Is it sin to lie or kill for the right MOTIVE?

Yea, I agree with everything you said here. What you are probably not aware of is how this motive thing got started. Once you see that I think you'll see the sense in my line of argument.

I know the hearts of men are only evil continually.

But this is about God and WHY God cannot sin.

The ultimate answer is this: sin is doing something with an improper motive. God ultimately only ever has the highest of motives, his own Glory, for all that he does. Therefore he cannot sin.

This is not about the motives of men which you and I agree are ALWAYS evil.

This is about what makes a sin a sin.

This is the very reason that EVERYTHING that unregenerate men do is a sin. Even the PLOWING of the wicked is sin because sin is all about motive.

 

You don't get it, God's purpose was to destroy Satan. God had promised in the garden that the seed of the serpent (Satan) would bruise the Savior's heel, but the seed of the woman (Jesus) would bruise his head.
These religious leaders were not ordinary sinners, they were completely sold out to Satan. Jesus said Satan was their father.
These men recognized Jesus just as the devils recognized Jesus. But they thought they could kill him. They did not know that killing Jesus would be their own defeat.
1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
The gospel had to be hidden from these evil men, otherwise they would not have crucified Jesus and thwarted God's plan.
But God did not have to make these men hate Jesus, they already hated God as Satan their father does. God simply had to place Jesus among them, knowing they would kill him.

 

And what is God's motives to be judged by? God cannot sin because He is God. Against whom does He sin? Against what?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I can't say I know what you were meaning to say.

When speaking of God, we are speaking of the One Who is His own reason for existence. For us, our existence is in Him, in Him we live and move and have our being. But God lives and moves and has His being in Himself. He is His own beginning and end.

The Law is bigger than we are, and exists apart from us, but not so of God. The Law is not something that He lives by. He IS the Law—the Word. And He cannot deny Himself. It is impossible for God to lie.

For kicks and grins, let's say that God could change. That at one time (though time does not exist outside this physical universe) for uncounted eons bearing false witness against one's neighbor was wrong, and the next it wasn't. How would we know? Because God is eternal, the change is eternal as well, and it was never wrong.

This sounds foolish, and it is, but that is the foolishness of thinking that somehow morality is something that is bigger than God, and that He can be judged thereby. And that spawns the the comical supposition that God had to deliver Christ to murderers to escape culpability. :laugh: (Sounds lawyerly. No wonder Christ pronounced a woe on lawyers.)

God cannot sin because He is God. And we, by virtue of rebirth are partakers of the divine nature, and we cannot sin, though it doth not yet appear. But that's a topic for another thread.

We need make no apology for God. Whatever He does is righteous. Even if He created sin. Who are we to judge Him for that? If it seems unrighteous, the problem isn't God, but our perception, because we know that it is impossible for God to sin.

But to the noncalvinist, God is brought down and made into an image of man, and man is elevated to godhood, and thinks himself a competent judge of God—a precarious position in which to be.

Motives? We can judge acts of men thereby, but not acts of God.

 

And just what is your motive for making such an offensive comment?

I am a non-calvinist and there has never been anything in any of my posts that would make you or anyone else think that I bring God down to the image of man or that I elevate man above God. How utterly insulting and totally uncalled for. To accuse anyone on this board of such is to reject them as a brother.

You should be ashamed. There is no excuse for such as this from a fellow Christian.

 

If you will allow me, I want to compliment your post. I really do not see what this subject has to do with Calvinism or free will. It does bring out a very interesting question, and in certain cases, the difference between life and death in eternity.

There are examples in the Bible of saved people acting in a very sinful manner. There are also people who appear good as gold and turn out to be rotten to the core. For example, David was a man after God's own heart, yet was an adulterer and murderer. Judas appeared to be loyal to Jesus, and had the other disciples fooled. We try to figure out sometimes, who is saved and who is not. These types of examples show the futility of such an endeavor.

From a human perspective, it is very hard to see the dividing line, a murderer going to heaven, and others going to hell that never did much wrong by our standards. The best I have been able to come up with on an answer to that question is that the truly saved person sinned in an instant of time of weakness, but if he or she is a child of the Lord, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit, and return to the Lord in repentance, whereas the truly lost person has a motive of worldly greed, lust, etc and since there is no Holy Spirit inside, will continue doing what he or she is doing without any second thought. The problem for us comes in because we rate sins from bad to worse, and use this as a basis of salvation, instead of observing someone over a period of time. We can never tell for sure.

Anyway, that was a good post, and want yout to know I will try and be more civil in my responses to you from now on.

 

No you don't get to declare it as good. You said his motive was to stop abortion. You don't get to say that that is a good motive. God alone declares if something is good or not and God has clearly declared that this man's motive is vile and evil.

Who cares what you declare?

You have given a scenario. You don't get to say, "Here's the details and I declare them as good."

You might as well say something to the effect of- "Satan decided he would reign equally with God but for this analogy I declare that his motive is good."

 

It's very simple.

God's motive for what he does is his glory. It therefore cannot be sin because it is done for the highest and holiest of motives.

If a man feeds and clothes and shelters and gives a good education to a hundred million homeless, starving, suffering and dying children for the wrong motive (anything other than God's glory) his deed is unspeakable, immeasurable wickedness.

God may be pleased that the kids are taken care of but God is indescribably angry with the man who provided for them.

Motive is everything.

 

The Truth.

Not consciously, no, but the moment you make His choice of an individual to rest on an inherent quality in that individual, you have made Him in the image of a man—a big man, a very powerful man, but a man nonetheless with the same kind of reasoning.

Now, you will say that you don't make His choice of an individual to rest on an inherent quality, but you cannot escape the fact that by your doctrines, the virtue of one who chose Christ rests in himself.

Yeah, right.

 

Your above comment was with respect to Amy quoting a Hebrews passage about Rahab the Harlot who by faith received the spies with peace.

Now. Let me preface this by saying I don't know your full theological view and therefore I am not calling YOU a Hyper-Calvinist.. but you view on THIS subject, according to others of the Reformed view, agree this is a Hyper view point. I will explain where I am coming from...

It is interesting that as I was going through and listening to Monergism audio sermons .. particularly on Hyper-Calvinism (mostly regarding it's history).. that in listening to it .. It speaks specifically regarding this verse that the majority of Calvinists agree that Rehab shouldn't have lied but God justified her because of her faith not because of the lie. He then states that Hyper Calvinists have a different take on this passage in that God justified her because of the lie because it was OK to lie because she had something else in mind. The Hyper Calvinist argues your position on sin, in that it is not the act itself but the motive behind it that makes something sinful to God. This comes from the view that God's will take precedent over His nature. Hyper hold that Gods will can change His nature, as it were. So God CAN approve of lieing, even though His nature so 'no', His will can say 'yes' and thereby change the lie into something good and holy. Essentially stating that God's holiness is in His will NOT in His Nature. It is a very 'unusual' view that is VERY rare in Calvinism (it originated or was set forth vocally with John Wells)



Here is the message

 

Believing is not a "quality". It is simply trusting in someone other than yourself. It is giving up of self. Faith is not a work according to God's word, so it is not something that you "do". However God counts it as righteousness and no one will be saved without it.

Doesn't the bible say "believe and be saved"?

 

Not even hyper-calvinists believe that God can change his nature. I doubt that the speaker said as much. I bet that was an inference on your part and a wrong one.

I am not a hypercalvinist. I believe in duty-faith and the responsability of all men everywhere to repent. I passionately believe in evangelism and missions.

I do, however, tend to lean more to supralapsarianism which explains all the things you are talking about. Supralapsarianism is a minority viewpoint among Calvinists but some extraordinarily brilliant men have adhered to it.
It is a misnomer to assume that supralapsarianism and hyper-calvinism are one and the same. They are not, though hypercalvinists do tend to be supralapsarian. But to demand that they are one and the same is non sequitur.

But all of this is beside the point. It distracts the conversation from the issues to the personalities.

You cannot deal with the facts. It does not matter if I AM a hyper-calvinist if my arguments are sound and true.

 

First, listen to the audio I hyperlinked for you. You will hear him state exactly what I said, verbatum. The point you missed regarding it was not that God changes His nature on a whim, but the hyper view accerts that God's nature is defined by His will. In other words - God's will take precedent over His nature, thus defining His nature to the action in accordance with His will. - in that sense, as the reformed author was speaking, the hyper view has God changing His nature.

In light of the above view, God CAN approve of lieing, even though His nature so 'no', His will can say 'yes' and thereby change the lie into something good and holy.

This is essentially stating that God's holiness is in His Will not in His Nature. And as such changes His nature to accomidate His will, allowing for something previously despised to be now accepted, based upon motive and not a pre-defined action. Ie.. a lie becomes good because He wills it in contrast to a lie is evil because it is not the truth and goes against Gods nature.

Basically it is the argument of what is sin - motive vs. defined act

I never tried to equate the two as being one and the same.
I know full well to be Supra does not automatically establish one as a Hyper. You can be Supra and not hyper, but you can not be hyper and not be Supra.

I agree, but it is not I that am doing it.. it is you.
My point had nothing to do with you being hyper or not.

Dealt with it already and my point (as well as those opposing your view) stands the test of scripture and even stand in vast majority of Reformed view on this point.

Additionally regarding you 'assuming I was calling you a hyper - I qualified the fact that I was not callinig you a hyper or by necessity your view.. What I said is that I found it interesting that while listening to an audio on monergism regarding the History of HyperCalvinism.. that specifically was addressed and is the very view you attest to.

 

Allan said:

I have to think this sentence through for a bit. To say that God’s holiness is not in his nature seems a very slipper slope. Would you please elaborate on this for me? Are you saying it is in God's nature to change his will?

This also seems a very slippery slope.

So, if I understand this correctly God’s nature and his will are situational? This seems an attempt to justify our own actions by saying God changes and approves our actions, i.e. in this thread, our killing others and lying to others.

You say “goes against God’s nature” … but in your first statement you say God’s nature changes. This is quite confusing. What are you trying to say?

Please elaborate on your idea for me. Thanks in advance.

 

First, this is NOT my view.

Some hyper-Calvinists do.

Based upon His will, yes.

[/quote]You say “goes against God’s nature” … but in your first statement you say God’s nature changes. This is quite confusing. What are you trying to say?

Please elaborate on your idea for me. Thanks in advance.
[/QUOTE]
It is not that his nature actually changes, that is why I stated.. 'change his nature AS IT WERE or better per-say. It is understood better not as seeing as his nature being one thing and morphing into another, but that it is shaped by Will. Basically it is His will defines His nature rather that His nature defines His will.

 

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me.

I believe they are skating on very thin ice. I'll thing about this one.

I have to think about this one. Again it seems to be on thin ice ... a real slippery slope.

Thanks for your reply.