On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch.

M:The only thing they had before the Exodus was what Moses wrote about in Genesis.

Job says nothing about the Sabbath. If you disagree, please post inspired passages that teach otherwise.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses [Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11] require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

M:Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?"

T:I don't understand how your points about friends has to do with Jesus' point, that He was calling His disciples not servants, but friends, because a servant does not know what his lord is doing, but Jesus told them all things He had heard from His Father. This seems to me like the same idea EGW communicated in saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on an intelligent appreciation of God's character.

M:Tom, please address each point I made. It took me quite awhile to write them out. I would like to discuss them.

T:I did address it. I said I didn't understand your points. Simply asking again that I respond isn't going to help, if you don't explain your points. I'll address your points in the same way I did before; I don't understand your points.

[quote]"Because I said so" is an example of a "less than optimum reason" for obeying God. Obeying God because He said so, if it is the fruit of faith that works by love, is righteousness and true holiness. As such there is nothing slavish about it. The concept of "slavish obedience" must necessarily apply to something else.

I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer, for the servant does not know what his master is doing. (John 15:15; Amplified)

Obedience that flows from a heart where the Holy Spirit resides is true obedience. There is nothing robotic or slavish about it. You seem to think true obedience is impossible if it is rendered in response to, Obey me because I said so. If what you say is right, how do you explain all the places in the Bible where God commanded people to do things without explaining why? On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

Tom, I just read your last post to Arnold (106514). If I were in your shoes I would wonder why three intelligent posters on this forum have so much trouble understanding your position. If you're open to ideas I would say it's because you rarely state your position clearly. For someone who spends so much time instructing others how to clearly state their position it seems strange to me that you often fail to do so yourself.

How many of us would survive inside of any animal?

did God send the whale to keep jonah from drowning? how many of us would survive inside of any animal?

I've repeated asked that what I have written be quoted, and things be questioned or commented on the basis of that. If people take it upon themselves to assert that I believe or have stated things I've never said, I don't see how I can be held responsible for that, especially when I've been asking all along to be quoted.

Now if you, or Arnold, or whoever *quotes* something I said, and *that* is unclear, then I bear the responsibility of what I wrote being unclear.

For example, you state here that I rarely state my position clearly. On this thread I've stated my position over and over again, which is that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason and understanding. What's unclear about that? I've stated that God does not ask us to believe without giving us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. Isn't that clear as well?

"God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on evidence, reason, and understanding."

M: You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day? NOTE: The passage in Genesis is the only thing people had for 2500 years.

T: No it's not. I don't know why you would think this. There was a vast oral tradition, a part of which was included in the books of Moses, which include Job, as well as the Pentateuch.

M: The only thing they had before the Exodus was what Moses wrote about in Genesis.

T: No, this isn't true. They had a vast oral tradition, as I pointed out. This is what Moses wrote Job and the books of the Pentateuch from. Not all of the oral tradition was written down (also, much of what was written down was not part of the oral tradition, since it hadn't happened yet; e.g. the oral tradition did not contain the Exodus).

M: Job says nothing about the Sabbath. If you disagree, please post inspired passages that teach otherwise.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Do these verses [Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:8-11] require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain "better" reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?

T: I did answer this. Your assumption that this is all they had is incorrect.

M: God's people were not slaves for 2500 years. The Jews were slaves for less than 200 years. My question pertains to everyone who lived and kept the Sabbath before the Exodus. Did they render slavish obedience since the only reason God gave for keeping the Sabbath was because He rested on that day?

T: Same answer.

M: Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?"

T: I don't understand how your points about friends has to do with Jesus' point, that He was calling His disciples not servants, but friends, because a servant does not know what his lord is doing, but Jesus told them all things He had heard from His Father. This seems to me like the same idea EGW communicated in saying that God does not desire a slavish obedience, but one based on an intelligent appreciation of God's character.

M: Tom, please address each point I made. It took me quite awhile to write them out. I would like to discuss them.

T: I did address it. I said I didn't understand your points. Simply asking again that I respond isn't going to help, if you don't explain your points. I'll address your points in the same way I did before; I don't understand your points.

1. Now, as to your first question. Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Obviously, the kind of friendship Jesus is referring to isn't an ordinary friendship. Jesus is, after all, God, and we're only human, and sinful to boot. My earthly friendships are not predicated on doing whatever they command me to do. Do you see a difference? If not, please explain why you think the kind of friendship Jesus referred to is no different than the kind of friendships you and I form on earth with other humans.

2. Jesus also said, "Henceforth 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 must be understood in a limited sense, because obviously Jesus didn't tell them everything His Father told Him. Do you agree? By the way, when and where did Jesus ever call them servants?

For example, Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He left it to the Holy Spirit to explain certain things to the disciples later on. But not even the Holy Spirit could tell them everything. Elsewhere we read, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Do you agree Jesus didn’t tell them everything His Father told Him, that the comment “all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” refers to a specific set of topics and not to everything else Jesus learned from His Father?

3. "Henceforth I call you not servants." Even this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Well done, thou good and faithful servant . . . enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." Do you agree that these passages imply Jesus still considers His informed and faithful followers as servants? If not, then please explain what you think they mean.

4. There is also the fact the disciples and apostles referred to themselves as servants. For example, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Why do you think these holy people of God continued referring to themselves as servants after Jesus said what He did about servants and friends?

5. "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." Again, this statement must be understood in a limited sense. Jesus also said, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Obviously this servant was in the know. Nevertheless, he didn't obey his master. The end of such servants is less than desirable. "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Do you agree this servant knew the will of his lord? If so, how do you reconcile this passage with what Jesus said about servants in the passage under discussion, namely, "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth."

6. So, what did Jesus mean when He said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth 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." Again, I believe it must be understood within the immediate context.

Here it is: [John 15:1-17 quoted] This is the context of the statement, "All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." In particular, Jesus made known to them the following things:

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

This is what it takes to be Jesus' friend. But being His friend does not mean we stop being His servant. He will always be our Lord and Master, and we will always be His servants and friends. Again, this type of friendship is unique in that it doesn't resemble normal earthly friendships. Beings friends with the Lord and Master of the Universe is not the same thing as being friends with angels or humans or any other FMA. For one thing, we are not His equal.

Do you agree with these observations? If not, please explain exactly what and why you disagree with them. Thank you.

7. Consider also the fact Jesus called Judas "friend" the night he betrayed Jesus into the hands of sinners. "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" A similar thing exists in the following passages where Jesus is portrayed as calling people "friend" when they are in fact not His friends. "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?" "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" Why does Jesus call such people friends? In what sense are they His friend? Do they know everything Jesus knows and is that what makes them His friend? Satan knows everything they know, does that make him Jesus’ friend, too? If not, why not? Please explain what you believe about it.

M: "Because I said so" is an example of a "less than optimum reason" for obeying God. Obeying God because He said so, if it is the fruit of faith that works by love, is righteousness and true holiness. As such there is nothing slavish about it. The concept of "slavish obedience" must necessarily apply to something else.

T: The faith that works by love is based on evidence, as God always gives us sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith: "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith (SC 105)". Because I said so is not evidence. This is probably where you and I (and Arnold and I) disagree. At least, this is what I'm understanding. You and he view "Because I said so" as evidence upon which to base our faith, because we already know God, and therefore that's all that's needed. What I'm understanding is that God, even after we know Him, still does not want an obedience which is not based on evidence, reason, or understanding in relation to the item under consideration.

Without considering evidence, it would be very easy to be under the delusion that one is obeying God while actually obeying the enemy. Regarding what the concept of slavish obedience encompasses, there's no need to speculate. We're told what it is. It's as opposed to "intelligent appreciation." Jesus describes it in terms of not knowing what the master is doing.

M: Obedience that flows from a heart where the Holy Spirit resides is true obedience. There is nothing robotic or slavish about it. You seem to think true obedience is impossible if it is rendered in response to, Obey me because I said so. If what you say is right, how do you explain all the places in the Bible where God commanded people to do things without explaining why? On one occasion a guy didn't obey and he ended up in the belly of a whale.

T: Jesus said, "I do not call you servants (slaves) any longer" which implies there was a time when He did. So if one is unwilling to keep step with God, God will humble Himself and keep step with man. The Old and New Covenant is a perfect illustration of this theme.