# RC Sproul has stunned me...



## Matthew1344 (Jan 20, 2015)

In his book "Pleasing God" He said two things that stumped me. 


1) you don't have to forgive people that aren't Christian

2) it is ok to lie if someone doesn't deserve the truth.

Anyone ever heard this before?


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 20, 2015)

The context might better explain what he means. I used to have that book but I don't remember that.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't know about the first point, but think about the second one for a second... Matthew, let's say some guy was looking for your wife with a deadly knife in his hand and you knew well where she was. So, would you tell him her location just because "he deserves to know the truth" OR would you rather love your wife by protecting her against a highly likely abuse of truth (i.e., the truth of her location)? I for one wholeheartedly agree that we have no obligation to tell the truth depending on the context and how that truth is going to be used.

This is also why lying in the context of jokes isn't necessarily sinful, because a good joke never has the intention of ultimately leading a person astray. Actually, even God the Father and Christ use sarcasm and irony in their speech in Scripture. But perhaps rather than saying "lying" is not necessarily wrong, we should find a proper definition for the term in Scripture that would necessarily include a sinful motive.


----------



## SynodOfDort (Jan 20, 2015)

I am unsure about the context of Dr. Sproul's comment, but I would assume that it may be in response to Kant's argument that it is _always_ morally wrong to lie. If I recollect correctly (and I often don't) Kant was asked if a crazed ax murderer was to walk in his front door at that very moment and demanded to know the location of his wife and children in the house, would he be morally required to tell the madman the truth? Kant replied that he would be, and that if the opportunity presented itself he would feel the need to do as such. There are times in which it may be morally justifiable to lie, I suppose that the utmost discretion would need to be used, though. 

As for forgiving people that aren't Christian, I would also like to see the context in which he may use that. Does he mean not to trust someone who does not have the righteousness of Christ to keep his word? I would be greatly surprised if he has the intention of never forgiving a wrong-doing by a non-Christian.


----------



## Don Kistler (Jan 20, 2015)

The late Dr. John Gerstner often said the second quote. He said, "You are obliged to give the truth to those who have a right to it. But you are not obliged to give it to those who have no right to it." And he would cite Nazis in WW2 asking you if you had Jews in the house somewhere. He said he would lie to protect those Jews. And if a football team is running a reverse, you are under no obligation to let the defense know that.


----------



## cmaglaughlin (Jan 20, 2015)

Also...I have a problem with scripture saying if I don't forgive others, I won't be forgiven. Things happened decades ago. I was grievously wronged. I don't care to re-visit the situation. Why would anyone be required to do over and above what God Himself will not do...like on Judgment Day. I'm NOT bigger than He!


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jan 20, 2015)

Here are a few past threads in which the question regarding lying has been addressed:

Did Rahab sin by deceiving the King?
Lying and the Nazis at your door
Moral Absolutes: Lying
One recurring piece mentioned is the work of John Murray on this subject, "The Sanctity of Truth."

I would also submit the following section from Fisher's Catechism for your reading:


> Q. 12. What is it for a person to make an officious lie?
> 
> A. It is to tell a downright untruth, for their own, or their neighbour's safety and security in time of danger, as Rahab did who hid the spies in the roof of her house, and yet alleged they were gone out of the city, and that she knew not where they went, Josh. 2:4-6.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 20, 2015)

For another perspective, see:

View attachment Lying Always Wrong - Poythress.pdf

As to forgiveness...

Forgiveness focuses on the offense, whereas reconciliation focuses on the relationship. Forgiveness requires no relationship. However, reconciliation requires a relationship in which two people, in agreement, are walking together toward the same goal. "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?" (Amos 3:3)

* Forgiveness can take place with only one person. —Reconciliation requires at least two persons.
* Forgiveness is directed one-way. —Reconciliation is reciprocal... occurring two-ways.
* Forgiveness is a decision to release the offender. —Reconciliation is the effort to rejoin the offender.
* Forgiveness involves a change in thinking about the offender. —Reconciliation involves a change in behavior by the offender.
* Forgiveness is a free gift to the one who has broken trust. —Reconciliation is a restored relationship based on restored trust.
* Forgiveness is extended even if it is never, ever earned. —Reconciliation is offered to the offender because it has been earned.
* Forgiveness is unconditional, regardless of a lack of repentance. —Reconciliation is conditional based on repentance.

Reconciliation is not always mandated.

* Most of the time God's desire for us is reconciliation. Second Corinthians 5:18 says, "God... reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation."
* However, sometimes encouraging the restoration of a relationship is not at all wise, as with a partner in adultery or with a rapist. First Corinthians 15:33 says, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'" For instance, if a husband's anger is out of control and he refuses to get help for his violent temper, the wife needs to take this Scripture to heart and move out of harm's way until counseling and lasting changes are a part of his lifestyle.

"Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered." (Proverbs 22:24)
*[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]*[FONT=&amp]Forgiveness is dismissing a debt. In the New Testament, the Greek noun_aphesis _denotes a "_dismissal_" or "_release_."When you grant forgiveness, you dismiss the debt owed to you. When you receiveforgiveness, your debt is dismissed. When you grant forgiveness, you dismissthe debt from your thoughts. Forgiveness is dismissing your demand that othersowe you something, especially when they fail to meet your expectations... failto keep a promise... fail to treat you justly.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]That said, forgiveness is not [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]- circumventing God's justice
[/FONT]- waiting for time to heal all wounds
- letting the guilty off the hook
- the same thing as reconciliation
- excusing unjust behavior
- explaining away the hurt
- based on what is fair
- being a weak martyr
- stuffing your anger
- a natural response
- denying the hurt
- being a doormat
- conditional (God mandates it!)
- forgetting
- a feeling....

God commands us to forgive. Forgiveness is an act of the will, it is not some emotion.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 20, 2015)

Sproul's context on the matter of lying to those who have no right to the truth:

One day , as the Nazis were searching the village for young men, the woman hid her son beneath the floor. Without knocking, the soldiers burst into the house armed with submachine guns. They rushed to the bedroom and searched the closets for evidence of young men’s clothing. They felt the beds to see if they were warm . Finally, they returned to the living room and stood over the very spot where the son was hidden. A soldier said to the woman, “Are you hiding any boys here?” What was her moral responsibility? Should she have said, “Yes, there is one under the floor”? I think not. She had the moral right to lie. The Nazis had no right to the truth. She replied, “No, there are no boys here.” Thereupon, the soldiers began to shoot up the floor, all the while watching the mother’s reaction for any hint of panic. She displayed no outward emotion, while inside she was in stark terror. Finally, the soldiers left. Panic stricken, the mother rushed to the hiding place. Her son emerged unscathed. Her deception had saved him. 

We are not required to tell robbers where we have hidden our valuables. Soldiers are not required to tell the enemy where their comrades are positioned. Truth is to be told to those who are due it. We do not please God when we tell the truth to people who do not deserve the truth.​
Sproul, R. C. (2012-09-01). _Pleasing God: Discovering the Meaning and Importance of Sanctification_ (Classic Theology) (p. 170). David C. Cook.​


----------



## Toasty (Jan 20, 2015)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I don't know about the first point, but think about the second one for a second... Matthew, let's say some guy was looking for your wife with a deadly knife in his hand and you knew well where she was. So, would you tell him her location just because "he deserves to know the truth" OR would you rather love your wife by protecting her against a highly likely abuse of truth (i.e., the truth of her location)? I for one wholeheartedly agree that we have no obligation to tell the truth depending on the context and how that truth is going to be used.



You could say, "You don't need to know. I'm not telling you." You could also say, "I'll tell you after you are arrested and thrown in jail."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 20, 2015)

Sproul's context on forgiveness not to be extended to all:
"On the question of whom we must forgive, there is a widespread misunderstanding in Christian circles. Somehow, somewhere, the idea gained currency that Christians are under obligation to grant unqualified, unilateral forgiveness to anyone who sins against them. For example, if a person attacks my character unjustly , it is assumed that I must simply absorb the grievance and forgive that person immediately."

Sproul, R. C. (2012-09-01)._ Pleasing God: Discovering the Meaning and Importance of Sanctification_ (Classic Theology) (p. 116). David C. Cook.

"We are not to return evil for evil (Rom. 12: 17). The central focus is on peaceful restraint and nonviolent responses to verbal abuse. During His trial, Jesus was mocked and slapped, and though He could have called on legions of angels to assist Him, He chose to bear the insults in silence. He blessed those who cursed Him and did good to those who hated Him (Matt. 5: 44). In a word, He showed love toward His enemies.

"Yet all of this does not nullify the fact that biblical law has manifold provisions for seeking justice in the case of wrongful injury. Virtually every Christian church has some provision to deal with grievances within the church by the valid use of church courts. There are also provisions for the use of civil courts to settle serious disputes. Our preliminary conclusion is this: if someone sins against us, we _may _exercise unilateral forgiveness, but it is not an absolute obligation in every circumstance. Here we see the crucial distinction between _may _and _must_. We notice in Jesus’s extended teaching on forgiveness in Luke 17 that He said, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (v. 3). Here the one who sins is a brother. It is possible that this mandate does not apply to everyone who sins against us. We are to treat all people as neighbors, but not everyone is a brother. The word _brother _has specific reference to a fellow Christian.

"At least in the case of a fellow Christian sinning against us, we have specific instructions. The first step is to rebuke the brother. Thus, it is clear that we are not commanded to bear all sins in silence. Jesus told us to rebuke or admonish the guilty party. What follows is of central importance. Jesus said, “And if he repents, forgive him.” Here we see a conditional clause, “if he repents.” Presumably, if the brother does not repent, we are under no obligation to grant unilateral forgiveness. Just as God requires repentance from us before He grants forgiveness, we may exact the same requirement. 

"Of course, we _may _choose to forgive someone who does not repent, but that is not the same thing as saying that we must forgive the impenitent person. However, if the condition of repentance is met, then we are under obligation to grant forgiveness. If the brother repents, we must forgive him. Refusal to forgive a repentant person is itself a sin that requires forgiveness."

Sproul, R. C. (2012-09-01). _Pleasing God: Discovering the Meaning and Importance of Sanctification_ (Classic Theology) (pp. 118-119). David C. Cook.​


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 20, 2015)

Toasty said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about the first point, but think about the second one for a second... Matthew, let's say some guy was looking for your wife with a deadly knife in his hand and you knew well where she was. So, would you tell him her location just because "he deserves to know the truth" OR would you rather love your wife by protecting her against a highly likely abuse of truth (i.e., the truth of her location)? I for one wholeheartedly agree that we have no obligation to tell the truth depending on the context and how that truth is going to be used.
> ...



Imagine what you're suggesting here... This would only provoke the guy with the knife to threaten you to reveal her location. I won't go to details, but I have actually been there and saying stuff like that would just have put both me and the person looked for (and her children) in danger.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 20, 2015)

Why is it that intention is the determining factor of guilt when it comes to killing but not when it comes to lying? If I were to kill someone who was trying to kill my family, no one would accuse me of committing a sin. Why would the same not be true of lying to protect my family?


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 20, 2015)

"We notice in Jesus’s extended teaching on forgiveness in Luke 17 that He said, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (v. 3). Here the one who sins is a brother. It is possible that this mandate does not apply to everyone who sins against us. We are to treat all people as neighbors, but not everyone is a brother. The word brother has specific reference to a fellow Christian."

This is what i was talking about.

And thanks Patrick. I work 3rd shift so i was sleeping while everyone was talking about the context haha. Thanks!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 20, 2015)

Matt,

Note that Sproul leaves open the interpretation with his "it is possible..." to prevent an overly perceived dogmatic view. Per the teachings of the ninth commandment on this topic and until proven wrong I prefer to give him the broadest possible charity in his intentions and not to say that Sproul outright rejects any view contrarywise.


----------



## BGF (Jan 20, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> For another perspective, see:
> 
> View attachment 4110
> 
> ...



The Poythress article will take some time for me to digest but something seems off about it. I'll try to figure that out and come back to it later.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 20, 2015)

Thanks!


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 20, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Why is it that intention is the determining factor of guilt when it comes to killing but not when it comes to lying?



For one thing, the destruction of evil as an instrument of righteousness is consistent with God's character/attributes, lying is not.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 20, 2015)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I won't go to details, but I have actually been there and saying stuff like that would just have put both me and the person looked for (and her children) in danger.


"Tactical life preservation"


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 20, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that intention is the determining factor of guilt when it comes to killing but not when it comes to lying?
> ...



So you are saying that Evil people do not deserve to live, but they do deserve the truth?


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 20, 2015)

Arguing for a permission or moral duty to lie because some people do not deserve the truth does not seem to be a valid argument of itself. More premises are needed. The WLC states "5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times." So one of those premises requires one arguing that in "Thou shalt not bear false witness," "Thou shalt not lie" is not implied (as "Thou shalt not kill" is usually understood as meaning "Thou shalt not murder"); hence the usual arguing about the Hebrew midwives and Rahab, etc., on this question.

For those who believe there is sometimes a permission or moral duty to lie, how far does the argument go (especially since not deserving the truth does not of itself imply a moral duty to falsehood)? Would one view a seeming violation of any of the other Ten Commandments as not a violation in some circumstances? I'm sure we've all heard of horrors done in various lands where people have done atrocious things in order to preserve either their own lives or the lives of others. Did these people do right? And I keep hearing of lying to protect the lives of others; would one have a moral duty to lie to protect one's own life too (edit: actually, one poster in here has admitted such; others?)?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 20, 2015)

The Nazis at the door is an oft-cited example of a justification to lie. I do not believe that lying is justified there, for one very simple reason. The people who cite it as an example always do so with only 2 options: lie, and save the Jews, or don't lie, and let them get killed. There is a third option. That option looks like this: hide the Jews extremely well, and then don't answer the Nazis directly, but instead invite them to search the house. After all, they're going to search the house anyway, so a lie will hardly be a protection. In other words, you gain NOTHING by the lie. Sidestepping the question is not a lie. Just politely ask them to satisfy themselves as to whether there are Jews in the house. 

Other situations might have a slightly different look. For the obvious killer searching your house in order to kill your family, I would say that this is what shotguns are for. It is the husband/father's responsibility to protect his family, and he must be willing to die for his family. I would not answer the question, but instead attack him directly. 

Rahab is commended for her reception of the spies. She is not actually commended for her lie. The same is true of the Hebrew midwives. Were there other options for them? Rahab could have done something similar to the option I gave above concerning the Nazis. The Hebrew midwives could have told the truth. They might have suffered for it. Of course, there is another possibility: the Hebrew midwives might have been telling the truth! Or they might have "delayed" getting to the Hebrew women giving birth so that they would not be telling a lie.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 20, 2015)

This is interesting. If I lied to protect my neighbours life am I bearing false witness "against" him? 
Wouldn't I be bearing false witness "for" his good? To bear false witness against my neighbour would be for that of harm or to bring them into disrepute.
How could I bear false witness "against" my neighbour in saving his life? When I read all the commentaries I have, Barnes, Clarke, Henry and Gill they all say not to bear false, as per the 9th Commandment, witness to your neighbours hurt, harm, good name etc.
Ok, say I did lie to save a life. How is that a 9th Commandment violation, against my neighbour?
I have added this also. We are commanded "thou shalt not kill" yet we read in commentaries and hear from others that there are circumstances when we can kill. To protect ones own life, the life of others, war etc. 
Why is the command not to bear false witness not viewed in the same way when one who chooses to not tell the truth to protect a life does the same?


----------



## Miss Marple (Jan 21, 2015)

I agree with your statement and am of the opinion that saying "I have no obligation to answer that question" is, in fact, answering the question. You are understandably communicating: "Yes, there are Jews hiding in my house, I am just not going to tell you about them." Thus you told about them.

I think telling yourself "Well, I am just going to refuse to answer" is disingenuous.

I appreciate that we want to obey God even to our hurt. I think that is a true principle.

But I also know I can kill someone, may even be obligated to kill someone, in order to defend innocent life (my own or someone else's). If I can kill to protect or defend from a true murder threat it seems to me I can lie, also. I don't say it lightly.


----------



## aadebayo (Jan 21, 2015)

Hi All

I have just seen this thread and read some of the comments. A bit of digression, before I share my views. 

On whether Christians should always tell the truth. There is a doctrine in Islam called Taquiya, which means that a Muslim can lie if such will promote the cause of Islam. It is for this reason that I do not trust any Muslim, irrespective of how moderate the press make them out to be. As Christians, we are to look to the bible for the Justification of anything we do. The bible says that no liar will inherit the kingdom of God; that God hates a lying tongue. The two examples that I have used from scripture does not give any exceptions to the rule about lying. 
When we are confronted with issues such as a mad man asking where our wives and children are, we do not have to give them the answer they want. We may say for example that such person should go away or else we will call the police. Or we may be upfront in telling him that we are not answering the question. 
In the second question about forgiveness, we have to understand that the Matthew 18 principle commands us to forgive where the person who offends repents. We cannot to give someone who refuses to repent. We have to understand that forgiveness though easy, is not cheap. We also need to remember that God is the ultimate victim


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 21, 2015)

I may be controversial here and I mean no offense but if a guy with a knife or whatever wants to know if there is anyone else in the house of course I'm going to lie, I'd rather ask forgiveness for lying than stand at my family's funeral and pat myself on the back for telling the truth. That being said I don't think such extreme examples are the point. What matters is the common everyday use of lying being right or wrong. In the context Sproul is merely pointing out the messiness of ethics after the fall. If Adam hadn't sinned we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the everyday sense no we shouldn't lie.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 21, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> I may be controversial here and I mean no offense but if a guy with a knife or whatever wants to know if there is anyone else in the house of course I'm going to lie, I'd rather ask forgiveness for lying than stand at my family's funeral and pat myself on the back for telling the truth. That being said I don't think such extreme examples are the point. What matters is the common everyday use of lying being right or wrong. In the context Sproul is merely pointing out the messiness of ethics after the fall. If Adam hadn't sinned we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the everyday sense no we shouldn't lie.



 Whenever we as sinful men begin asking when it is permissible to sin then we are heading down the wrong path. The cases being discussed are exceedingly rare and even though lying in those cases may indeed be permissible, in the other 99.99% of cases it is clearly wrong. With this in mind, we must be careful what we confess on this matter lest we encourage those who seek to use grace as a license to sin.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 21, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I may be controversial here and I mean no offense but if a guy with a knife or whatever wants to know if there is anyone else in the house of course I'm going to lie, I'd rather ask forgiveness for lying than stand at my family's funeral and pat myself on the back for telling the truth. That being said I don't think such extreme examples are the point. What matters is the common everyday use of lying being right or wrong. In the context Sproul is merely pointing out the messiness of ethics after the fall. If Adam hadn't sinned we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the everyday sense no we shouldn't lie.
> ...



 Thanks for pointing that out. I do not mean to give license to sin.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 21, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> So you are saying that Evil people do not deserve to live, but they do deserve the truth?



I'm saying there are examples of God both directly destroying people or commanding such be done in the cause of righteousness, while lying is never employed in such a way.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 21, 2015)

Not wanting to justify the practice of lying any thoughts on Elisha? Does this follow under the allowable things one may do in a just war? 

2 Kings 6:19 19 And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 21, 2015)

cmaglaughlin said:


> Also...I have a problem with scripture saying if I don't forgive others, I won't be forgiven. Things happened decades ago. I was grievously wronged. I don't care to re-visit the situation. Why would anyone be required to do over and above what God Himself will not do...like on Judgment Day. I'm NOT bigger than He!



I agree that one does not need to reconcile with one who has sinned against me and is not repentant. 

But Christ has commanded that if you don't forgive others you won't be forgiven. Because God has forgiven you much more than the "grievous wrong" you mention, Christ expects you to forgive that wrong out of the experience of having received the greater forgiveness yourself. (Matt. 18:23 - 35)

This does not get the other person "home scot free" or "off the hook". God is just, the judge of all the earth will do right, and that sin or series of sins WILL be judged. Either that person will pay the penalty or Christ will but in the meantime you are not meant to carry the burden of the sin which you will if you do not forgive it. And carrying unforgiveness is experienced by an unforgiving Christian whether the person concerned is a brother or not. So I don't think we are allowed not to forgive if a pagan sins against us.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 21, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> The Nazis at the door is an oft-cited example of a justification to lie. I do not believe that lying is justified there, for one very simple reason. The people who cite it as an example always do so with only 2 options: lie, and save the Jews, or don't lie, and let them get killed. There is a third option. That option looks like this: hide the Jews extremely well, and then don't answer the Nazis directly, but instead invite them to search the house. After all, they're going to search the house anyway, so a lie will hardly be a protection. In other words, you gain NOTHING by the lie. Sidestepping the question is not a lie. Just politely ask them to satisfy themselves as to whether there are Jews in the house.
> 
> Other situations might have a slightly different look. For the obvious killer searching your house in order to kill your family, I would say that this is what shotguns are for. It is the husband/father's responsibility to protect his family, and he must be willing to die for his family. I would not answer the question, but instead attack him directly.
> 
> Rahab is commended for her reception of the spies. She is not actually commended for her lie. The same is true of the Hebrew midwives. Were there other options for them? Rahab could have done something similar to the option I gave above concerning the Nazis. The Hebrew midwives could have told the truth. They might have suffered for it. Of course, there is another possibility: the Hebrew midwives might have been telling the truth! Or they might have "delayed" getting to the Hebrew women giving birth so that they would not be telling a lie.



Yep.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 21, 2015)

Now as Josh pointed out the relationship to killing one who may lawfully be killed in a war or by the magistrate is allowed by Our Lord. Is it permissible to lie as Elisha did in that they were at war.

2 Kings 6:19 19 And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jan 21, 2015)

If it is the law in Nazi Germany not to hide Jews, and you disobey and hide them, are you not in fact practicing deception? Is this not a type of lie?

If you weren't being deceptive, you'd put their name on the mailbox, allow them to go freely in and out the front door, etc. They'd sit at your dinner table.

So hiding them is deceptive in the first place. It's a type of lie.

I don't think it's a sin though. 

Some on this thread say, don't make some sins ok. I don't think those of us defending the lie in re the Jews or threatened family are trying to say "sin is ok in these circumstances." I think we are saying, "it is actually not a sin in these circumstances."

Just as killing someone is usually a sin - there are circumstances when it is not. They are rare and difficult circumstances, but still, they exist.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 21, 2015)

> Whether it was a lie or no, distinctions should be considered:
> 
> 1. Elisha was acting as a prophet, not a private person. Is any of us a prophet, receiving the secret commands of God? Answer carefully.



The answer to your question is no, of course not. 

My question was Elisha acting as a prophet of God to the Arameans by having Elisha lie to them?

Or was this account a lie to lead the army away a sin like Rahab's? If so my question is mute because we do not have God commending Elisha's possible lie.




> 2. Even if Elisha were guilty of lying in this instance (and Matthew Henry intimates that it was not a lie), that would not make it permissible for us whose duty is to obey God's revealed will (in all its implications and applications).



Now I can live with that in that there is no need to assume Elisha was not a sinner.  Of course I really do not know for sure that he lied because you say Matthew Henry insinuates such though I do not see the insinuation in his commentary. Of course this may be because of my sin.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 21, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Of course I really do not know for sure that he lied because you say Matthew Henry insinuates such though I do not see the insinuation in his commentary. Of course this may be because of my sin.



"When they were thus bewildered and confounded he led them to Samaria (v. 19), promising that he would show them the man whom they sought, and he did so. He did not lie to them when he told them, This is not the way, nor is this the city where Elisha is; for he had now come out of the city; and if they would see him, they must go to another city to which he would direct them."


Src: Henry, Matthew. _Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume_. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Print.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 21, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I really do not know for sure that he lied because you say Matthew Henry insinuates such though I do not see the insinuation in his commentary. Of course this may be because of my sin.
> ...



Thank you I had read the concise version. My sinful eyes have been opened to this.


----------



## Grant Van Leuven (Jan 21, 2015)

For different views than Dr. Sproul’s on the topic of lying (the different views being the ones with which I agree and was influenced by while preaching on Exodus 1:15-22 regarding the Hebrew midwives, who I don't believe actually lied), and which touch on some of the sentiments that have already been well expressed above, especially by Fisher and the WLC, see the following:
•	John Murray, “The Sanctity of Truth”, chapter 5 of Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (he interacts with a number of Scriptures after first discussing how one must always speak truth to reflect Christ).
•	Gordon H. Clark, free MP3 audio lecture, “Questions and Answers”. This file is from a section heading on the Trinity Foundation’s website page for free MP3 audio lectures entitled, “Lectures on Theology, Gordon H. Clark, 5 Lectures”, under the subsection entitled, “Collection 9: Introduction to Theology”. In this lecture, Clark handles the issue of Situational Ethics as non-Christian and references John Murray, stating his agreement with Dr. Murray that it is never OK to lie. He discusses the "love" argument and handles some helpful case studies such as Rahab, Elisha (also, like the Hebrew midwives, not lying), and how one could have handled a Nazi trooper asking if you were hiding someone (if you were). An important qualification he gives is that concealing information is not the same thing as lying (sounds similar to Dr. Sproul’s context disclaimer, but I think not quite the same). The section in this lecture about lying specifically references the earlier lecture number 3 in this series, which is entitled, “The Puritans and Situation Ethics” (although lying is not dealt with directly in that lecture). *The exact time range section of the Q&A lecture file pertinent to this discussion is from 1:50 to 10:58.*

PS: I think your signature line actually is pretty relevant for the question: “Peace if possible, truth at all costs!” - Luther


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 21, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> If it is the law in Nazi Germany not to hide Jews, and you disobey and hide them, are you not in fact practicing deception? Is this not a type of lie?


I find Ames helpful in clarifying the concept of "lying." The answer to your question is "no." Whether lying should include the "intent to deceive" or not is another matter (Perkins includes it). From an old post I made.

"18. A lie is properly a testimony, whereby one pronounceth otherwise than is in his heart. Acts 5. Whence is that phrase in Scripture of a double heart, of a man that is a liar. Psalm 12:3.

19. But because a thing pronounced, doth not consist only in outward words, but chiefly in their sense; therefore the same words which are true in one sense, in another sense become a lie. Matt. 26:61.

20. Ironies, fables, jests, repeating also of false things, and the like are not lies, because they are not testimonies; and they are not testimonies because they are not confirmed by the credit and authority of the speaker.

21. An intention of deceiving, although it do almost always accompany a false testimony, yet it is not of the essence of it, neither is it necessarily required to a lie; for although one knows that he with whom he hath to do cannot be deceived by his lie; yet if he have an intention in speaking to affirm that which is false, he lies no less than if he had hope of deceiving.

22. An intention of hurting doth indeed increase the mischief of a lie: but it maketh not the nature of it: for if a man out of jesting or a desire to please and be officious, confirm that by his credit which he knows to be false, it is a lie: pernicious of its own nature, if not others, yet to the author himself: as it is in those who are given to flatteries or boastings, or are delighted in confirming monstrous fables or fictions unto others.

23. An intention to speak that which is false, makes a lie, although that which is spoken be most true.

24. The asseveration of a thing uncertain for certain, is accounted with a lie although we think it to be true.

25. Also that secrecy whereby one doth not speak the truth when Justice or Charity requires it, doth partake of the nature of a lie.

26. But when neither Justice nor Charity requires to give testimony, then the truth or part of it may be concealed without sin. Jerermiah 38:27.

29. That dissembling which consists in deeds or signs, and not in words, is not properly a lie: unless the same either of their own nature, or by some certain appointment, have the force and use of speech: as, 1 Sam. 20:20-22, Matt. 26:49. Because such deeds and signs that are not verbal, have no certain and determinate signification, so as they can have the force of a testimony.

30. Therefore such dissembling is sometime lawful, as in warlike stratagems. Josh. 8:31. But it is made unlawful when in respect of the end or manner, it fights with religion, Justice or Charity." (William Ames. _The Marrow of Sacred Divinity_)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> The Nazis at the door is an oft-cited example of a justification to lie. I do not believe that lying is justified there, for one very simple reason. The people who cite it as an example always do so with only 2 options: lie, and save the Jews, or don't lie, and let them get killed. There is a third option. That option looks like this: hide the Jews extremely well, and then don't answer the Nazis directly, but instead invite them to search the house. After all, they're going to search the house anyway, so a lie will hardly be a protection. In other words, you gain NOTHING by the lie. Sidestepping the question is not a lie. Just politely ask them to satisfy themselves as to whether there are Jews in the house.
> 
> Other situations might have a slightly different look. For the obvious killer searching your house in order to kill your family, I would say that this is what shotguns are for. It is the husband/father's responsibility to protect his family, and he must be willing to die for his family. I would not answer the question, but instead attack him directly.
> 
> .



Just musing: some ethicists would say not providing them with the truth is functionally the same, since you aren't giving them the truth. And if you tell the proverbial Nazis that they don't deserve the truth, you will probably end up in Bergen-Belsen.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 21, 2015)

To add a bit of levity to the question .......... My favorite 'lying' example was given by Mrs. Lillian Carter when her son Jimmy, was president of the USA. A reporter with the NY Times had come to interview Ms Lillian shortly after her son President Carter had told the American people, "I will never lie to you." 

Ms Lillian greeted the female reporter cordially and the interview began. Somewhere along the line the reporter asked, "Does Jimmy ever lie ?"

"White lies," Ms Lillian replied. "What are white lies?", the reporter asked. Ms Lillian responded, "Well you know how I greeted you saying how happy I was to see you, and how lovely you look ? Those are white lies."


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 22, 2015)

Well I still think this whole discussion only points to the messiness of ethics. I would never try to to justify lying or any other sin biblically but when we are in such situations how would we act? I mean lying is lying is lying is lying and it is wrong no matter what but what do you do when you are put in a situation when you must choose to violate one or another of God's law, what do you do? We can in principle say never violate the law of God and this is true and ought to be our ultimate goal in lives. 

But in practice this is not always so easy. It is easy to say you should do this but a little different when you have the gun to your head. We should always seek to obey God but recognize that because we live in a finite sinful world we will at times be faced with deciding to commit one sin or another, and BTW we all do this. It does not make it right though. But this fact only points us to our Lord Jesus who has come to save us from ourselves and this messy post-fall ethical situation we are in. It all points to Christ.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 22, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> To add a bit of levity to the question .......... My favorite 'lying' example was given by Mrs. Lillian Carter when her son Jimmy, was president of the USA. A reporter with the NY Times had come to interview Ms Lillian shortly after her son President Carter had told the American people, "I will never lie to you."
> 
> Ms Lillian greeted the female reporter cordially and the interview began. Somewhere along the line the reporter asked, "Does Jimmy ever lie ?"
> 
> "White lies," Ms Lillian replied. "What are white lies?", the reporter asked. Ms Lillian responded, "Well you know how I greeted you saying how happy I was to see you, and how lovely you look ? Those are white lies."



My father knew Jimmy Carter, and if he were still alive he would tell you that Jimmy Carter most certainly did lie


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 22, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > To add a bit of levity to the question .......... My favorite 'lying' example was given by Mrs. Lillian Carter when her son Jimmy, was president of the USA. A reporter with the NY Times had come to interview Ms Lillian shortly after her son President Carter had told the American people, "I will never lie to you."
> ...



All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 22, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Indeed. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Saying that we do not lie is evidence that we do lie.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 22, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



TBH ..... I lie not .......... I never was fond of Jimmy Carter as president. Whether he ever lied or not I don't know. The purpose of the post was not to insinuate that he 'never' lied. Rather to demonstrate what a charming and witty lady his mother was.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 23, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > The Nazis at the door is an oft-cited example of a justification to lie. I do not believe that lying is justified there, for one very simple reason. The people who cite it as an example always do so with only 2 options: lie, and save the Jews, or don't lie, and let them get killed. There is a third option. That option looks like this: hide the Jews extremely well, and then don't answer the Nazis directly, but instead invite them to search the house. After all, they're going to search the house anyway, so a lie will hardly be a protection. In other words, you gain NOTHING by the lie. Sidestepping the question is not a lie. Just politely ask them to satisfy themselves as to whether there are Jews in the house.
> ...



Surely there is a difference between not telling someone something versus actually telling them a lie. 

To answer Miss Marple, such a law would be a violation of the Ten Commandments, particularly the 5th and 6th, since the intention of such a law is to provide ways to kill them, and is also an abuse of authority. In fact, it would be requiring people to disobey those commandments. Therefore, hiding Jews in that context would be obeying a higher law than the Nazis could ever have manufactured.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 23, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



I understood what you meant. I didn't really think you were suggesting that Carter never lied, and it was an amusing anecdote. Sorry to derail your post, it's just that being from Georgia, the mention of that man tends to get my dander up.


----------

