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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
