Featured Ethics Question

This is hardly fair. I did mention I was at a missionary conference, didn't I?

I have just a few minutes to post. Maybe I can summarize my thinking on this for the past 40 years.

(1) God is a holy and righteous God, and a God of truth. Believers are holy and righteous since God makes us that way. "Saint" means "separated one, so we are to be separated from sin unto God. This is why we seek to live rightly (sanctification), not in order to make ourselves righteous (legalism, for which I've been wrongly attacked for on this thread by both you and Aaron).

(2) We have revelation from God revealing Who He is and how we should live as His children. This revelation is in the Word of God. Part of that revelation is that lying is wrong. This is not question begging, it is not legalism, it is a Biblically based presupposition based on many, many verses.

(3) Since lying is a sin, then we should not use it as a tool to do God's work (as per the OP). God will always provide another way to do His will so that we do not have to use lying as a method.

(4) We should also not use lying in a self defense/others defense situation. Other possible ways are: evangelism (partnering with the Holy Spirit), misdirection, measured violence (this is greatly simplyfying my philosophy of self defense). Once again, God will always provide another way.

(5) 1 Cor. 10:13--"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

Oh, come now. We'd never have debates if we didn't have different views and "assume" the opposing view was wrong. That's not question begging, that is having a presuppostion.

 

I generally agree such as Proverbs would be but I would be hard to explain Rahab's action as less than what God wanted.

Seems to me that truth is not God's highest objective. God's highest objective for us is to honor him exclusively and that means he gets the highest honor. Why would I want to honor and dignify Satan's ways by enabling him in always telling the truth when it comes to enabling him to destroy by leading him in the direction he wants? The truth is by doing that we would enable him to not live by truth but by deception--a lie.

 

But, once I pressed you then you found time. Thanks!

Iron sharpening iron!

Legalism is not merely seeking righteousness through moral living, in my understanding. It is also the practice of putting the law above the Law-Maker, putting truth above Truth, putting the letter of the law above the Spirit of the Law. For example, upon hearing God's words, "Sacrifice your son," suppose Abraham said, "But that is against the rules, so I refuse to obey your command, Lord." He would be doing what I'm accusing you of doing here, putting the law above the Law-Giver.

I believe Aaron has aptly explained the difference between baring false witness against one's neighbor and what Rahab did. You are equating what I do when I lie to smuggle in Bibles with what Clinton did when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman." My brother and I are risking our lives for the cause of Christ and I'm being equated with a common liar. Sorry, but I get a bit worked up when I think about it... What Rahab did was heroic, not sinful, as is our work in the closed country where he works.

So once your dead because you refused to lie I suppose the other 'way' is without your involvement? :tear:

If Rahab did what you suggest, the spies would have been caught and killed along with her.

Give an example of misdirection. I assure you that the motive behind what ever example you give will determine whether you example is labeled sinful or not. For example, if someone says, "Hey, what's that over there!" while pointing off into the distance in order to distract their assailant so as to get away from them you would say that is a good form of misdirection. But if someone did the exact same thing in order to catch their victim off guard and get the upper hand on them to mug them, then you'd call their use of 'misdirection' as sinful. WHY? Same reason we are having this debate about "lying." Sounds like your issue is not with lying or not, but with what you call it.

When you assume the premise up for debate by suggesting you are following scripture while I'm not, that is question begging. I'm just pointing it out. Its fine to have a different view, but argue for that view by defending your interpretation of the scripture in opposition to my interpretation of the scripture, rather than making statements like, "Is it then your opinion that trusting the very words of the Bible is legalism?" When clearly I'm saying that your interpretation of the very words is legalistic, not that trusting in scripture is legalistic. See the difference?

 

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Eph 4:24-25 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour.

Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth)

Col 3:8-9 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.

What do we see from scripture? That lying is not considered a part of virtue and praise; that it's not considered a fruit of the Spirit; that it's not considered part of the new man, but the old man that we're supposed to be putting off.

Rahab wasn't identified in Hebrews for her lying; she was recognized for having faith, when no one else in her city did. You can't use Rahab as an example of "justified" lying when that is absolutely *not* the context of Hebrews.

Your argument is that we should be able to lie because Satan is able to lie; that we should be able to use the same tools our enemy uses. So how does that make you different than the enemy?

 

Well put! :thumbs:

 

Your accusation is technically not theologically legalism, but biblioloatry, an accusation leveled by liberals at the Princeton theologians (J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield and others) for their doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. Based first of all on theopneustos ("God breathed") in 2 Tim. 3:16, but also many other passages, I stand with verbal plenary inspiration in this discussion. Condemn it all you want.

You've not been paying attention, perhaps because of the emotional equation. I was literally shocked to read you think I am equating you with Clinton. That could not be further from the truth. And I've not been accusing you or Rahab of false witness either. Aaron has completely mis-characterized my argument. False witness is the worst kind of lie, as I have said, something that can ruin the life of another, and is different from and worse than simply not telling the truth.

If you'll remember I asked you what type of lie you thought you would be using, and you said you had not thought of levels of lies. Well I do. I believe there are levels of wrong in every sin, including lying. False witness against one's neighbor is worst (though Christ taught all are our neighbors), followed by other harmful lies, followed by the Clinton type of self aggrandizing lies. Using a lie for the work of Christ is absolutely the last harmful type of lie, way down the scale. So no, I don't equate you with Clinton and his ilk in the slightest. This whole thread has been about using lies in the work of God, and that is all, completely all, I've been thinking about.

Not at all. What I have been advocating (however poorly) is that what counts in such situations is the faith, not the means. There is no cause-effect relationship between the lie and the rescue/protection. The rescue is completely from God, based on the faith of the person serving God (Rahab, you smuggling Bibles, me going to a Muslim country to preach, whatever), and never on the person's words. It doesn't matter if I lie or tell the truth, if the work of God is done in faith, God can handle the rest. It is all of God and none of man.

I've already been through all of this earlier in the thread. Buy my pamphlet, "Christian Philosophy of Self Defense," to get my complete philosophy of self/others defense.

I see. So you can have a presupposition that Rahab's lie was righteous and that's fine, but if I have a presupposition that her lie was not righteous, then that is question begging.

 

The whole point of the Rahab story is not her words (lie or not) but her faith. "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace" (Heb. 11:31). Because of her faith, God would have saved both her and the spies whethere she lied or not.

Sorry, I'm really not getting you here. You apparently have lies honoring God who is Truth, and the truth honoring Satan, the "father of lies." Knowing you through the BB, I can't believe you mean it that way. I must be misunderstanding you.

 

Did Rahab lie? Can one have faith and lie?

It makes me different than the enemy because it may mean that we enable Satan to destroy if we give him what he wants. He will distort truth to get what he wants. When people hid the Jews were they being dishonest? They certainly were taking a risk in helping people they could have disregarded.

 

One can have faith and lie but they cannot lie because of faith (bibilcal faith). No lie is of faith as faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God and the bible says do not lie not TO lie.

 

That is my point too. The truth was not the most important, but honoring God was. She had a higher calling than her words, her God. If she were to have told the men what they wanted wouldn't she have enabled Satan to destroy. She had faith that God would protect her when she lied to the men and honored God. She was looking at God not man.

For example if the people who were hiding Jews in their home were to give the enemy what they wanted the people would have been an instrument of destruction. When the officers came to their home and asked if they were hiding Jews what should their answer have been? The truth would have said "Yes." To honor God would have said, "No." Isn't that much like what Rahab did? We must be instruments of righteousness not of destruction and enable the enemy. Obviously the officers were misled to a lie. Do we enable them to continue to act on their lies or do we resist them?

If God is the single person I must honor then anything less is not honoring God. God gives life and Satan seeks to take that away and destroy.

I do not know the answer but I would wonder how many officers became believers by what they saw in those who hid the Jews?

 

Where does that place Rahab in relation to God, relation to the men who came knocking, and to the men who escaped? God is the single person who is to be honored above all not men.

 

Let me ask you a question. If a person has faith that God will protect them when they rob a bank because they want to feed their starving family or pay for a medical procedure which will save their terminally ill child from death is what they are doing good or evil, of faith or of satan?

 

The qualification therein is not negated by your rigidly technical, denotative readings of its variations in other places. More than that, the Ninth Commandment is the sum and whole of all the variations contained in the Scriptures.

Of course not, but we're not talking about all other kinds. We're talking about saving innocent life from the violence of God's enemies.

Very simply put, there is no difference between hiding innocents from their persecutors in secret rooms under trap doors covered with rugs, and hiding them under words designed to misdirect them.

The story is told of Corrie Ten Boom's sister, who, because of the same kind of kink in her think, used words that were technically correct to describe the location of the Jews hidden in her house, but the clear intent was to make the Nazi police believe otherwise. She said the family was hiding under the table. In reality, they were in the cellar, the door of which was covered with a rug under the table. The police thought they were being mocked, and that was the meaning and intent of her sister's words.

There is no difference between what Corrie's sister did, and what Corrie herself did in simply "lying" to the police

In fact there is no difference in misdirection with a "lie," and "lie" without words putting a rug over the cellar door and moving the table over it.

 

You are missing the point. First all Rahab knew was what any heathen knew. She had no understanding of righteousness and trusting God in a time of need. She was a new believer. She did the thing she knew with her lie and was not doing it by faith. Her faith was in believing in the right God not the lie.
God is not honored in lies, if He was He would have told Daniel to lie, the three Hebrew boys instead of being pushed into the furnace, Paul, Peter, John, James to lie, and every other person in the bible who was facing death or harm. We are not to lie and no lie is of faith.
Now saying that would I personally lie to save my skin? I hope not, but if I did, I would not call it righteousness if I did or justify it and say it was of God and faith. I would say I did not have the faith to trust God in my time of need and I sinned to save my skin.

 

Let me ask you a question. Could God create a rock He couldn't life?

The problem is that your question is not a proper question.

However you did fail to answer the questions and so I awaiting your answers.

 

And none of this thread has anything to do with false witness. The 9th commandment is not talking at all about what Rahab or the Hebrew midwives did, or what a Bible smuggler does. They did not commit false witness.

But you bore false witness against me, falsely accusing me in your last post, something you apparently refuse to recognize, or are not able to recognize. I've come to believe that you don't even understand what false witness is. So why should I even discuss the matter with you?

And this proves to me that you have invented your own definition of lying, like others on this thread. I see no need to interact with you in that case. It's impossible to communicate and debate without using the commonly accepted definitions based on common usage of a word in our society. Sayonara.

 

As far as I know I answered your question now please answer my question.
If a person has faith that God will protect them when they rob a bank because they want to feed their starving family or pay for a medical procedure which will save their terminally ill child from death is what they are doing good or evil, of faith or of satan?

 

I do not see hiding the Jews as saving their own skin but rather protecting the officers and the Jews. To have not hidden anyone would have put them at no risk. Their actions protected the Jews from physical harm and the officers from harm later especially if they became believers and had to deal with their actions much the same way as an abortionist doctor would.

 

I answered your question by stating that it is not a proper question. It completely disregards scripture.

 

Well put. More should hear that bell. Thanks.

Recently I was challenged by something I read discussing the idea that the church has steered away from the study of historical Judaism during the time of Jesus and has replaced it with what I call a SYI theology. This has been happening for about one century. The idea being that personal experience and being enlightened is more important than anything else. I see that as having allowed personal experience to triumph over sound doctrine and practice. I have seen too many times when someone has told me or someone else, "God told me ______." When I knew it was wrong and not in accordance with what scripture teaches.