Ethics Question

[Aaron]

Not only Rahab, but also the Egyptian midwives misled God's enemies in order to save innocent life.

The commandment is not a prohibition of bearing false witness in each and every case. The commandment is a prohibition of bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

No one has the authority to prohibit the free practice of Christianity. Those who attempt to do so are not rulers. They are usurpers, enemies of God, perverters of justice, and oppressors. We owe them no allegiance nor obedience, nor do we give account to them.

So the question isn't about whether or not it is permissible, or even an act of faith to mislead God's enemies. It obviously is. The question is when is it a denial of Christ to do so? And if I'm being asked whether or not I'm smuggling Bibles or such, they're really asking whether am I doing something for which they may justly punish me. And the answer is an emphatic no.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, now I might reconsider my position....

 

[Skandelon]

Just kidding. That was a very good post Aaron.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

John:

You used your Proverbs verses to support the notion that "Lies" are only meaningful communications by focusing on the word "tongue"

I think the phrase "lying tongue" (something God hates) in Prov. 6:17 makes it clear that spoken lies are what God hates.

here is the rest of the passage:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

The way you are using this passage:

1.) I could kick an innocent brutally but I simply cannot use my hands (roundhouses only, no punches)

2.) If I devise wicked imaginations: I may only utilize my brain in my conspiracy, the organ whose purpose is to pump blood may not be used.

3.) If I utilize a "Hover-round" (particularly a slow one) to get from point a. to point b. in my wrong-doing I am covered.

You also insist that the lies God really hates are "bearing False witness"

A false witness is the worst kind of lie since it can destroy another's life. The lie told by the Bible smuggler was not false witness, which is harmful...

But: in this same passage: see vs. 19 both lying and "false witness" are listed as abominations.

I think you have placed yourself in the unfortunate position of having to nuance a difference between "lie" and an intentional "misdirection" by insisting that there is NO morally justifiable application when one might lie. i.e. to the "border guards" per the OP

I am with Bobbly Hamilton: a lie, is a lie, is a lie...

Also I think your insistence on Rahab's "ignorance" of moral principles is a little bit off: You have a point but I don't dismiss the Heathen so quickly, consider:

9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that [were] on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

11 And as soon as we had heard [these things], our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he [is] God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

decidedly: there is a difference between a natural man's sense of Spiritual things and the apostates (noetic effects of sin) but:

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

You are trying to muddy up the waters against her moral sensibilites... because she LIED (like crazy) and the Bible considers her a hero of the faith....for her hiding of the spies....which I would argue is about 30-40% her stuffing them under some flax, and 60-70% her highly contrived, and quite detailed lie to the authorities.

 

[saturneptune]

Ok, now I might reconsider my position....

Welcome to the Calvinist camp.

 

[freeatlast]

Perhaps someone knows a Missionary who has actually done this, but if you are smuggling bibles into a closed country, and boarder guards ask you what's in your trunk, or if you are smuggling anything illegal...what do you say?

If you lie, what is the ethical justification for lying...or do you try to sneak in without actually lying, but if it comes down to it, simply tell the truth and offer the guy a bible?

Isn't it interesting that we try and find scenarios to carry out good and consider doing evil to do the good and call it justifiable so as to get God involved to appease our guilt. If you can show me any place in the bible where God told someone a lie to do good then I would say follow god. However if you cannot then I would say follow/faith God. I would suggest that if the god you follow needs you to do evil to do good then you do not have the God of the bible.
If lying to do good is holy in the sight of God then certainly robbing the rich to give to the poor, or laying with a prostitute to keep from raping or any other scenario we might dream up is also holy.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

freeatlast:

to appease our guilt.

Given the scenario 12strings suggested.....I doubt that the person would feel any guilt inasmuch as they would believe they were morally justified.

I would suggest that if the god you follow needs you to do evil to do good then you do not have the God of the bible.

The God of the Bible doesn't even NEED us to share the gospel at all....but he has given us the Great Commission nonetheless no??

How would you answer this free?:
God has ordained Earthly/Governmental powers to begin with no? We are commanded to obey/honor the King in the Bible no? Thus, do you maintain that it would be wrong to attempt to smuggle Bibles into a country that forbade them....as long as you don't lie? Is it wrong to send missionaries into/plant churches in countries that forbid them?
If this is morally justified....why (in your view) could you not deceive/lie to the border guard?

If lying to do good is holy in the sight of God then certainly robbing the rich to give to the poor, or laying with a prostitute to keep from raping or any other scenario we might dream up is also holy.

Slippery Slope much?

I like to.....here's mine:

…f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.

Stolen from this site:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

 

[John of Japan]

I don't remember speaking of sin's expedience.

And yet Rahab was not chastised for her lie, but instead listed as a person of faith because of what she did in faith.

Again, may I remind you that I'm not arguing against the 'wrongness' of sin, I'm arguing against the concept that all deception is sin.

Question begging: You once again assume the point up for debate. Was it WRONG for Rahab to deceive the soldiers. That is the point up for debate. You are arguing the wrong point. Still sure my debate skill is lacking?

I admit I thought I had your view figured out. I was thinking based on your posts that you believed that sinning could be justified by the end result. Sorry about that. But now you are saying that not all lying is sin. Is that correct?

If this is true, then once again I have to say (even at the risk of being accused again of "guilt by association") that you are presenting the same exact view as situation ethics.

So, let me try to get your position straight.

(1) Under what circumstances is lying not a sin? Do you have a Biblical basis for this position other than Bible history (not sufficient to form a doctrine)?

(2) What other actions that are usually called sin are no longer sin if used for a good end (or whatever your criteria are)? I've asked you this before, but couldn't get an answer. :smilewinkgrin: So maybe me asking in this way will suit your fancy.

 

[John of Japan]

Isn't it interesting that we try and find scenarios to carry out good and consider doing evil to do the good and call it justifiable so as to get God involved to appease our guilt. If you can show me any place in the bible where God told someone a lie to do good then I would say follow god. However if you cannot then I would say follow/faith God. I would suggest that if the god you follow needs you to do evil to do good then you do not have the God of the bible.
If lying to do good is holy in the sight of God then certainly robbing the rich to give to the poor, or laying with a prostitute to keep from raping or any other scenario we might dream up is also holy.

This is a good point. There are no places whatsoever in the Bible where God commanded lying to accomplish good. Furthermore, if lying for a good end is okay, then as you say other things are also, such as robbing the rich to give to the poor, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

John:

You used your Proverbs verses to support the notion that "Lies" are only meaningful communications by focusing on the word "tongue"

here is the rest of the passage:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

The way you are using this passage:

1.) I could kick an innocent brutally but I simply cannot use my hands (roundhouses only, no punches)

2.) If I devise wicked imaginations: I may only utilize my brain in my conspiracy, the organ whose purpose is to pump blood may not be used.

3.) If I utilize a "Hover-round" (particularly a slow one) to get from point a. to point b. in my wrong-doing I am covered.

I see I'm going to have to clarify. I didn't really want to do this--you lost my interest when you insisted your definition of lying was better than the dictionary definition.

First of all, you rejected a dictionary definition, said you had to have one from the Bible. I gave you the only possible one from the Bible, which was actually only applicable in that particular verse--without saying that it was my own final definition. (That you must use the tongue to constitute a lie is not my position at all.) I really didn't feel like going through what it would take to give you a definition based on the usage of the word in the original languages of Old and New Testaments, which is my usual practice for defining a word. That would probably take me a couple of hours, time I don't have.

So let me give you my own definition--reject it or accept it, whatever. I believe lying to be communication designed to deceive which does not agree with the truth. This eliminates an inadvertant inaccurate statement. It also includes gestures, written lies and other form of communication. You are entirely welcome to disagree. as long as you realize that you are inventing your own definition, not the common one.

You also insist that the lies God really hates are "bearing False witness"

But: in this same passage: see vs. 19 both lying and "false witness" are listed as abominations.

Well of course! I've preached this many times. Two out of the seven things God hates are lies. So that puts lying as a very bad sin, in my mind.

As for false witness being worse than the average lie, the Ten Commandments proves that. There is false witness, right up with idolatry, murder, adultery and the rest. This says to me that false witness is worse than the average lie.

I think you have placed yourself in the unfortunate position of having to nuance a difference between "lie" and an intentional "misdirection" by insisting that there is NO morally justifiable application when one might lie. i.e. to the "border guards" per the OP

I am with Bobbly Hamilton: a lie, is a lie, is a lie...

Once again, you are inventing your own definition of lying. The common meaning of lying in English, Greek and Hebrew always has the meaning of a statement, not an action. If you insist on your own defintion for words, then you can prove anything.

Also I think your insistence on Rahab's "ignorance" of moral principles is a little bit off: You have a point but I don't dismiss the Heathen so quickly, consider:

9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that [were] on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

11 And as soon as we had heard [these things], our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he [is] God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

Where in here is Rahab's lie justified? She's just giving the basic information that she now knows that Yahweh is the true God, the Creator, powerful enough to do miracles and defeat her city-state. So she wants to believe in Him. That's just basic knowledge necessary for a person in her situation to begin following Yahweh, not a system of ethics.

You see, I live in Japan, a country with a heathen (Confucian) set of ethics. I have first hand knowledge (hundreds of times) of heathen people lying to me for what they believe is a good cause--their own selfish interests. So, I heartily oppose heathen systems of ethics--which your passages have not even touched on.

decidedly: there is a difference between a natural man's sense of Spiritual things and the apostates (noetic effects of sin) but:

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

You are trying to muddy up the waters against her moral sensibilites... because she LIED (like crazy) and the Bible considers her a hero of the faith....for her hiding of the spies....which I would argue is about 30-40% her stuffing them under some flax, and 60-70% her highly contrived, and quite detailed lie to the authorities.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters at all. I've simply stated my view that she was operating under a heathn system of ethics when she lied for a good and noble cause. Am I not allowed this view?

Surely your own position is not that if you are a hero you can do anything in commission of a heroic act and it is excused!

 

[Skandelon]

I admit I thought I had your view figured out. I was thinking based on your posts that you believed that sinning could be justified by the end result. Sorry about that. But now you are saying that not all lying is sin. Is that correct?

Right. When Rahab lied to protect the spies due to her faith in God it was not sin. When Abraham raised his hand with the intent to kill his son, it was not sin.

(1) Under what circumstances is lying not a sin?

Circumstances like that of Rahab, or Abraham, or family hiding Jews in Nazi Germany...I kind of thought that was established? Its not wrong to deceive an enemy of God for the purpose of accomplishing a greater redemptive purpose, this is an act done in faith and at great risk to one's own life. It certainly isn't sinful.

Do you have a Biblical basis for this position other than Bible history (not sufficient to form a doctrine)?

At least I have that. You have nothing contradicting it.

Plus, even God hardened or blinded people from the truth of his revelation for a time in order to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their act of rebellion. Some might think of that as being 'deceptive,' but I don't. His motive is pure, his act is beneficial for all concerned and HE IS GOD.

(2) What other actions that are usually called sin are no longer sin if used for a good end (or whatever your criteria are)? I've asked you this before, but couldn't get an answer. :smilewinkgrin: So maybe me asking in this way will suit your fancy.

You would have to give me a circumstance if you want specifics. I've told you in every way I know how that the person's faith based motive in obedience to God certainly overrules the letter of the law. Abraham OBEYED God by attempting murder. He did so in faith, and was justified accordingly. Thus, obedience to God's command would be a good criteria. It something is done in faith, for the clearly right motive according to what God has said, then I say it would fit this criteria...but like I said I'd have to look at a specific circumstance if you want specific answers.

I take bibles to my brother in a dangerous closed country. (BTW, no country is closed if your willing to die). I don't hesitate to lie to muslim officials when asked about what I'm carrying and I KNOW in my heart I'm doing the right thing. You could not convince me that was a sin.

 

[freeatlast]

Right. When Rahab lied to protect the spies due to her faith in God it was not sin. When Abraham raised his hand with the intent to kill his son, it was not sin.


Circumstances like that of Rahab, or Abraham, or family hiding Jews in Nazi Germany...I kind of thought that was established? Its not wrong to deceive an enemy of God for the purpose of accomplishing a greater redemptive purpose, this is an act done in faith and at great risk to one's own life. It certainly isn't sinful.

You seem a little confused. In the case of Rahab she was never told to lie or commended for her lying. She was commended for believing in the One True God and proving it by receiving His spies not about lying. Listen to scripture.
Heb 11:31
By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace

It is about belief not a lie.

James 2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

Her faith is being commended for accepting the spies as from God, not how she lied to stay out of trouble and save her own neck. You seem to forget her lie came from a heathen so what else can we expect from her. She had absolutely no understanding of holiness nor was her faith mature.

In the case of Abraham you are correct as he was commanded to start the sacrifice process, but that was a test and the test had no intentions of it going all the way. Also you seem to have left out, I am sure it was an honest miss-take, that he was stopped. So again show me someplace in the bible where God tells someone to lie to do good. I challenge you to go through the commands (ten commandments) one by one and show us where God ever told anyone to break any of them to do good. In fact I challenge you to show us any passage where God commends the sin they do as good when they do good. Even the mid-wives who spared the children were never commended for lying about saving the babies. They were commended for their faith to save them not their lack of faith to admit they did it.

True faith is seen in Daniel when he refuses not eat the kings food and not to lie to keep his head when he prayed after being told not to. The same with the Three Hebrews. Instead of doing evil and bowing down to the idle they lived by faith and refused. Today many would teach such was foolish and would not have been sin because they would be doing good to save their lives. We are seeing a total 180 degree type of teaching then what the bible teaches by these people today. The lies of Rahab or the mid-wives are never commended and are not of faith.

This is the error of so many that claim they believe God, and yet they do not believe in (trust what He says) Him. They are lawless (lacking real faith) in heart and a law unto themselves doing evil to do what they think is good. They want to follow and obey as long as it is convenient and so they find some way to claim their sin did good.

I am convinced that these are those that are being spoken of in Matt 7:21-24
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Notice what it says about these folks. First they knew who the Lord is. They call Him Lordand did what they did claming the right Name, but inthe wrong way, outside of faith (Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.) since God never tells us to break His commandments to do good. They do religious practices and things that they feel are good and may very well be good in nature.
However notice what the Lord says about all this goodness they claim to do. He says it is from lawlessness. These people really did believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be but they did not repent and enter the true faith. They had the Burger King mentality, "I will do it my way" and it costs them their souls.
If they had walked by faith they would not have done evil to do good. They would have trusted the Lord in all He commands showing a true faith and that they had truly entered into salvation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

John:

better than the dictionary definition.

I appreciate dictionary definitions: this is not fair, and I think you know it...If there is one and only one definition from the one and only one dictionary that God I assume personally inspired....I am amazed. (I prefer my original Webster's). I note this though....almost ALL dictionaries, give MORE than ONE definition of a word....you posted precisely one definition (not inherently incorrect) I ask you this....Is the quoted definition you posted the only one under the heading "lie" in your dictionary of choice? It isn't. I know it... you know it.

said you had to have one from the Bible.

Please quote me here....My position....unless I am completely inarticulate is that Lies are lies....including your "misdirections" (much of the time at least)

without saying that it was my own final definition. (That you must use the tongue to constitute a lie is not my position at all.)

I must assume that I do not understand the position you take then...since you did decidedly point this out, in order to imply that it had to be "meaningful communication" to constitute a lie....if I misunderstood your intent, please clarify.

You are entirely welcome to disagree. as long as you realize that you are inventing your own definition, not the common one.

Again, this is simply not fair....I am not the only person on earth who is of the opinion that many of your "misdirections" are simply lies.....note the example I provided in my first post....(you ignored it) I re-supply it here:

Quote:

A set-up designed specifically to deceive...I think by this definition....If the wife asked me to get the oil changed in my van, and gives me 20$ to do so...which I subsequently spend at the bar....and I then procure/produce an old receipt from a lube 1 and merely conveniently place it somewhere where she is likely to find it, make her own assumption...and yet I never say a word about it....is that mere misdirection?? or a lie.

You avoided it with a joke:

This is clearly misdirection. (And any wife who fell for it deserves a car that still needs an oil change! )

and defined it not as a lie I take it but...."misdirection" Please take a poll of the married women on BB and find out whether they feel "lied to" or not in this circumstance....

This says to me that false witness is worse than the average lie.

o.k. fine.....Read the whole body of posts on this thread....YOU pose a Scripture in order to demonstrate a point which is still up for dispute....and then complain when no one engages that verse...

I think the phrase "lying tongue" (something God hates) in Prov. 6:17 makes it clear that spoken lies are what God hates.

Where in here is Rahab's lie justified? She's just giving the basic information that she now knows that Yahweh is the true God, the Creator, powerful enough to do miracles and defeat her city-state. So she wants to believe in Him. That's just basic knowledge necessary for a person in her situation to begin following Yahweh, not a system of ethics

.

I am asserting a whole body of ideas to help add some clarification to this contention you make....which I conceded had some merit by mentioning noetic effects of sin....I just think you are possibly taking it too far.....It must be read in conjunction with the verses in Romans....or the point is moot...Decidedly, you are right that her main concern was to save herself and the life of her family....I do not deny that, I just thought you were possibly adding too much weight to your argument that she was a heathen...

You see, I live in Japan, a country with a heathen (Confucian) set of ethics. I have first hand knowledge (hundreds of times) of heathen people lying to me for what they believe is a good cause--their own selfish interests. So, I heartily oppose heathen systems of ethics

--

I know this and could care less about it inasmuch as I know enough about it NOT to use it as my example..... I avoided that, but I am also aware of the historical reality that the Caananites of that era were Shemites not so many centuries removed from their father Moses. I would not have used your post-modern Japanese....(also Shemites).
Again I was making a holistic argument which must include the passages I posted from Romans as well. If it helps...read C.S. Lewis's "Illustrations of the Tao" essay....it sheds light on what I was trying to convey.

lying to me for what they believe is a good cause--their own selfish interests.

Could you post the quote of someone on this board who claimed that this was a satisfactory criterion for a noble or good cause?

Am I not allowed this view?

Yes, you are, and all I said is that (while you are not incorrect) we may take it too far by suggesting her complete ignorance in her system of ethics...for a math analogy....it is 1 variable...I tried to supply another variable.

Surely your own position is not that if you are a hero you can do anything in commission of a heroic act and it is excused!

Of course it isn't... why would it be...why ask this? I would not make the Slippery Slope argument that freeatlast posted earlier....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

JOHN and FREEATLAST:

Would you guys answer this question?

God has ordained Earthly/Governmental powers to begin with no? We are commanded to obey/honor the King in the Bible no? Thus, do you maintain that it would be wrong to attempt to smuggle Bibles into a country that forbade them....as long as you don't lie? Is it wrong to send missionaries into/plant churches in countries that forbid them?
If this is morally justified....why (in your view) could you not deceive/lie to the border guard?

 

[freeatlast]

JOHN and FREEATLAST:

Would you guys answer this question?
God has ordained Earthly/Governmental powers to begin with no? We are commanded to obey/honor the King in the Bible no? Thus, do you maintain that it would be wrong to attempt to smuggle Bibles into a country that forbade them....as long as you don't lie? Is it wrong to send missionaries into/plant churches in countries that forbid them?
If this is morally justified....why (in your view) could you not deceive/lie to the border guard?

I suppose some woud claim it to be morally justified but the Christian is to live on a higher plain then what we perceive as moral so lying is not of faith so, NO don't lie to do God's calling!! We are told to obey those in authority as long as that authority does not contradict the commands and precepts of God. As to smuggling bibles there is no command to have a bible. That is a luxury. If the country does not allow bibles I would not break their law as there is no command to pass out or own a bible. The command is to go and tell, not smuggle bibles. If a country had a law against spreading the gospel I would break that law(man's law) because God commands us to tell them and His command supersedes man's commands/laws, but we are not to break God's law to keep His law and the example here is to lie to spread the gospel.

As for missionaries planting churches. The same as with spreading the gospel, but in both there is no command to lie to do it. Let me ask you something. If you think it is alright to do evil, in this case lie to the guard, then why not just do evil and kill him and go on in and spread the gospel? I hope you see the point. Rationalizing sin is still sin and the degree of the sin does not justify the act. Any lie to carry out God's command to go and tell would be sin from a lack of faith.Anything not of faith is sin and faith comes by the hearing of the word and the word says not to lie not TO lie.
You asked why one is not to lie to the border guard? Because no lie is of faith. Read about Daniel and see what faith really is. You do as God commanded and if caught you suffer the consequences, but you do not sin to do the command or to get out of the consequences if caught.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I suppose some woud claim it to be morally justified but the Christian is to live on a higher plain then what we perceive as moral so lying is not of faith so, NO don't lie to do God's calling!! We are told to obey those in authority as long as that authority does not contradict the commands and precepts of God. As to smuggling bibles there is no command to have a bible. That is a luxury. If the country does not allow bibles I would not break their law as there is no command to pass out or own a bible. The command is to go and tell, not smuggle bibles. If a country had a law against spreading the gospel I would break that law(man's law) because God commands us to tell them and His command supersedes man's commands/laws, but we are not to break God's law to keep His law and the example here is to lie to spread the gospel.

As for missionaries planting churches. The same as with spreading the gospel, but in both there is no command to lie to do it. Any lie to carry out God's command to go and tell would be sin from a lack of faith.Anything not of faith is sin and faith comes by the hearing of the word and the word says not to lie not TO lie.
You asked why one is not to lie to the border guard? Because no lie is of faith. Read about Daniel and see what faith really is. You do as commanded and if caught you suffer the consequences, but you do not sin to do the command.

WOW!!!! Now that, Free...is a good, concise and I daresay convincing post...:wavey::thumbs:!!! Thank you. I asked a difficult question and you answered head on, kudos. You have decidedly provided some food for thought....but I wonder about THIS distinction.....

As to smuggling bibles there is no command to have a bible. That is a luxury. If the country does not allow bibles I would not break their law as there is no command to pass out or own a bible.

And yet you would break their laws for this.....

As for missionaries planting churches. The same as with spreading the gospel,

Could you go into more detail as to why you would draw the line here? I would argue that smuggling the Bibles is one and the same as giving the gospel. Which I think you would break the laws of said country to do, I take it.

I am not convinced yet of your conclusions.....but this was a very good post...:thumbs: At least you didn't say "lying is a sin, but 'mis-direction' is right and moral"

 

[freeatlast]

WOW!!!! Now that, Free...is a good, concise and I daresay convincing post...:wavey::thumbs:!!! Thank you. I asked a difficult question and you answered head on, kudos. You have decidedly provided some food for thought....but I wonder about THIS distinction.....

As to smuggling bibles there is no command to have a bible. That is a luxury. If the country does not allow bibles I would not break their law as there is no command to pass out or own a bible.
And yet you would break their laws for this.....

As for missionaries planting churches. The same as with spreading the gospel,

Could you go into more detail as to why you would draw the line here?
I am not convinced yet of your conclusions.....but this was a very good post...:thumbs: At least you didn't say "lying is a sin, but 'mis-direction' is right and moral"

Let me say first what the bible says. Anything not of faith is sin even eating and drinking and faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.
Both those partial quotes are in Romans.

So as to bibles, they are nice, I have several praise God, but they are not commanded. For the first several hundred years there was no such thing as bibles and the gospel spread nicely. Going in and spreading the gospel is the command, not smuggling bibles. While the missionary is spreading the gospel and teaching, the people can write what he says down or memorize it if they choose, but if there is a law in a country against bringing in bibles that law cannot be violated by faith.
The thing to do is pray for God to change the law, not violate it since there is no command to do so. If violated it is done by lawlessness, not faith and faith is what we are to follow in even when that faith does not make sense or is not comfrontable.

By not disobeying the law of man, unless it goes against the command of God, we are doing what we do by faith,and in those times that we do violate the law of man because it goes against the commands of God we still are walking by faith, but the moment we justify doing what seems right or good apart from God's command we step out of faith and become lawless. Lawless means to be a law unto ourselves or what we feel is right and good for the moment instead of what we have been commanded by God.
Many people rationalize their lives and ministries like this instead of living by faith (may I point out that the church is also in deep trouble).This is why some women become Pastors, lawlessness. Or why some men become Pastors who do not meet the qualifications, again lawlessness. They seek to do good by doing evil and evil is anything not ordained by God even if it is to achieve good from sincerety. Being sincere and wrong is still wrong. Let me give a biblical example. During the ministry of Jesus He healed people. They then knew who He was and yet he told them sometimes not to tell anyone about Him. Faith would have obey, but lawlessness would have told people thinking they need to know the great truth to get saved. Our lives as believers are either ruled by faith, even if it seems wrong, or by lawlessness when that lawlessness seems right and good. Choose faith!
Faith is obedience to what God commands, the way He commands it even in those times when it seems it will bring or cause evil.

Keep this in mind. Many today call things faith when they are not. Believing something even believing it is alright does not constitute faith. If it cannot be found in the word of God as ordained by God the thing we do is not done by faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.
I hear people all the time say "we financed our house by faith." No they did not! The bible never deals with anyone financing a home. They financed it through presumption hoping they live long enough to pay it off and enjoy it. So live by faith and do not call things faith that are not faith.

 

[John of Japan]

Right. When Rahab lied to protect the spies due to her faith in God it was not sin. When Abraham raised his hand with the intent to kill his son, it was not sin.

You have no Scripture whatsoever to say that Rahab's lie was not a sin. As for Abraham, freeatlast has answered that adequately.

Circumstances like that of Rahab, or Abraham, or family hiding Jews in Nazi Germany...I kind of thought that was established? Its not wrong to deceive an enemy of God for the purpose of accomplishing a greater redemptive purpose, this is an act done in faith and at great risk to one's own life. It certainly isn't sinful.

Scriptural proof for this? You have none whatsoever, only your opinion. You don't have doctrine, you don't have God ever telling anyone to lie, you don't have anything but the two narratives. (You've still only given me hypothetics about hiding the Jews, with no specifics about Christians doing it, but I'll let it pass.)

At least I have that. You have nothing contradicting it.

There are two historical narratives wherein the principals, the heroines if you will, lied for a good cause: Rahab and the Hebrew midwives. Once again, God told neither to lie, and God commended neither lie. You have no Scriptural proof whatsoever for your doctrine of the good lie. In another past I plan to give just some of the Scriptures that are against a lie. There are none-absolutely none that are positive towards a lie other than possibly the ambiguous two narratives.

Plus, even God hardened or blinded people from the truth of his revelation for a time in order to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their act of rebellion. Some might think of that as being 'deceptive,' but I don't. His motive is pure, his act is beneficial for all concerned and HE IS GOD.

I've never read anything at all to say that God hardening or blinding people is deceptive. I don't see this point at all.

You would have to give me a circumstance if you want specifics. I've told you in every way I know how that the person's faith based motive in obedience to God certainly overrules the letter of the law. Abraham OBEYED God by attempting murder. He did so in faith, and was justified accordingly. Thus, obedience to God's command would be a good criteria. It something is done in faith, for the clearly right motive according to what God has said, then I say it would fit this criteria...but like I said I'd have to look at a specific circumstance if you want specific answers.

No theologian I know of refers to God's command to Abraham as a command to murder. Maybe you know one I don't. But I think freeatlast has answered this point adequately.

I take bibles to my brother in a dangerous closed country. (BTW, no country is closed if your willing to die). I don't hesitate to lie to muslim officials when asked about what I'm carrying and I KNOW in my heart I'm doing the right thing. You could not convince me that was a sin.

I have great respect for this missions ministry and I commend you highly for it. I don't think God will discipline you as per Heb. 12 for lying in this effort, since your motives are pure and your conscience doesn't condemn you. But I still think it is wrong.

I've been in a Muslim country myself to preach, not smuggle Bibles. I did it all openly without having to lie. I even mistakenly gave one more document than I needed to for the visa, one from my mission board making it plain that I was a missionary with support from America--not that I hid that. I openly admitted it. The Muslim officials didn't like it at the embassy, but they gave me the visa.

Does this mean I'm better than you? No, of course not. It simply means that God does not need our lies to protect us.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, there are literally dozen of Scriptures teaching that lying is wrong. None of them give any allowance for good motives in the lying. I don't believe anyone has rebutted Prov. 6:17-19 that God hates a lying tongue. But there are many more.

I did a short, very imcomplete study in Psalms, Proverbs and the NT. Here are just a few of the verses.

Ps 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: [but] thy law do I love.
Ps 120:2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, [and] from a deceitful tongue.
See also Psalm 31:6 & 18, 40:4, 52:3, 58:3, 59:12, 62:4, 63:11, 89:35, 101:7, 109:2, 119:29.
In Proverbs:
Pr 19:5&9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Pr 19:22 The desire of a man is his kindness: and a poor man is better than a liar.
See also: Prov. 14:5, 14:25, 17:4, 21:28, 29:12, 30:6 & 8.

In the NT, we have:
1 Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (I mentioned this verse before but no on answered it.--JoJ)
See also Rom. 1:25, 3:4, 4:25, 2 Thess. 2:9 & 11, 1 Tim. 1:10, Titus 1:12, 1 John 1:10, 2:4, 21, 22 &27, 4:20, 5:10.
And don't forget Rev. 21:8 & 27 and 22:15, in which all liars will be in the lake of fire (remembering that saved people who lie are justified before God forever and will not go to Hell--we are all sinners saved by grace).

In every single reference to lying in Psalms, Proverbs and the NT, it is negative. nver one single time in these books is lying a positive thing. I'm sure it's the same in the rest of the Bible.

 

[Skandelon]

You have no Scripture whatsoever to say that Rahab's lie was not a sin.

I have Hebrews 11 listing her act of faith (hiding the spies) as praiseworthy. So, unless you think sin is praiseworthy then it is incumbent upon you to provide a text that contradicts this view.

you don't have God ever telling anyone to lie

God told Abraham to kill his son. Which is worse? Lying or murder?

FreeatLast wrote:

In the case of Abraham you are correct as he was commanded to start the sacrifice process, but that was a test and the test had no intentions of it going all the way. Also you seem to have left out, I am sure it was an honest miss-take, that he was stopped.

He was told to sacrifice his son, not just 'start the sacrifice process.' You are trying to sugar coat it. Tell it like it is.

I made no such mistake. If you go back and read my posts you will see that I mentioned how unless God had stopped him that Abraham fully intended to murder his Son. That is an intent to kill, which in any other circumstance would be SIN, but here its faithful obedience. Face it guys, you have no ground to stand on here.

you don't have anything but the two narratives.

And what do you have? Nothing. The only thing you have is your question begging assumption that what they did was sin. You have nothing stating it was sin, only your opinion. I, on the other hand, have God commending their faith for doing that which you assume is evil. I have much more support biblically than you have. All you have is texts about the evil of sin, but that once again presumes that what they did was evil and sinful when God never called it such. We only see God commend them for faithful obedience, which included Abraham's intent to murder and Rahab's act of hiding spies.

I've never read anything at all to say that God hardening or blinding people is deceptive. I don't see this point at all.

It's referred to as the doctrine of judicial hardening. You can study up on it. I don't find it deceptive either, but it is God hiding the truth from people so as to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their rebellion.

No theologian I know of refers to God's command to Abraham as a command to murder.

If God appeared to you right now and told you to kill your son and you did it, or even attempted to do it, and were caught by law enforcement what would you be charged with? Attempted Sacrifice? They wouldn't care who you claimed told you to kill him, you'd be tried for murder.

I have great respect for this missions ministry and I commend you highly for it. I don't think God will discipline you as per Heb. 12 for lying in this effort. But I still think it is wrong.

Its one or the other bro. If its wrong its worthy of discipline, if its not, its not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Does this mean I'm better than you? No, of course not. It simply means that God does not need our lies to protect us.

I didn't say God needed a thing. That is not what this is about. It is about faithful obedience to God. When he commands Joshua to kill all the men women and children and destroy all the livestock will he obey or do what he thinks is right in his own eyes? That is the question you have to ask. You can do what you think is right in your own eyes or act in faith.