Did God Command Murder?

[HeirofSalvation]

....Please try not to so completely misrepresent my position in the future.

It's not that anyone is trying to mis-represent your position....it's that it appears to be changing every 5-6 posts or so....I must be misunderstanding you. You state something about Abraham's being a law unto himself...(legally) and use that to support the notion that it somehow has any effect whatsoever on the moral implications of what he does or does not do.....Maybe you should have clarified?

You misunderstand situation ethics as originally espoused by Joseph Fletcher. Please study the subject some more, then we can talk about it. (I don't mean this to be looking down on you. It is a genuine suggestion.)

I do not care about your obsession with Fletcher....he is insignifigant, he was only originally brought up by you so that you could use him as a source of well-poisoning. Moral Relativism, which is what it is, has existed long before him in numerous forms and will continue to until the Lord returns...There is "nothing new under the Sun" at least (according to the Bible). Fletcher espoused nothing "originally"; lies come from the Father of them and they are merely the same lies with different nomenclature...I know moral relativism when I see it. moral relativism of any kind is abhorrent to God....including what some call "society says" or "society does" relativism....which you seem to espouse with this here:

Part of my argument has been based on the society of Abraham's time. We live in an entirely different society with entirely different societal mores, so this whole hypothetical is a non-sequiter

.

You're confusing religion (faith) with civil law here. Abraham did not recognize Melchizedek as a civil authority.

Also....(depending on his identity) a qualifier I intentionally used before, so as to avoid this very objection I thought you might place, he might very well have been. Abraham's giving or offering of a tithe to Melchizedek might very well have been not a recognition of mere Spiritual position....but also a respectful recognition of him as A civil authority of some kind, possibly due a certain level of civil respect, but it is really neither here nor there.

Furthermore, your question was such an obvious trap I'm amazed you actually expected me to answer it. If I said "Yes" you could say that I would be committing murder in 2012 by any law in existence. If I said "No" you could say, "So, you don't believe in obeying God."

Of course it's a trap.... it was designed to expose the poverty of the logic you are using, hence your refusal to answer it, by complaining that it is either "personal" here:

Why are you making this personal? The discussion is about Abraham, not me and my son.

or raising an objection about the ontological reality of a hypothetical situation such as you do here:

It is as obvious as the nose on your face to a dispensationalist that revelation was direct from God to Abraham, and even a covenant theologian like Machen would agree. Revelation in 2012 does not consist of God directly speaking to man, so if God "appeared convincingly" to you, you would be mistaken. You would "think" God was appearing when He was not--it would probably be demonic activity.

I could answer it......I would lie, and feel perfectly morally upright in so doing...what would you do?

 

[John of Japan]

Your reading tone into my words. I say 'just answer the question,' and apparently you hear, " JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION JERK!!! "

I'm a linguist. I read no tone into your words. I read the words themselves and took the meaning literally. The word "Just" shows impatience. The words "answer the question" is a command. One gives a command when he thinks he has authority over the other person. One frames a question when he really wants an answer.

To prove to you that was not my intent let's suppose you lived during the time of Abraham and God came to you and asked you to kill your son. Would you do it? What if you lived at the time of Rahab and you were faced with the same dilemma? Would you have deceived the soldiers or not?

Come on, we went through all of this on the other thread. I would have used misdirection, not lying. Why are you trying to rehash an old thread when my specific OP said I did not want to? I believe we dealt thoroughly with this subject on the previous thread, you and I, and did a good job of presenting the opposing views. (This is spite of your accusation of legalism by your own personal definition, one no conservative theologian holds.) If you're wise you'll let it drop, because I'm never going to agree with you.

This discussion is quite differerent from the one on lying. (1) No one commanded Rahab to lie, but Abraham was commanded to kill Isaac. (2) Abraham was the single most important human in the OT, the recipient of the Abrahamic Covenant, but Rahab acted on no covenant and no promise from God. (3) The Abrahamic Covenant included obvious future life for Isaac, but Rahab had no guarantees. (4) Rahab was from a heathen culture with heathen mores, just learning about the true God, but Abraham knew intimately the true God and was called God's friend.

So just get over the previous thread, will you please?

I warned you not to do this for the case of the supposition.

Oh, you warned me. How polite. What are you going to do to me since I disobeyed your warning? A "warning" carries the presupposition that you have authority to punish.

We are not supposing demonic activity, we are supposing an actual real encounter with God, like the one Abraham had. Now, I've even moved the supposition back in time so you can't blame it on the time we live in, as if that makes any difference with a God whose character doesn't change.

What you failed to do with all of your hypotheticals was ask me specifically if I would have done exactly what Abraham did. That would have been a logical question, not a trick one.

So I'll ask myself: John, would you have done what Abraham did? Answer: Wow, Abraham was a man of such huge faith, called "the friend of God," recipient of an incredible covenant with promises from God, I don't know if I could do what he did. But I hope that if 21st century John Himes had been ancient Abraham (an impossible scenario), I would have done exactly what he did.

No, I'm fine referring to it as a lie, but I can understand someone's unwillingness to do so because the word itself connotes 'evil' or 'wrongdoing.' You clearly believed what Rahab did (regardless of what you call it) was wrong/evil/sin and I did not (and neither did God).

And there you have the previous thread. Will you please get over it now?

 

[John of Japan]

It's not that anyone is trying to mis-represent your position....it's that it appears to be changing every 5-6 posts or so....I must be misunderstanding you. You state something about Abraham's being a law unto himself...(legally) and use that to support the notion that it somehow has any effect whatsoever on the moral implications of what he does or does not do.....Maybe you should have clarified?

This is a debate about a very complex issue involving the mores and law of Abraham's time, the Biblical revelation about the nature of God, the Abrahamic covenant and many other issues. I've done my best to clarify several times. Perhaps you'd like to ask a specific question about my position.

I do not care about your obsession with Fletcher....he is insignifigant, he was only originally brought up by you so that you could use him as a source of well-poisoning. Moral Relativism, which is what it is, has existed long before him in numerous forms and will continue to until the Lord returns...There is "nothing new under the Sun" at least (according to the Bible). Fletcher espoused nothing "originally"; lies come from the Father of them and they are merely the same lies with different nomenclature...I know moral relativism when I see it. moral relativism of any kind is abhorrent to God....including what some call "society says" or "society does" relativism....which you seem to espouse with this here:

That was a specific response to the issue of law, not any general statement of principle. To accuse me then of moral relativism in general because of a specific statement about law is to misunderstand my position.

Let me see if I can explain from a different perspective. What everyone has missed so far is the fact that there was no "law" as we understand it in Abraham's society. What existed was the law of the heart, or conscience. (Rom. 2--I was surprised no one brought this up.) Abraham readily agreed to God's challenge to offer up his son as a sacrifice with no indication he was smitten by his conscience. Therefore, to Abraham it was not a command to murder. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, Abraham specifically told the men that he and his son were ascending the mountain to worship--Abraham's definition of what would happen as opposed to murder.

Also....(depending on his identity) a qualifier I intentionally used before, so as to avoid this very objection I thought you might place, he might very well have been. Abraham's giving or offering of a tithe to Melchizedek might very well have been not a recognition of mere Spiritual position....but also a respectful recognition of him as A civil authority of some kind, possibly due a certain level of civil respect, but it is really neither here nor there.

No theologian or commentator I know of takes the position that Melchizadek was a civil authority over Abraham. But of course I don't know everything. :smilewinkgrin:

Of course it's a trap.... it was designed to expose the poverty of the logic you are using, hence your refusal to answer it, by complaining that it is either "personal" here:

or raising an objection about the ontological reality of a hypothetical situation such as you do here:

And now I've answered the trick question in my own way. I hope you and Skandelon are satisfied.

I could answer it......I would lie, and feel perfectly morally upright in so doing...what would you do?

Again, as I asked in my OP, please don't rehash the thread on lying. I made it clear there that I would use misdirection instead of lying, and explained it. So I'll answer no more questions of this nature. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No theologian or commentator I know of takes the position that Melchizadek was a civil authority over Abraham. But of course I don't know everything.

Not to parse words....but I never said OVER Abraham, I would not have...you are indeed correct... he was not. It's not critical though...

That was a specific response to the issue of law, not any general statement of principle. To accuse me then of moral relativism in general because of a specific statement about law is to misunderstand my position.

No, fair enough, I know you are not a moral relativist. I was suggesting something about the logical conclusion of some of your statements...

Let me see if I can explain from a different perspective. What everyone has missed so far is the fact that there was no "law" as we understand it in Abraham's society. What existed was the law of the heart, or conscience. (Rom. 2--I was surprised no one brought this up.) Abraham readily agreed to God's challenge to offer up his son as a sacrifice with no indication he was smitten by his conscience. Therefore, to Abraham it was not a command to murder. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, Abraham specifically told the men that he and his son were ascending the mountain to worship--Abraham's definition of what would happen as opposed to murder.

I was trying to contend....with my posts about civil government earlier....that Abraham indeed would have even from a civil perspective considered this a legal evil, it is debatable, of course, I was just throwing it out there....I am appealing to several Theologians and commentators who suggest that Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. This is something of God's establishment of purpose in civil Government about things such as murder et. al. I did not go into detail, thus your confusion as to what I was trying to convey....I assumed you would have followed where I was going with it...I was not very clear though. (One gets lazy sometimes) :laugh:

Again, as I asked in my OP, please don't rehash the thread on lying. I made it clear there that I would use misdirection instead of lying, and explained it. So I'll answer no more questions of this nature. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Yeah....only they are inextricably interrelated....and well...you did make the mistake of mentioning it in your OP....

Now I don't want to rehash the lying discussion, since we hashed that pretty good! But I do feel like this particular subject wasn't completely discussed,

You know as well as I do, that to blood-thirsty Baptists.....this is more than enough invitation to debate :smilewinkgrin: Sorry, by specifically trying to mention your desire NOT to re-engage that debate...well, it was blood in the water....We aren't peaceful "lilacs-and-springtime" Methodists after all, are we? he he

 

[Skandelon]

I'm a linguist.

A linguist or a mind reader? Either way you appear evasive to me.

Come on, we went through all of this on the other thread. I would have used misdirection, not lying. Why are you trying to rehash an old thread when my specific OP said I did not want to?

Now who is making the command? It's all related because it all has to do with the same principle regarding the fact that obedience to God is more important than following a set of rules...but you already know that because you made my point when you admitted that the time and circumstances were different making the act not sinful.

So just get over the previous thread, will you please?

More commands? How rude.

A "warning" carries the presupposition that you have authority to punish.

No, its was a warning to steer clear of that common fallacy. Instead of dealing with the supposition posed you offer a new, more conducive supposition, to fit your view.

What you failed to do with all of your hypotheticals was ask me specifically if I would have done exactly what Abraham did. That would have been a logical question, not a trick one.

There is no trick, just your unwillingness to admit it was right of Abraham to follow God's command, just as it was right for Rahab to hide the spies.

So I'll ask myself: John, would you have done what Abraham did? Answer: Wow, Abraham was a man of such huge faith, called "the friend of God," recipient of an incredible covenant with promises from God, I don't know if I could do what he did. But I hope that if 21st century John Himes had been ancient Abraham (an impossible scenario), I would have done exactly what he did.

Then we shouldn't be disagreeing here. Would you have done what Rahab did?

Will you please get over it now?

Sounds like someone really wants to avoid that subject. I wonder why? :wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

Now who is making the command?

Um, have you studied grammar recently? Do you know the difference between the English command form and a polite request in the form of a question?

It's all related because it all has to do with the same principle regarding the fact that obedience to God is more important than following a set of rules...but you already know that because you made my point when you admitted that the time and circumstances were different making the act not sinful.

I have nowhere mentioned a set of rules. I have no idea where you got the idea that I have advocated following a set of rules.

What I do advocate is that God has given us moral principles through the revelation given in His Word. He will not go against those moral principles, therefore neither should we.

Other than that, your post was not debate, so I see no need to comment further.

 

[John of Japan]

I was trying to contend....with my posts about civil government earlier....that Abraham indeed would have even from a civil perspective considered this a legal evil, it is debatable, of course, I was just throwing it out there....I am appealing to several Theologians and commentators who suggest that Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. This is something of God's establishment of purpose in civil Government about things such as murder et. al. I did not go into detail, thus your confusion as to what I was trying to convey....I assumed you would have followed where I was going with it...I was not very clear though. (One gets lazy sometimes) :laugh:

Okay, this is a valid point. God instituted human government (and the dispensation of government if you are a fellow dispensationalist) with Gen. 9:6.

Yeah....only they are inextricably interrelated....and well...you did make the mistake of mentioning it in your OP....

You know as well as I do, that to blood-thirsty Baptists.....this is more than enough invitation to debate. Sorry, by specifically trying to mention your desire NOT to re-engage that debate...well, it was blood in the water....We aren't peaceful "lilacs-and-springtime" Methodists after all, are we? he he

Okay. Try all you want, though, I'm not rehashing the other thread.:saint:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Okay, this is a valid point. God instituted human government (and the dispensation of government if you are a fellow dispensationalist) with Gen. 9:6.

Yes, I am a fellow Dispy, good to know someone else is willing to "fragment" the revelation as the convenant types like to say.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Okay. Try all you want, though, I'm not rehashing the other thread.:saint:

Us dissenters honestly believe/believed this was a back-handed way of doing the same thing....sorry....granted...it assumes we thought ill of you, but well...I think we saw this as a backwards way of re-hashing the same argument, they are similar...and as we all know, Biblical Truth is secondary to winning a debate...

 

[Yeshua1]

So, it is ok to kill someone if you know they will be raise back to life? Does that mean it would be okay to lie if you know God is going to accomplish good from it (i.e. saving the Israelite spies)?

would God be commiting a murder IF He knew that he would raise the person back to life?

Did God know how Abraham would answer before He asked him, so a teast of faith?

Does God use lies as Rahab purposed to do, in order for the greater good, IE saving the isrealites and getting them the promised land?

Can God EVEN Murder?

 

[Aaron]

I made it clear there that I would use misdirection instead of lying, and explained it.

Give us an example.

 

[Aaron]

I could answer it......I would lie

That would not be a lie. For all his boasting, John would know that usage determines meaning, and when the Scriptures speak of lying, they are describing something that is for malicious or otherwise unfaithful or unjust purposes.

They are not describing the acts of Rahab or the Egyptian midwives.

 

[Yeshua1]

That would not be a lie. For all his boasting, John would know that usage determines meaning, and when the Scriptures speak of lying, they are describing something that is for malicious or otherwise unfaithful or unjust purposes.

They are not describing the acts of Rahab or the Egyptian midwives.

Would that fall under God permitting a sin in order to avoid a larger sin, that greater good would result from it?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That would not be a lie. For all his boasting, John would know that usage determines meaning, and when the Scriptures speak of lying, they are describing something that is for malicious or otherwise unfaithful or unjust purposes.

They are not describing the acts of Rahab or the Egyptian midwives.

I stand corrected.......I would "mis-direct"

 

[John of Japan]

That would not be a lie. For all his boasting, John....

Boasting??? Would you care to back up this personal attack and show me where I've boasted?

All I can think of is that you think saying I'm a linguist is boasting, and that of course is no more boasting than a man saying, "I'm a carpenter," or, "I'm a pastor." My training and profession is being a missionary-linguist.

Have I offended you somewhere, sometime on this forum that you spend so much time running me down? If so, PM me and I'll gladly apologize.

 

[John of Japan]

Us dissenters honestly believe/believed this was a back-handed way of doing the same thing....sorry....granted...it assumes we thought ill of you, but well...I think we saw this as a backwards way of re-hashing the same argument, they are similar...and as we all know, Biblical Truth is secondary to winning a debate...

If this is what you and my other opponents here thought about this thread, you were judging my motives. My honest motive was that this point is the only one that I felt was not fully discussed on the other thread. In my opinion the other thread fully discussed the lying issue and I have nothing more to say about it. So on this thread I wanted to (1) find out what others on the BB thought about it (thus the poll), and (2) have a full discussion of the OP of this thread.

I think we're about done with this discussion, though I'm willing to answer legitimate debate points. I don't see much new being said.

 

[John of Japan]

For the record, folks, though the poll is 13 to 6 in my favor, there are at least two on the other side who I respect highly (don't know the rest well enough).

Also, this has been very thought-provoking and a tremendous impetus for studying the passage in question. I think it's been a great discussion.

 

[Skandelon]

Also, this has been very thought-provoking and a tremendous impetus for studying the passage in question. I think it's been a great discussion.

:thumbs: True. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[John of Japan]

:thumbs: True. Thanks for the discussion.

Great. God bless, brother.

 

[Jon-Marc]

If God commands us to do something, then that is His will and must be obeyed--whether we understand it or not. Of course, God had no intention of Abraham killing his son. It was merely a test, but Abraham had no idea that it was. He trusted God's promise and believed that even if he did kill his son, God would raise Isaac back up. How many of us have that kind of faith? I know I don't.