"Is it ever right to do wrong?"

Aaron,

Your statement that God's decretive will and preceptive will oppose one another indicate your lack of understanding the concepts. Perhaps these further readings will help.

References: Sproul, R. (1996, c1991). Following Christ. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Also just about any Theology Handbook, such as: Dabney, R. L. (1996). Systematic Theology. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed. based on the Banner of Truth 1985 ed.) (Page 195). Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation

Shazam!

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet:
Joey asked: Then why didn't the three Hebrew's lie?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I already answered to Joey: "Where did I ever say that it was biblical to lie concerning whether or not the God of the bible is the true God?

Name me one verse where anyone did that and was commended by God."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jefferson your question about the NFL. Obviously no-one has a problem with anyone
being in a football game. This game has rules that allow tricks. It is a game and only a game. Everyone knows your out to trick them within the guidlines of the game which is far different than lying about something as serious as the Gospel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So let me get this straight. You believe it's O.K. to lie in really important things like war. And it's also O.K. to lie in really unimportant things like "games." But when it comes to lying to protect innocent lives (following explicit examples in scripture) then all of a sudden it's not O.K.?

Boys and girls, can you say . . . "arbitrary"?

 

Is it ever wrong to do right?

Now, let's go another nine pages. Sheeesh!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
It's ironic that Jefferson thinks that absolutists are legalists. He thinks we are too strict when in truth, we are not as strict as he is in regard to scenarios about lying. Jefferson sees only two options, when in truth, there are more than two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a Nazi asked a citizen if he were hiding Jews in his house and he remained silent, it would be the same thing as answering "Yes" because it would invariably result in the officer becoming extremely suspicious and ordering his troops to search every square inch of the house.

Silence in this case would mean certain death for innocent lives and I wouldn't be a participant in that kind of evil silence.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
I'll repost it again since nobody seemed to notice. This answers this 8-page, six million post dilemma:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed the post but I didn't respond to it because Dr. Bob wants us to remain on topic. Your subject will get us all into the open-view of God controversy which is WAY off topic.

P.S. Your post does not answer "this 8-page six million post dilemma."

 

Just poking a little fun! Now I'll butt out!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorelei:
I may end up dying myself, but I would not rat you out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not ratting me out by remaining silent would result in me and the lives I'm trying to protect being killed. As I just explained to swaimj, remaining silent "would invariably result in the officer becoming extremely suspicious and ordering his troops to search every square inch of the house.

Silence in this case would mean certain death for innocent lives and I wouldn't be a participant in that kind of evil silence."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You say I am tempting God, when I reality I am trusting Him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you'd be trusting Him at my expense and at the expense of the lives I'm trying to save. That would be real compassionate of you Lorelei. Thanks a lot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But again, I ask you How many Nazi's have you hidden?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't answer this question because I thought it was silly. But since you persist . . . First of all, I wouldn't have hidden any Nazis, I would have hidden Jews. How many Jews have I hidden? Well, gee, let me think. Since I wasn't born until 1959 and WWII had been over for quite some time, I guess the answer would be zero. What's your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>& How many lies have you told?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've used biblical lying and deception twice. Both times in evangelical endeavors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also wonder why you expect Rahab not to lie when she wasn't an Isrealite anyway. She wasn't raised to know the "law".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God destroyed the world with the flood because of sin and that was also before the law was given. Why did God expect them not to sin when they weren't raised to know the "law"?

The answer is because Rahab (and the antediluvian peoples also) did know that lying was a sin because all people are born with a God-given conscience.

Yet without the benefit of scripture, Rahab was able to discern that lying to the ungodly to save the godly is a righteous act. She also lied to them by pretending to be a patriot when she was actually a traitor.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

 

All:

Larry wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a friend in China who smuggles Bibles; he uses deception by packing things in the top of boxes that have Bibles in the bottom. They put other book covers on Bibles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you all actually think that Larry's friend is sinning?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Rahab and the Egyptian midwives did not worry about the technicalities of their "words". Neither should we. We should defend innocent life. And that means either misleading their oppressors or killing them. Either one is justified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen Aaron!

 

"I've used biblical lying and deception twice. Both times in evangelical endeavors."

Care to elaborate? As in, "teaching" us how to properly (biblically) lie to those we're trying to lead to the Lord?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jefferson:
Yeah, you'd be trusting Him at my expense and at the expense of the lives I'm trying to save
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there you have folks, the real reason to lie. To save your own hide no matter what God wants! Let us not trust God at Jefferson's expense!

I still can't find THAT In the Bible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jefferson:

I've used biblical lying and deception twice. Both times in evangelical endeavors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how you haven't shown one New Testament verse to support Biblical lying yet you use it for "evangelical endeavors".


In the Words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I tell you the truth
Matthew 5:18,26; 6:2,5,16; 8:10; 10:15,23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18:3,13,18; 19:23,28; 21:21,31; 23:36; 24:2,34,47; 25:40,45; 26:21,34 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (That's just one of the four gospels.)

Seems like Jesus liked to emphasise that he was telling the Truth.

Here are some definitions that might help.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>trust (trst)
n.
Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
Something committed into the care of another; charge from Dictionary.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>tempt (tmpt)
v. tempt·ed, tempt·ing, tempts
v. tr.
To try to get (someone) to do wrong, especially by a promise of reward.
To provoke or to risk provoking: from Dictionary.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorelei:
But again, I ask you How many Nazi's have you hidden?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, yeah, my bad. I meant Jews. Do I get a cookie or some dunce award here?

~Lorelei

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Lorelei ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don:
Care to elaborate? As in, "teaching" us how to properly (biblically) lie to those we're trying to lead to the Lord?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don,

It's amazing that I had that same thought and yet my mind is free and clear from any foriegn substances. I too, would like Jefferson to elaborate on this as well.

Jefferson,

Can you clarify this please? How do we biblically lie for "evangelical" purposes?

Maybe explain exactly what you did.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei, you wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And there you have folks, the real reason to lie. To save your own hide no matter what God wants! Let us not trust God at Jefferson's expense!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did you only quote part of my sentence? I said, "Yeah, you'd be trusting Him at my expense and at the expense of the lives I'm trying to save."

Why did you leave the second half of my sentence out thereby trying to give everyone the impression that I only care about my own selfish needs?

Please explain to everyone on this forum how that was not deception on your part.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny how you haven't shown one New Testament verse to support Biblical lying yet you use it for "evangelical endeavors".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I Corinthians 10:6,11 show that the stories of the entire Old Testament are supposed to be used as examples for us today in the New Testament.

Additionally, Paul said in I Corinthians 10:23, "All things are lawful to me, but not all things profit. All things are lawful to me, but not all things build up." In the Old Testament (where people supposedly had less freedom) they were nevertheless free to lie and deceive the ungodly. But now in the New Testament age of grace you somehow think that our freedom in Christ gives us less freedom than those living under the law.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

 

Jefferson said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yeah, it makes me think what in the world you and your husband are doing getting your definitions of
Christian holiness from an anti-Christian, pagan tyrant. Are you two nuts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then Jefferson said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When your Dr. takes you off your drugs from your back surgery, let me know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both of these statements are very low of you. First calling Lorelei and her husband nuts, then you are implying that Don’s medication is clouding his thinking. Both a violation of the BB rules. Lorelei is greatly cherished here on the BB and I can assure you seeks only the Biblical answers. She does not rely on extra biblical definitions. And to accuse her of such things, then looking to the NFL to base your answers seems highly hypocritical to me. (And again only a game in which the two teams agree that they will be lying to each other as that is the game. They enter a covenant knowing this.) And as it is clear that myself, John Wells, Lorelei, Dr. Bob, Joey, swaimj, and Helen, who are all well grounded in the Bible seem to agree with Don’s conclusions that lying is wrong, based soley upon the Bible, that his medication is not the cause of any misunderstandings.
And when I read this from you:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've used biblical lying and
deception twice. Both times in evangelical endeavors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I only wonder, are you saying you have only lied twice? Jefferson what exactly are the Biblical evangelical endeavors that you speak of? Please tell us folks, who does not seem to understand the exceptions to the Bible, when we are supposed to lie.

Again Jefferson, you use of the historical records of the OT where people have lied does not prove one bit that lying is O.K. with God. They are simply stating the actual factual events of these people, and God can use a lie but does not need it or does He will it. And your use of the NT passage in Corinthians 10 is very true. We have the liberty to lie. God will not strike us dead for doing so, but we may reap what we sow. He will not take our name out of the book of life. He promised that all our sins are forgiven, and that there is no condemnation, even when we lie. Even when we know from His word that He hates a lying lip, that is more than Grace, that is extraordinary mercy.
Chet

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

Chet:

On another forum (theologyonline.com) Don posted the following:

"I'm back (sort of...I've got so many drugs running through my system that I'm not sure exactly where I am right this minute). . . I don't expect anything I write over the next few weeks to make any sense at all; in fact, I have the feeling that I'm going to come back in about a month or so and ask myself, "When did I start posting on Theology Online again?" . . . And if I wake up, and re-read my own posts and come to the determination that I was, frankly, on drugs, I assure you I will apologize...."

I replied, "I think we should all wait at least until the end of October to respond to any of Don's hallucinogenic ramblings. By the way Don, why did the doctors dope you up?"

Don replied, "Back surgery. Had a disk removed, a couple of vertebrae fused...no big deal...."

And regarding my post to Lorelei: I didn't accuse her of getting "definitions of
Christian holiness from an anti-Christian, pagan tyrant", I merely reported what she, herself said.

After relaying the definition of Christian holiness according to "a Roman Emporer who persecuted Christians" Lorelei replied, "I just found that rather interesting and relevant...makes ya think."

Do you call the act of getting one's definitions about Christian holiness from a pagan tyrant "sanity"? I call it "nuts".

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

 

We're running out of time, Jefferson; are you going to "teach" us how to biblically lie (i.e., give us those 2 times you've done so in evangelical matters) or not?

Tell you what: Don't bother. Because I won't believe you anyway.

Why? Because you've already admitted that you'll lie. How are we to know you're telling the truth now? Was it only 2 times? Or did you actually do it 2 times? Was it in reality only once? Did you really lie, or only say something halfway (which isn't lying, but not giving up the complete story)?

Shucks, how do we know for sure that what you posted from me was the truth?

(Note: It was. Those were my words. But we wouldn't know that for sure until we either went to the web site mentioned and searched it out ourselves, or until my admission--which I freely give.)

See, Jefferson, THAT'S the position you've put yourself in. You can no longer post ANYTHING on the Baptist Board without someone questioning whether you're telling the truth or not--because you state that the bible says it's okay to lie, and you've stated that you've done so.

I also posted on that other message board that I wasn't returning, and I won't. No need to; if every other enyartite there is like you, then how can I know for sure when any of you are telling me the truth? Take your word for it? But you've told me you'll lie if you think it's necessary, so how can I ever take your word for it?

You've put yourself in the most interesting quandary, Jefferson: If it's acceptable to lie for God, then how do we know without doubt that you won't lie about God?

Or worse, if the bible actually does support lying, then how do we know the Bible is a true book?

Pandora's box is opened....

Or is it?

How about we use the Bible as the absolute, final authority in this manner? If the Bible is the inspired Word of God--and I believe it is, and I believe that YOU, Jefferson, believe it is--then how about we allow the words of God Himself to guide us?

This has been posted before, by Lorelei I think, but I'll post it again:

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Remember, there is a difference between "brother" and "neighbour." A brother normally refers to a fellow Christian; according to one of the Strong's definitions, a neighbour is "according to Christ, any other man irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet." That means a Muslim, a non-believer, a Satanist, whatever. But Paul tells us to tell the Muslim, the non-believer, the Satanist the truth.

Why would Paul write this to the Ephesians, if there weren't a need to write it? Apparently, he had information that the Ephesians were doing this, and instead of commending them for lying, he was inspired by God to write to them: "Speak every man truth with his neighbour."

If the bible is the inspired Word of God, and I believe it is, then the final word is: Don't lie.

Plain and simple. Nothing to be added, or taken away.

For a guy who has medication as his excuse, I think it's pretty clear, and I think I've presented it pretty clearly.

Don't worry, Jefferson; I'll stop bugging you now. As I stated above, what good does it do me? I can never accept what you tell me, because there will ALWAYS be that nagging doubt: "Did he just lie to me?"

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Don ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorelei:
Jefferson,Can you clarify this please? How do we biblically lie for "evangelical" purposes?

Maybe explain exactly what you did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I lied to 5 million people in order to spread the gospel. Here's how and why I did it:
About 4 years ago I was contemplating how powerful the gospel is to convert souls. It's especially amazing when you consider how many sinners "listen" (wink, wink) to the gospel with their "anti-conversion shields" up. Normally people will listen to new ideas with a healthy "screen" to filter out potential incoming garbage. But when it comes to the gospel, they care more about holding on to their lifestyles than learning about truth so they "listen" to the gospel in a way that makes sure that none of it has a chance of convincing them.

In spite of their efforts to the contrary, the gospel still converts many of them. So I began thinking, "Just think how powerful the gospel could be if somehow we could get nonchristians to listen to or read the gospel . . .

1.) Voluntarily

and

2.) With an open, objective mind; with the same attitude they have when they read the sports section of their local newspaper.

Wow! Just think of how much higher the conversion rate would be!!!

If the gospel gets through to people in spite of them putting up their "anti-conversion shields" just think how much more effective it would be without those shields!

But how to accomplish this? Well, I figured that I could pay them. That would take care of the "voluntary" part. But they would still read the gospel with a closed "don't you dare even THINK about changing my lifestyle" attitude.

Weeks went by and I couldn't come up with a solution. Then months went by. Still no solution. Finally, just when I was about to give up on the whole idea, it hit me . . .

LIE TO THEM!!!

To make a long story short, I emailed (spammed) 5 million people with a survey called "The National Survey of Cultural Literacy" which I claimed was a secular research project from some secular university.

I deceitfully said the purpose of the survey was designed to determine the general knowledge that people have of their own culture.

Since cultures are primarily defined by politics and religion, I divided up my survey with questions on The Bill of Rights and The New Testament.

I listed 10 sentences from the Bill of Rights and 10 verses from The New Testament.
I referred to the verses as "sentences" After all, I was playing the role of a pagan.

I first asked the respondents to indicate which one of the 10 sentences from The Bill of Rights they were most familiar with and then which of the 10 sentences they were least familiar with.

Then they were to do the same thing with 10 verses from The New Testament - simply indicate which of the 10 verses they were most familiar with and which of the 10 they were least familiar with.

Therefore, the survey only asked for the answers to a mere 4 questions.

The first couple of verses that I quoted in the "Religion" section were very non-evangelical (just in case they still might have been a little suspicious). But by the time they read the 10th verse, they had read The Roman's Road!

Oh, sneaky me.

I got 30,000 responses!!!

30,000 people reading the gospel . . .

1.) Voluntarily

and

2.) With their anti-conversion shields down; just reading it with the same non-critical attitude they have when they read their daily sports section.

Mission accomplised.

How many conversions were there? I couldn't ask. Why would a secular university give a rip whether or not someone got converted? Asking would have blown my cover.

I'll just have to wait until I get to heaven to find out how many conversions resulted from this lie that I sent out to 5 million people.

That was evangelical lie #1.

Evangelical lie #2:

I did another spam of about 200,000 emails about 2 years ago. This page is still up and running and you can view it at http://www.nineveh2.com

It's blatantly evangelistic and doesn't attempt to fool or trick anyone into reading the gospel.

However, I did trick people into going to the site. Here's how I did it:

The subject heading of the emails I sent out read "FUN CHARACTER TEST!" What nonchristian wouldn't want to take a "fun character test"? The "character test" is the 10 commandments. Naturally, everyone fails the test which provides for a perfect segway into their need for a Savior.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

 

My apologies for debating Don while he is on medication, but since this is the last page allowed, some things need to be responded to. Perhaps this can be continued at a later time on another thread.

Regarding Ezekiel 14:9 you wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How am I supposed to interpret that other than God will destroy the prophet that was deceived?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The verses explicitly says, "...I the Lord have deceived that prophet..."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Judges 4:18, 21--so you're telling us that Jael, a Kenite and not an Israelite, was obeying God by lying to Sisera? How about she was simply fulfilling the prophecy of Deborah? As a Kenite and not an Israelite, did Jael feel the necessity to obey the laws of the Israelite God? Want to show us how contextually this passage really means that God rewards lying?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. Just go to the very next chapter. In verse 24 it says, "Blessed among women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be. She shall be blessed above women in the tent."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Judges 3:19, 21--you've got to be kidding. Ehud didn't lie in this passage!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the verse says, "...And all that stood by him went out from him" that showed that he successfully deceived them into thinking he was a friend to the point where they allowed him to be alone with the king.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Judges 1:24-26--Are you trying to convince us that the man in this passage was a traitor from day 1?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was at least a traitor on that day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, this is a prime example of what I meant when I mentioned mis-using scripture...you've done an excellent job of inserting a meaning into scripture instead of drawing one from it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain how the man was not a traitor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Genesis 26? How about the verses AFTER the ones you provided? 10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. 12 THEN Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him.(notice that the blessing didn't happen until AFTER the truth came out)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why wasn't Isaac punished by God for lying?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gen 12? Same problem: 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. 17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. (Note that Abram's reward for lying was that God visited a plague upon Pharoah, and Pharoah kicked him out!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why didn't God visit a plague upon Abram for lying?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the only one you gave us that actually fit what you're trying to convince us of was Gen 27<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why did God never punish Jacob for deceiving his father?

And finally,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can never accept what you tell me, because there will ALWAYS be that nagging doubt: "Did he just lie to me?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did I ever say that lying apart from attempting to save lives was Biblical? We are not saving lives on this forum. We are discussing theology.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]

 

Larry:

The conclusion of this thread is obvious. You were doing the Biblical thing by deceiving the ungodly in order to attempt to save their eternal lives.

Don't let yourself be brow-beaten by Christian legalists who strain at gnats and swallow camels.

You now have plenty of verses to stand on.

Put your web-site back up and deceive to the best of your ability with a clear conscience.

Good luck, and God bless your ministry.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jefferson ]