Arthur, I'm not setting up a straw man. I asked a question, trying to understand what you wrote. I don't think you are expressing yourself very clearly. You could get someone else's opinion on this. If you are expressing yourself clearly, someone else should be able to present your argument for you. If they can do that, then I'll be happy to admit that you were a better writer than I was an exegete.

I don't understand why you feel it's necessary to resort to sarcasm. How does this help your position?

I also don't understand why you think it's OK for you to ascribe bad motivations to my questions and comments. I can assure you with a clear conscience, the Holy Spirit bearing witness, that all I was trying to do was to clarify your thought.

Please consider the last paragraph of my previous post. I would be interested in your thoughts on this. Do you agree with what I wrote?

There is no disagreement, because inspiration tells us that we have evidence of God's voice based on our previous experience with Him, reason to believe that He always wants what is best for us, and understanding that He knows what is best for us. You just don't understand how that can be sufficient, without more details. It is implicit faith in our loving and wise Father.

I'm questioning the whole premise, that God would tell you to do something without providing evidence for why, by which I mean evidence as to the command itself (not simply evidence that God wants what's best for us, for example).

Regarding discernment/evidence, I asked you the question as to how you would know it was God telling you something if one accepts the premise that He will tell you to do things without your having to have any understanding as to why. Do you have something to go on beyond simply being confident of your ability to recognize God's voice?



I don't think this is what she's talking about in SC 105, or the other quotes I provided.

sometimes yes, sometimes no. it depends on the commands and the circumstances.

God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt not kill, shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal." He gave no explanations. Do you think that God did not expect them to keep these commandments until He had explained His reasons for giving them?


I don't know. Abraham didn't have much to go on either. Yet, he was going to kill his son.

In any case, you are now dragging a red herring into the discussion. You are now talking about not being sure if God is the one telling you stuff, and not someone else. What we have been talking about all this time was whether or not we should obey commands given by God, even if He gave no rationale. Those are very different things.


Just because she's not talking about that in any particular place, does not make it wrong. That's simple logic.

However, she does talk about it in the other quotes I presented. That, IMO, goes a long way toward the concept being right.

What I've been saying is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, that He desires that we obey Him on the basis of weighing evidence and by using reason and understanding. In the case of "thou shalt have no other gods before me" there's a whole bunch of evidence involved here! Just think of all that happened before this command was given. There's the whole experience of the Exodus, and the happenings on Mt. Sinai.

Regarding stealing, don't you think it's likely that the Israelites understood stealing was wrong? If they understood it was wrong, then they could obey with understanding.



It's not a red herring. It's a very serious matter. This is one of the principle reasons I feel the point of view you are presenting is dangerous. IMO, it leaves one wide open to the deceptions of the enemy.

I think the idea that one can obey God with no understanding or reason is the sort of thinking behind fundamentalist extremism in many forms of religion. Once one takes reason out of the equation, that's very dangerous. People can do, and have done, very terrible things under the conviction that they were following God's orders.



Here's the SC 105 quote:



These are the ideas I've been trying to share. God *never* asks us to believe without evidence upon which to base our faith. Why not? Because He does not desire a slavish obedience. He wants an obedience based on reason.



That God desires that we rely on common sense and reason tells us something about who He is.

Here is how the creation account and commandment read. I've underlined the words that explain why God commanded people to rest on the seventh day.

Genesis
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The point is - The commandment to rest on the seventh day is based on, Because I rested on the seventh day, rather than on an elaborate explanation.

The question is - Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain better reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

Arnold, thank you for this excellent example. I appreciate how you present things using practical examples. I trained my children in the same way. On one occasion it paid off dearly. When my oldest son was 10 years old he was about to walk in front of four people swinging on a pallet swing. I hollered, "Jeff, stop!" He obeyed my command immediately. It saved his life. My heart and knees were so weak I collapsed and cried like a baby.

Tom, I was disappointed you didn't respond to this post. It explains things so nicely. Did you overlook it?

yes, it is an excellent point. now, why did your children obey instantly, assuming that they were raised with love, and not like my dad?

Regarding #106209, there's also this:



And this:



And this:



One could argue that Isa. 58 was written afterward, but it seems likely the Israelites would have had an oral tradition already involving the principle Isaiah lays out.

Regarding #106210, my posts #106055 #106037 deal with the points raised in what you cited.

A couple of questions for you MM.

1.What does it mean that Jesus said He calls us "friends, not servants," because He has made things known to us?

2.What is "a slavish obedience," as spoken of here?