Not at all. This is common knowledge.



It's an oral tradition, MM, not a written one.



You're insisting all they had was Gen. 2:1-3. I'm pointing out this isn't the case.



Scripture doesn't discuss how it was formed. It doesn't even define what is canonical. That there was knowledge obtained and passed along by holy men before the Bible is brought out here:



Regarding your question, no, I don't agree.



I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You asked, "Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?" This is based on a false assumption. I already explained this. "Same answer" was referring to this explanation.

I'll treat your 7 points separately.



Let me ask, do you disagree with what I wrote? If so, what did you disagree with? In response to your example, it doesn't apply, as Moses's faith was based on reason, evidence and understanding.



No. I think you're missing the whole point here.



The following explains my point:



I underlined some spots of particular interest, which explain the logic involved.

I'd suggest reading the whole chapter: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm

This chapter goes into a lengthy explanation. EGW spoke well of Waggoner's teaching on the covenants, which she called "clear as sunlight."

God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6.

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7.

They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image.

They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}
The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2}
The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

In John 15 Jesus said that he no longer was calling His disciples servants (or slaves; same Greek word) but friends. The reason was because He had told them what He had heard from His father. So the difference between obedience as slaves (or servants) is that it lacks a knowledge of what the Master is doing.

I'm not understanding your point about a friendship with Christ being different than other friendships.



Jesus said, "for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you." You say, "obviously Jesus didn't tell them everything His Father told Him." You look to be contradicting what Jesus said here. Jesus said, "for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you." You say He didn't do this. I believe Jesus did what He said He did.



Since Jesus said, "no longer," before He said this ("no longer" etc.) he did.



No. Jesus said, "for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you." I agree with what Jesus said. Since there were things Jesus didn't tell them, the logical inference is that the things Jesus didn't tell them were not the "all things I have heard from my Father," since Jesus said, of these, "I have made (them) known unto you."



In John 15 Jesus said he no longer called them servants but friends, and He explained why. I believe what Jesus said. He's not saying "servants and friends," but "not servants, but friends." He's pointing out a contrast. He explains the reason for the contrast.



I think it's fine for followers of Jesus to refer to themselves as servants, if they are willing to do for the Lord what Paul was willing to do.



I don't see that there's anything to reconcile. I think Jesus' message in John 15 is clear. He "no longer" called His disciples servants but friends because He was now explaining to them all things which He had heard from His Father.

In regards to the parable you cited, I would say it, rather than Jesus statement in John 15, is what is limited. That is, that servant could hardly be described as knowing what his master was doing. The servant did not have faith, but viewed his master as a despot. In the parable, Jesus had the master answering in accordance to the misunderstanding that the servant had, explaining that even according to this misunderstanding of the master's true character, he was still guilty of behaving poorly. The servant in the parable was not even a true servant, let alone a friend.



Jesus said, "15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

This is very clear. Jesus says:

1.I call you not servants.
2.Why? Because the servant does not know what his master does.
3.I call you friends.
4.Why? Because all things I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Jesus makes a contrast here, and explains the reason for the contrast.



No, MM, I don't agree. I agree with what Jesus said. When Jesus said that He "no longer" was calling His disciples "servants," that means He used to, but was discontinuing doing so. He was now calling them "friends" instead. He says, "but I have called you friends." Not "and I am calling you friends too" rather "but" I have called you friends.



I believe that God is gracious, and that God considers His enemies as friends, and treats them as such. So when Jesus called Judas "friend," He was disclosing how He felt about Judas in His heart. Jesus loved Judas, loved him as a friend, despite his treachery.

Regarding Satan, no, Satan does not know what God does.



Satan doesn't even understand what God does, let alone know it.

To know what God does encompasses more than the idea that God is physically performing some action. It involves an understanding of God's character and the principles of His government, as well as faith in God and love for Him.

Tom, the fact you must repeatedly restate your position suggests it wasn't clear enough the first time. I'm guessing the reason some people do not quote you is because what you posted wasn't clear enough to quote. But perhaps you are improving. I don't know.

You wrote, "God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding." Are you implying people who obey God based on evidence alone counts as slavish? And, aren't you also implying "slavish obedience" is not true obedience (in the sense it is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit dwelling within)?

You also wrote, "I've stated that God does not ask us to believe without giving us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith." What do you consider sufficient? Isn't it rather subjective? "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me." Does this song refer to sufficient evidence? For me it does. How about you?

For example, it matters not to me that I can't prove God exists, or that I can't prove He created everything in 7 days. Note: Some people argue God created everything in 6 days, but they overlook the fact God created the seventh day on the seventh day.

What point are you making in posting this quote? This would be a good quote for the Covenant thread.

That doesn't make any sense. You know how to quote people. You just highlight what they wrote with your mouse, and put the quote tags around it. If there's something unclear, select that, and quote it.



It's not an unusual thing for people to be misquoted. This happens any time new positions are suggested. Jerome, I think it was, was pressured to retract "his" position. He complained that he had never taught the things he was being pressured to retract, and asked how he could retract some position he never held.

This isn't to detract from the possibility that I'm being unclear. If someone who holds to the same position I hold told me I was being unclear, I would certainly accept that. If someone who holds to a different position than mine refused to quote what I wrote and instead takes it upon themselves to assert things I've never said, it might or might not be the case that the problem is a lack of clarity on my part. If someone quotes something I said, and says they don't understand what that means, that would sound more like a lack of clarity or understanding what was said, and I would be glad to clarify.



Evidence not based on reason and understanding? No, I didn't have this in mind. In fact, the possibility of such a thing is not something I would have thought of without your mentioning it. Now that you have mentioned it, I must admit your concept doesn't make sense to me. How can you have evidence that doesn't involve reason or understanding? What good is evidence that is not understood?



No, I haven't addressed this. What I've said is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason and understanding.



Actually Ellen White said it, in SC 105, which I cited.



She addresses this question in the quote.



How is this different than the slavish obedience which God does not desire? Where does evidence, reason, or understanding fit into this?



Of course you can't prove this, but God has provided evidence for these things, so that a person looking for a faith based on evidence, reason and understanding can find the support needed for such faith.

God can tell us what to do without providing evidence or reason, and neither would it be conditional upon our understanding or comprehending why. The fact God said it is all the motivation we need to trust the Holy Spirit to empower us to cheerfully comply. This is not to say additional reasons and evidence wouldn’t be helpful in understanding why. It’s just that it wouldn’t be necessary to rely on the Holy Spirit to empower us to obey.


The reason is because God said it. Obeying God because He said so doesn’t sound slavish to me. Would you say obedience based on this reason alone is made possible by the indwelling Spirit of God? If so, how, then, can you label it slavish? If not, what is the origin and source of such obedience?

Also, please cite an example from the Bible of slavish obedience. And, explain why it constitutes slavish obedience. Thank you.


What is the evidence that God exists? What is the evidence that He created the world in 7 days? Is it based on more than a “Thus saith the Lord” or “It is written”? What are the reasons? What is the understanding? Can we safely place these truths on hold until we have more evidence and reasons than a mere "Thus saith the Lord" or a mere "It is written"?

it backs up the quote from glad tidings in post #106735.

Above you spoke of people who obey God on "evidence alone." I asked you what this means. You didn't explain this. Here you're talking about obeying God without evidence.

Regarding an example of slavish obedience, the whole history of the COI is an example of slavish obedience, with the notable exceptions of those who had faith. The Pharisees would be the epitome of slavish obedience.

Regarding the questions of God's existence:

Here are some statements which deal with the importance of faith based on evidence. How Jesus proceeded on the road to Emmaus is a good example. He didn't just tell them the truth, so that they would believe it "because I said so," but explained things from Scripture, so their faith would be based on evidence, reason and understanding.

The last statement discusses what happens when people do things because "God said so," without understanding why.