with in the other quotes is one of a rebellious attitude.

How would you reconcile these statements?

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


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


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

The case of Abraham is an involved one. To put things as simply and briefly as possible, given where Abraham was coming from, I don't think his was a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason and understanding. I would agree that given what we know today, that what Abraham did could be characterized as "slavish obedience," but Abraham did not know what we know today.



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.

"He no longer desires that we obey His commands based on weighing evidence"? Are you serious? I wrote this somewhere? Is this the best argument you can muster to bolster your position, to impute this idea to me? Either I am a very bad writer, or you are a very bad exegete.

That's as wrong this time as the last time you threw it out to see if it would stick. For the 5th time: "Intelligent appreciation" is a good thing. (Please take note of it, because my Control, C, and V keys are being worn out.) If you're not sure what that means, ask me and I can try to explain. But I can tell you right now that what you think I meant barely resembles what I actually meant. Good thing I'm still around to explain myself yet again.

Straw men are easier to knock down than real ones, but the activity is ultimately fruitless.

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.