Is it sin to lie or kill for the right MOTIVE?

[Skandelon]

Luke, can you reply to the question about the decrees of God? There is a new thread about it so you can answer there.

In order for us to get out of this circular discussion we have to define the term and you said you were ok with me providing a definition from a good theological dictionary, I did, so you need to clarify your position according to that definition or provide your own...

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, can you reply to the question about the decrees of God? There is a new thread about it so you can answer there.

In order for us to get out of this circular discussion we have to define the term and you said you were ok with me providing a definition from a good theological dictionary, I did, so you need to clarify your position according to that definition or provide your own...

Here is Edwards and Piper. They sufficiently represent my view on the matter:

Jonathan Edwards offers his explanation. (See below for my attempt at restating him.)

That we should say, that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that they do that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions . . . and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful as sinful, but decrees [them] as good, is really consistent.

We do not mean by decreeing an action as sinful, the same as decreeing an action so that it shall be sinful; but by decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing [it] for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that it shall be sinful for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof, whereas man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it. (Miscellanies #85, paragraphing added)

In other words, God can decree an action that is sinful for a human to perform, because he decrees it for non-sinful reasons.

A sin is only sinful because of the attitude of the heart in doing it. When humans sin, we are by definition rebelling against God. But in ordaining human sin, God doesn't rebel against himself. Rather, he ordains our sins with good ends in mind, which makes the act of ordaining them not sinful, since the attitude of his heart is not rebellious but righteous.

Some biblical expressions that seem to support this understading are Genesis 50:20 and Romans 11:32.

 

[Luke2427]

First, listen to the audio I hyperlinked for you. You will hear him state exactly what I said, verbatum. The point you missed regarding it was not that God changes His nature on a whim, but the hyper view accerts that God's nature is defined by His will. In other words - God's will take precedent over His nature, thus defining His nature to the action in accordance with His will. - in that sense, as the reformed author was speaking, the hyper view has God changing His nature.

In light of the above view, God CAN approve of lieing, even though His nature so 'no', His will can say 'yes' and thereby change the lie into something good and holy.

This is essentially stating that God's holiness is in His Will not in His Nature. And as such changes His nature to accomidate His will, allowing for something previously despised to be now accepted, based upon motive and not a pre-defined action. Ie.. a lie becomes good because He wills it in contrast to a lie is evil because it is not the truth and goes against Gods nature.

Basically it is the argument of what is sin - motive vs. defined act


I never tried to equate the two as being one and the same.
I know full well to be Supra does not automatically establish one as a Hyper. You can be Supra and not hyper, but you can not be hyper and not be Supra.


I agree, but it is not I that am doing it.. it is you.
My point had nothing to do with you being hyper or not.


Dealt with it already and my point (as well as those opposing your view) stands the test of scripture and even stand in vast majority of Reformed view on this point.

Additionally regarding you 'assuming I was calling you a hyper - I qualified the fact that I was not callinig you a hyper or by necessity your view.. What I said is that I found it interesting that while listening to an audio on monergism regarding the History of HyperCalvinism.. that specifically was addressed and is the very view you attest to.

Your whole post to which I responded was about hypercalvinism which has NOTHING at all to do with what you and I have been discussing.

What you have been saying is that God has to abide by the commands he gives to men.

Nobody believes that but you.

 

[Aaron]

Believing is not a "quality". It is simply trusting in someone other than yourself. It is giving up of self. Faith is not a work according to God's word, so it is not something that you "do". However God counts it as righteousness and no one will be saved without it.

Why do some people have it, and others don't?

 

[Amy.G]

Why do some people have it, and others don't?

Have what? Faith?

They don't want to submit to God? They love their sin?

Why do some people like broccoli and some don't?

 

[Allan]

Your whole post to which I responded was about hypercalvinism which has NOTHING at all to do with what you and I have been discussing.

*sigh. You really do have a comprehension deficiency don't you.

I have already qualified my post TWICE.
It was an interesting observation I came upon.

What you have been saying is that God has to abide by the commands he gives to men.

What is it with you and continuing to mud-up the discussion by constantly REVISING my argument.

What we have been discussing, and I have already corrected you on, is NOT that God has to 'abide' by the commands He gives men.
The commands of God toward men, are the very reflection of God's nature.

Nobody believes that but you.

I have already proven this, unquestionably, that this is the orthodox Reformed view. YOU, my friend, stand outside it on this issue.

 

[Skandelon]

What we have been discussing, and I have already corrected you on, is NOT that God has to 'abide' by the commands He gives men.
The commands of God toward men, are the very reflection of God's nature.


I have already proven this, unquestionably, that this is the orthodox Reformed view. YOU, my friend, stand outside it on this issue.

Well stated Allan. You are a patient man. Maybe if he can't hear it from us he will listen to his mentor quoted here:

“The commands and prohibitions of God are only significations of our duty and of his nature.” –Jonathan Edwards


Luke, in case you didn't catch that, he is saying that the command and prohibitions of God signify his nature and our duties....BOTH. Once again you contradict your own...

 

[Luke2427]

Well stated Allan. You are a patient man. Maybe if he can't hear it from us he will listen to his mentor quoted here:

“The commands and prohibitions of God are only significations of our duty and of his nature.” –Jonathan Edwards


Luke, in case you didn't catch that, he is saying that the command and prohibitions of God signify his nature and our duties....BOTH. Once again you contradict your own...

Both of you are talking past me rather than with me or even to me.

I showed you Allan's first post on this subject. He said in NO uncertain terms that God abides by his own commandments to men.

If you continue to ignore this fact you are just being dishonest.

Patience is what it takes for me to continue conversing with you when YOU are being dishonest.

Furthermore, I said EARLY in the discussion that God's commandments DO reflect his nature but ONLY in the sense that we see it by what he wants of US. NNE with half a theological brain has EVER argued that God must keep his own commandments to men because they reflect his nature. NNE.

 

[Winman]

Both of you are talking past me rather than with me or even to me.

I showed you Allan's first post on this subject. He said in NO uncertain terms that God abides by his own commandments to men.

If you continue to ignore this fact you are just being dishonest.

Patience is what it takes for me to continue conversing with you when YOU are being dishonest.

Furthermore, I said EARLY in the discussion that God's commandments DO reflect his nature but ONLY in the sense that we see it by what he wants of US. NNE with half a theological brain has EVER argued that God must keep his own commandments to men because they reflect his nature. NNE.

The scriptures do show God is bound within his own nature.

2 Tim 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.

God cannot just do anything and that makes it right. A lie is a lie regardless of who tells it, even God. I showed you that in Luke 8:55. It is impossible for God to lie because he is Holy and True. It is his nature to always tell the truth, and he cannot deny himself.

 

[Aaron]

Have what? Faith?

They don't want to submit to God? They love their sin?

Why do some people like broccoli and some don't?

If faith is not a choice, then the ones who have it didn't choose it. God gave it to them.

If faith is a choice, it's a work.

 

[Luke2427]

The scriptures do show God is bound within his own nature.

2 Tim 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.

God cannot just do anything and that makes it right. A lie is a lie regardless of who tells it, even God. I showed you that in Luke 8:55. It is impossible for God to lie because he is Holy and True. It is his nature to always tell the truth, and he cannot deny himself.

That has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Nobody I know denies this.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is Edwards and Piper. They sufficiently represent my view on the matter:

I carried this over to the thread about decrees and replied to you there...