Here's the problem with "obeying" God without any idea of why you're doing what your doing. If you don't know why you're doing something, with no thought of the principles of God's kingdom, then Satan can tell you something impersonating Christ and you'll think you're following Christ when it's really Satan.

You speak of trust, but how do you know it's God you're trusting and not the enemy?



Why are the people of God not misled? Because that which the false christ speaks is not in accordance with the Scriptures. Notice how Satan will pronounce blessings upon the very group which is accursed. We can't avoid being misled if we don't understand the principles of God and His Kingdom.



If you don't think this could happen to you, you're mistaken. Our only defense is in knowing that truth about God.

Regarding Abraham, the next sentence from the GC quote says:



Abraham may have had some things to learn. For example:



Now IIRC Abraham said of the sacrifice more than once, "God will provide." Perhaps God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son as a way to make clear to others that this was not God's way.

In Hebrews we read:



So we read that Abraham's actions were predicated on reasoning and faith.

If we trust God, and God tells us He doesn't desire slavish obedience but obedience based on intelligent appreciation, reasoning and evidence, wouldn't our trust in Him be manifest by believing this?

If God never asks us to belief something without presenting evidence, this must extend itself to obedience as obedience involves belief.

What? The OT?



This is referring to the OT when Jesus called His disciples servants?



Ok. I wonder if I can think of any more. I found 4 total, but I had to look. I'm curious, when you declared,



on what basis did you do so? Just because you couldn't think of anything? Or did you look?

Another thing comes to mind. In our discussion regarding the meaning of Christ's death, you assert that Christ clearly explained the meaning of His death, although it's not recorded. Using your own logic here, then, since it's not recorded, He must not have taught it.

Here's the place that came to me off the top of my mind:





By the context, the same way English differentiates the different meanings of words. For example, "run" has over a hundred meanings. How do you what it means? How do you know what "officer" means? A policeman? A commander in the military? Someone with an important position in a company?

Wouldn't this apply to the disciples as well? I mean, wasn't their service and devotion to Jesus voluntary? If so, how, then, can we say they were servants before they were friends?


Please answer the question anyhow. Thank you.


Does it mean He doesn't love them if He calls them servant?


Are you a friend of Jesus?


There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. What do you mean? What criteria do you use to determine whether someone is a servant or a friend?


I cannot divorce John 15:15 from the rest of the Gospels and treat it in isolation or as if it exists in a vacuum. Clearly it does not. Obviously the difference has to do with Jesus' perspective. He is the one who decided to view them in a different light using different titles. In light of everything I've posted about it so far, I think it means Jesus felt as if He had conveyed enough of what He knew to His disciples to begin thinking of them in terms of friends.

But, this is not to say they were as informed as Jesus was or that they understood what Jesus told them. Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Immediately after calling them friends, Jesus referred to them as servants. "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord." The fact they didn't understand everything Jesus knew is clear from the following passage:


Shortly thereafter all of them abandoned Him, disowned Him, and one of them even denied Him thrice. Such ignorance and behavior is not indicative of the term or title "friend" according to your criteria.

Nevertheless, for reasons that made sense to Jesus, He viewed them as friends in spite of the fact He knew they didn't understand everything He told them and that they were going to betray Him in just a little while. Obviously Jesus was using a different criteria for friends than you are.

Why was it necessary for him to rely on reason and faith? Was it because God did not explain why He said, Go and sacrifice your son? Does God expect us to assume His commands are right and reasonable so that we can obey Him unslavishly?


God will not command me to do something that contradicts His will and law. Abraham’s story with Isaac was unique.


My point is once God earns our trust and respect He doesn’t have to explain why He commands us to do this or that. Obedience based on a precedence of trust and respect is unslavish. I served the USA as an airman in the Air Force. When a superior ranking officer ordered me to do something, I did not require of him the reasons why. My obedience was based on trust and respect and for the good of the team (squad, flight). My children rendered the same kind of obedience. Such obedience is intelligent and not at all slavish.


Yes, I did a word search and nothing turned up. That is, where Jesus called servants. I did find where Jesus said they should serve one another as servants. “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. . . But 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.”


I suspect the very opposite of what you think I believe. I suspect Jesus did call them servants but it wasn’t recorded. His inferences were recorded but none of them reflect him calling them servants directly. Neither do such inferences indicate they stopped being servants.


Do you know of any biblical examples where the context makes it clear the Greek word is differentiating between slave (involuntary service) and servant (voluntary service)?

I started to post this, and lost it, sorry. I don't have time to go through it all, but I think the following covers the most important points, although you're certainly free to bring up any points again.



I think Jesus said He was calling them friends as opposed to servants because the servant does what he is told, without the knowledge of why being important. Jesus made this same point in the parable of the servants.

As opposed to simply doing something because one is told, Jesus is revealing them "all things I received from the Father," which is not simply verbal information (the SOP points out Christ wasn't simply communicating words to them is revealing all things, but what He was doing was included as well), so that they can do things because they have an understanding of what's going on. Calling them friends indicates a higher level of trust and taking others into one's confidence.



If you mean they didn't act as they should have, as friends, you're right. Their behavior wasn't indicative of that as a friend.



He called Judas "friend" as well. He did so because He loved him.



Your basing this comment on the basis of their behavior, it looks like. I think it's obvious you've made the wrong conclusion. You should have concluded they didn't behave as friends.

It's impossible to please God without faith. God wants us to have faith. Faith is a good thing.



No.



What are you asking here?



Which is exactly the point! This is precisely what I've been pointing out, and exactly what I've been saying, which just slightly different language (e.g. knowing God's character, the principles of His government).

If you know God's will and law, the foundation upon which you determine whether a command you receive is from God or not, then you're obey on the basis of understanding, and if you love the law, then from intelligent appreciation.

I'll think I'll stop here, since this has been my whole point.

Yeah, that's what I said.


That's why I said it has more to do with Jesus' perspective.


Again, it's Jesus perspective. Just because he called someone friend it did not mean they were as informed and knowledgeable as He was.


They never really behaved as friends until after the Pentecost.

Abraham obeyed God based on trust not based on the content of the command. God didn't provide him with reasons why, and yet his obedience was not considered slavish. That's the point.


I'm glad you agree with me on this point. God does not have to explain the reasons why He expects us to obey when he commands us to - Go and sacrifice your son. Obeying Him simply because He said so is based on trust and is more than sufficient. And, such obedience is not slavish.

I disagree. If the command had been for Abraham to have had sex with his son, he wouldn't have done that, right? If so, then Abraham's obedience did take into account the content of the command.

When I asked you how would you know if you were following God's voice or not in response to a command, you said you would take into account God's will and His law, an excellent answer. Wouldn't Abraham have done the same?



A rather odd comment. I've been arguing this point for 30 pages, and you finally agree with it. You could have done so 30 pages ago! Actually this thread spawned off another thread. You could have agreed on that thread.



It's not sufficient. Using your own guidelines, it's necessary to know God's will and His law. His law is a transcript of His character, so knowing His law means knowing His character.

Again, consider the question of if Abraham had been commanded to have sex with his son. Would he have done that?

How about you? Certainly there are things you would refuse to do on the basis of their being immoral, even if you thought it was an angel or God telling you to do so. Indeed, wouldn't you reject the idea that it was an angel or God telling you to do something if it were something you knew to be contrary to His will or law?



You're sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth. An obedience which did not take anything into account, such as the content of the command, would be slavish. That's what "slavish obedience" means. It's simply "yes, sir" without any thought whatsoever of what one is doing, whether such a thing is immoral, what the consequences of such an action would, etc.

However, the obedience you're suggesting, based on an understanding of God's will and His law, is not slavish obedience.