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

[Luke2427]

You are taking a passage out of context. God is not commending her for the lie. She is being commended for her faith which is seen in an action which James is trying to show has to be present for faith to be real. If lying was justified before God then you can be sure that the Lord would have done it as well as Paul, Peter, and every other apostle, but you cannot find any such suggestion. You seem to forget Rahab was a heathen who had no idea of righteousness and did what she did out of who she was. I liar and prostitute. Show me one NT example of anyone lying who is saved and they are commended. Sin is never a tool of God.

Define lying and I will take you up on that.

Is lying ONLY done with the tongue?

Is lying any effort to disguise the truth and to cause someone to think something that is not so?

Define lying and we will go from there.

 

[freeatlast]

Define lying and I will take you up on that.

Is lying ONLY done with the tongue?

Is lying any effort to disguise the truth and to cause someone to think something that is not so?

Define lying and we will go from there.

A lie;
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

 

[Aaron]

Define lying . . .

Bearing false witness against one's neighbor . . .

And lest one argues that God's enemies are his neighbor: Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Ps 139:21-22.

 

[Aaron]

Amy you need to read the text. It does not say by faith she lied. She received the spys by faith, but her lie was not of faith. God could have protected them without her lie as he did Daniel or his three friends. No sin is ever of God.

She didn't lie. She engaged in espionage with God's spies.

But you know what? If it ever works out that I know where you're hiding from your persecutors, and the authorities ask me, I'll be sure to consider your conscience in my answer and be completely open about your whereabouts.

 

[Luke2427]

A lie;
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

You presented a challenge. I cannot take on the challenge if I do not have the appropriate parameters. I cannot have those parameters unless you are willing to clarify them by answering the questions I asked.

You did not.

Please answer those questions so we can move on.

 

[Luke2427]

You're not listening. Motive will determine means.

And, there is nothing in what Luke said by which you can make his meaning so narrow.

Thanks Aaron and you are right. He is misrepresenting what I am saying.

 

[pinoybaptist]

In giving the gospel that is the truth and I would do exactly what i said, no more and no less. If he had a pre-made excuse I would just walk away and leave him with it. My motive would be to tell the person about the Lord and their need for salvation. if they would not listen I would not press them.

well, will you please address the issue ?
what will YOU do if you were in that hypothetical situation ?
you ARE a Christian, and you ARE a freedom fighter, and you ARE confronted by the enemy, and you WILL die and so will others if you say you are a guerilla, and your other option is to deny your being a guerilla, and possibly live.

Your reasons, if you do not like the word motive, is to preserve your life, and that of your fellow fighters.

He gave us that example, and he sincerely did not want to be a Christian because he knows he will, someway along the way, sin.
Mark it well: he knows nothing about eternal security at this point.

Again, YOU are the guerilla fighter. What will YOU do.
He asked us, what will we do.

 

[Skandelon]

His motive is to ignore the Word of God and take matters into his own hands.

You just shifted his motive to something other than what the example supposed because you can't deal with the actual example. If the killer of the abortionist is not aware of God's word then his motive can't be to ignore it, he wouldn't even know it existed.

This is great sin.

Why? Because his motive to stop abortions is wrong? No. Because what he did was wrong. It is the motive and the means brother.

He does not have to right to unilaterally go against the state which God has set up and execute sinners.

Agreed, but we aren't talking about his rights, we are discussing his motive, which is supposed in the analogy to be good but his action based upon that motive is wrong, period.

 

[Skandelon]

Speaking of the motive and means. Let's go back to addressing God's motive and means.

In the case of the crucifixion, the means God used to bring redemption, is a perfect example of what we are discussing. If it is just about motive then God wouldn't need to worry about all those "second causes" Calvinists are talking about, would he? Could he just have actively stepped out of heaven and nailed Jesus to the cross Himself? Or just struck him with lightening or something? The whole point of all the hoops Calvinists jump through to describe how God causally and effectually brings about his purposes through allowing some things, disposing events and all the rest is needless if its about the motive alone. The very reason God chooses the means of having men in their continued rebellion to crucify Jesus was to avoid divine culpability, but if the means don't matter then couldn't Calvinists just say, "God killed Jesus, but for a good reason," and leave it at that?

 

[Luke2427]

You just shifted his motive to something other than what the example supposed because you can't deal with the actual example. If the killer of the abortionist is not aware of God's word then his motive can't be to ignore it, he wouldn't even know it existed.

Why? Because his motive to stop abortions is wrong? No. Because what he did was wrong. It is the motive and the means brother.

Agreed, but we aren't talking about his rights, we are discussing his motive, which is supposed in the analogy to be good but his action based upon that motive is wrong, period.

He does not have to know the word of God to know instinctively that he cannot take it upon himself to take another's life. He must have authorization by the state or by God to take one's life. He must ignore the law of conscience to kill a man without authorization.

Cain did this. There was no law written but evil lay at the door according to God. Evil lay at the door because Cain knew good from evil to some degree and ignored his conscience. God condemned him for it.

The murderer of abortion doctors is no different from Cain. Evil lies at the door.

 

[freeatlast]

well, will you please address the issue ?
what will YOU do if you were in that hypothetical situation ?
you ARE a Christian, and you ARE a freedom fighter, and you ARE confronted by the enemy, and you WILL die and so will others if you say you are a guerilla, and your other option is to deny your being a guerilla, and possibly live.

Your reasons, if you do not like the word motive, is to preserve your life, and that of your fellow fighters.

He gave us that example, and he sincerely did not want to be a Christian because he knows he will, someway along the way, sin.
Mark it well: he knows nothing about eternal security at this point.

Again, YOU are the guerilla fighter. What will YOU do.
He asked us, what will we do.

Your scenario is something that I would never engage in so it is impossible for me to answer it. You just don't get it! You keep trying to come up with scenarios to get me to say under those circumstances lying is permissible. That will never happen since scripture never teaches that. On the other hand I am not saying that there are not certain circumstances where I might not sin and lie. I hope not, but I don't believe I have arived and I know how easy it is to fail. I am not in those circumstances so I don't know. I might cave in. I am saying that no lie is justifiable before God. Many here are trying to justify sin. I won't do that.
Once someone thinks that they can justify sin, no matter how good their intentions might seem to them or the situatuation seems to require it, they lose any ability to determind what is sin.

 

[Luke2427]

Speaking of the motive and means. Let's go back to addressing God's motive and means.

In the case of the crucifixion, the means God used to bring redemption, is a perfect example of what we are discussing. If it is just about motive then God wouldn't need to worry about all those "second causes" Calvinists are talking about, would he? Could he just have actively stepped out of heaven and nailed Jesus to the cross Himself? Or just struck him with lightening or something? The whole point of all the hoops Calvinists jump through to describe how God causally and effectually brings about his purposes through allowing some things, disposing events and all the rest is needless if its about the motive alone. The very reason God chooses the means of having men in their continued rebellion to crucify Jesus was to avoid divine culpability, but if the means don't matter then couldn't Calvinists just say, "God killed Jesus, but for a good reason," and leave it at that?

That is utter bunk.

You just ASSUME that the whole reason God does these things is to keep him from being culpable for sin.

Why is that so? Because you say so???

It is baloney. You have no right to assume why God does what he does unless he TELLS you why he is doing it.

 

[Skandelon]

He does not have to know the word of God to know instinctively that he cannot take it upon himself to take another's life. He must have authorization by the state or by God to take one's life. He must ignore the law of conscience to kill a man without authorization.

I agree Luke but you are the one who says if his motive is good then it's not sin. If his motive is to stop abortion it doesn't matter what the rules or law is, his motive is all that matters, because that apparently is the only determinative factor as to its rightness or wrongness. You keep shifting to talk about how the means are wrong so that somehow makes the man's motive wrong. In the analogy we are supposing that his motive is good, you can't just change the analogy to make it presume his motive must be wrong to suit your position.

Cain did this. There was no law written but evil lay at the door according to God. Evil lay at the door because Cain knew good from evil to some degree and ignored his conscience. God condemned him for it.

A poor example because we both agree that Cain's motive was impure. His motive was envy. If that Cain was attempting to stop Able from killing an unborn child would the argument be the same?

 

[Skandelon]

That is utter bunk....It is baloney.

Well, glad to see we can have a nice rational and respectful conversation about the loving and holy God we serve. Nice.

You just ASSUME that the whole reason God does these things is to keep him from being culpable for sin.

Why is that so? Because you say so???

Uh, no. I said Calvinists go to great lengths to explain how God causally determines things through "second or third causes" so as to make sure he is not seen as the "author of sin." (See Westminster Confession for example)

My question/argument was to ask why is such explanation necessary if the means aren't relevant? If it is ONLY about MOTIVE, then just claim that "God is the first, direct and active cause of sin, but his motive is pure, so it is ok," as you do.

Understand now?

 

[Winman]

I think you both have it wrong. I believe God simply knew the religious leaders would hate Jesus and plot to kill him. Even Pilate recognized they delivered Jesus up out of envy.

I mean, I am only mortal, but I can predict if you went to Mecca during the Muslim's holy season and took out the Bible and started preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ you have a real good chance of being beaten to death on the spot. If you are lucky enough to survive you will be arrested, put in prison, and likely executed soon after.

God didn't have to make the religious leaders kill Jesus, he simply knew they would.

 

[Skandelon]

God didn't have to make the religious leaders kill Jesus, he simply knew they would.

I'm not arguing that he had to make them want to kill Jesus and I agree that they would have given the circumstances. However, there is the matter of the gospel, which is very powerful, and might lead them to faith before they killed Christ. This is why we see Jesus hiding the gospel in parables lest they believe and repent (Mark 3; Matt 13). This is one of the ways God hardened/blinded Israel in their already rebellious state.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree Luke but you are the one who says if his motive is good then it's not sin. If his motive is to stop abortion it doesn't matter what the rules or law is, his motive is all that matters, because that apparently is the only determinative factor as to its rightness or wrongness.

No Skandelon. His motive is not Godward if he ignores God's demands written on his conscience.

If his motive is not Godward it is wickedness.

You keep shifting to talk about how the means are wrong so that somehow makes the man's motive wrong.

There has not been an ounce of shifting. I do not know why you do this. You are forever claiming that I am flip flopping or shifting when I am not.

I cannot yet tell if it is a lack of understanding or dishonesty that causes you to do this.

I hope it is the former.

In the analogy we are supposing that his motive is good, you can't just change the analogy to make it presume his motive must be wrong to suit your position.

You don't get to say, "In my analogy his motive is good" if your analogy bears out that in God's eyes (the only eyes that count) it is CLEARLY evil.

His motive is NOT good- period. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

If the man murders against his conscience ignoring what is clearly against the commands of God written on his heart then the man has a vile and wicked and damnable motive.

A poor example because we both agree that Cain's motive was impure. His motive was envy. If that Cain was attempting to stop Able from killing an unborn child would the argument be the same?

No it is a fine example. Cain had no law written to read just as the man in your analogy. Cain killed without the directive of higher authority just like the man in your analogy. Cain was judged because his motive was self centered rather than God centered just like the man in your analogy will be judged for his motive not being Godward.

 

[Aaron]

Speaking of the motive and means. Let's go back to addressing God's motive and means.

In the case of the crucifixion, the means God used to bring redemption, is a perfect example of what we are discussing. If it is just about motive then God wouldn't need to worry about all those "second causes" Calvinists are talking about, would he? Could he just have actively stepped out of heaven and nailed Jesus to the cross Himself? Or just struck him with lightening or something? The whole point of all the hoops Calvinists jump through to describe how God causally and effectually brings about his purposes through allowing some things, disposing events and all the rest is needless if its about the motive alone. The very reason God chooses the means of having men in their continued rebellion to crucify Jesus was to avoid divine culpability, but if the means don't matter then couldn't Calvinists just say, "God killed Jesus, but for a good reason," and leave it at that?

Your only hope IS Calvinism. It's the only system that allows for the fact that one so ignorant of God and His ways can still be known of Him.

"Avoid divine culpability"????????? :laugh::laugh:

A God Who DELIVERED His Son into the hands of murders is not culpable? The One who created this world simply to bring forth that act is not culpable?

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Winman]

I'm not arguing that he had to make them want to kill Jesus and I agree that they would have given the circumstances. However, there is the matter of the gospel, which is very powerful, and might lead them to faith before they killed Christ. This is why we see Jesus hiding the gospel in parables lest they believe and repent (Mark 3; Matt 13). This is one of the ways God hardened/blinded Israel in their already rebellious state.

Oh, I agree with you, I believe God hiding the gospel from some (especially the religious leaders) was a judgment brought upon them for their continued rebellion and unbelief against God.

God could make anyone believe if he wanted to, he could transport the most rebellious sinner to hell for one hour and that person would immediately repent. But God has not chosen this method, he gave Moses and the prophets (Luke 16). God is merciful and longsuffering, but even God has his limits. At some point a man crosses the line and God gives them up to a reprobate mind. This was the condition of many Jews when Jesus was among them. So, it was a judgment.

 

[Aaron]

Here's your problem Luke. Every motive of man is sinful. Every one, because every motive springs from a corrupt heart. So you kind of play into a noncalvinist's hand when you make the argument that motive determines whether an act is sin or not. (I know what you mean, but thy don't think the same way, or they'd be Calvinists.)

When speaking with noncalvinists, you have to keep in mind that they don't see men as we see them. They see them as basically good though defective. They believe that a man can bring good things out of the treasures of a corrupt heart.

It's best to stick to the texts of the Scriptures they think they believe, that by the law is the knowledge of sin, not by the motive. Rahab's act did not violate the law. She did not bear false witness against her neighbor, She did what she did out of the fear of the LORD, and had no other God beside Him. It was an act of faith.