# Ethical Question



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 13, 2008)

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?


----------



## danmpem (Mar 13, 2008)

I've thought about it before, but I'm not sure how theologically sound my answer is.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Mar 13, 2008)

Was Paul wrongfully imprisoned? How about Daniel? How about Joseph? 

How did these men interpret the providence that God had given them? 

Not saying I wouldn't want to... but I would have difficulty while searching the Scriptures.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Mar 13, 2008)

Two more: Christopher Love, John Bunyan.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 13, 2008)

Slippery said:


> If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?



Need more details.

If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

How about if it was in Castro's Cuba? If you were convicted for sneaking in Bible's, say. I think I would also.

How about here in America. That would depend on more details, but since I covenanted to live by the laws here, and if a jury of my peers convicted me, I might not. I could study the law books and go through the proper channels.

But maybe this would be like a 'Fugitive' (Harrison Ford) situation. Say I was scheduled to die. Say I knew where some evidence was that would free me, and say no one would 'listen' to me and my crazy story. Perhaps if the train crashed I'd go on the run to get that piece fo evidence.

Anyway, we'd need a lot more specifics.

I'd say, sometimes it is fine, sometimes not.


----------



## Herald (Mar 13, 2008)

> If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.
> 
> I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.



Arguably Joseph and Daniel were imprisoned by those who were just as ungodly as Muslims.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Mar 13, 2008)

Slippery said:


> If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?



This text is the first thing I thought of when I read your question.

Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church. And when Herod was about to bring him out, that night Peter was sleeping, bound with two chains between two soldiers; and the guards before the door were keeping the prison. Now behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the prison; and he struck Peter on the side and raised him up, saying, "Arise quickly!" And his chains fell off his hands. Then the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and tie on your sandals"; and so he did. And he said to him, "Put on your garment and follow me." So he went out and followed him, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. When they were past the first and the second guard posts, they came to the iron gate that leads to the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and went down one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. And when Peter had come to himself, he said, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people." (Acts 12:5-11, NKJV)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 13, 2008)

Romans 13:1-5 
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 
 

It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 13, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> > If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.
> >
> > I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.
> 
> ...




And what are you trying to prove? They also included their children in the covenant and gave them the sign, but for some reason you don't do that. Why do you think all examples or narratives are noramtive?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 13, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Romans 13:1-5
> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
> 
> 
> It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion



Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.

(And, in case you come back with "But that violates God's laws," Well, I think not being there to provide for my family in the instances I described violate God's laws for me...)


----------



## Herald (Mar 13, 2008)

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 13, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Romans 13:1-5
> ...



WOW! 
I was responding to the OP. What being wrongly convicted and imprisioned has to with Hitler telling me to kill Jews is far beyond the scope of my answer.


----------



## etexas (Mar 13, 2008)

Sorry, it might not be Biblical: but if I were in say South America, (Guilty until proven innocent in most of those places) I would hit the road if I could. Not saying its right, just being honest here.


----------



## Herald (Mar 13, 2008)

etexas said:


> Sorry, it might not be Biblical: but if I were in say South America, (Guilty until proven innocent in most of those places) I would hit the road if I could. Not saying its right, just being honest here.




Yeah, well I'm not saying I wouldn't try to escape either. When I was in the Air Force I was trained in combat survival and evasion due to the nature of my job. I often thought, "What if I ever have to _use _the skills I've acquired?"


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 13, 2008)

Slippery said:


> If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?



I would say no it is not ethical to escape because one is obligated, even if wrongfully, to submit to the authority of the State in this case.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> > If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?
> ...


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 13, 2008)

Slippery said:


> If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?



My first though when I read this was _The Count of Monte Cristo_!


----------



## etexas (Mar 13, 2008)

What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 13, 2008)

etexas said:


> What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?




To me this is a situation some what different from the OP:


> If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?



Which is different from being in a foreign country:


> in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.
> 
> I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.
> 
> How about if it was in Castro's Cuba?



The OP specifies nothing about military scenarios, POWs, foreign countries, or Hitler instructing me to kill Jews. 



> Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.



The OP, to me asks, If I am convicted wrongly and imprisoned for a crime I did not committ should I try to escape? My answer is "No!"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 13, 2008)

If "escaping" meant a life on the run, versus enduring the trial and being released, and not having to go back--might be better to stay.

If staying means dying soon anyway, why not try to flee, if by doing so (and preserving your life) you will have more opportunity in this life to glorify God? If the RCC were imprisoning you, to [try and] make you convert, wouldn't you wish to escape?

Of course, you might decide that to "play the man, Ridley" would be better, because "to depart is far better."

Not very definitive, sorry.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 13, 2008)

I think:

1. if you get a jewelry hammer in the mail and were wrongly convicted of the murder of your wife,
2. and you're a gifted financier who is able to do the Prison Guard's tax returns,
3. and you're forced to work the books for some sort of crooked scheme that the warden is using to skim money from local contractors,
4. and a young confused man comes into the prison who you help get a high school degree suddenly reveals that he was a prison mate of a guy who confessed to the crime that you were convicted of,
5. and the warden was so obtuse and wicked that he locked you up when you asked him to help open the case back up,
6. and he killed your young protege and told you he'd send you back to live among the Sodomites if you don't continue to cooperate,
7. and you had already begun digging a tunnel with that small jeweler's hammer twenty years before and it was pretty much completed and it was apparent you were going to be a slave of this wicked warden so you might as well escape to report the crime and ensure justice was done to the warden and his sadistic Captain.

Then, yes, it is ethical to escape.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 13, 2008)

I've got this quote! Pick me, Pick me! Shawshank Redemption


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 13, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I think:
> 
> 1. if you get a jewelry hammer in the mail and were wrongly convicted of the murder of your wife,
> 2. and you're a gifted financier who is able to do the Prison Guard's tax returns,
> ...



I think you watch too many movies....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 13, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I've got this quote! Pick me, Pick me! Shawshank Redemption



This is not a game Bruce. Get serious for a moment. I'm trying to offer a hypothetical.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.



But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...




WOW, you're being obtuse.

You were intimating that we should stay in jail "because the government commanded it."

But, Hitler's gov. also would have "commanded" you to kill the Jews.

You wouldn't do that. Or, would you?

So, your point needs a bit more than a simplistic posting of a verse that doesn't help us answer the OP, which is what you "were trying to do." Your proof text is the "obvious" defeater you planned on it being.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

> originally posted by the *Apostle Paul*
> II Cor. 11:32 _In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands._



So, I guess you can escape from the wicked, Rom. 13 Government if they are on their _way_ to arrest you. But, if you have _already_ been arrested, then you cannot escape... riiiight.

I'd also add that Kear posted of Peter escaping prison. I guess you could say, "But this was God's command. God's desire." But so it was too regarding Joseph and Daniel. So if the former can't be used to show that you _can_ escape in some instances, then the latter can't be used to prove that you _cannot_ escape in any instance. So, at best, those proof texts have been negated. 

I cited reference to Paul doing precisely what many here said would be a no-no.

And so again, depending on the details given, my answer would be that I would in some instances, probably not in others. I spelled out some reasons why.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> > If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?
> ...



Can you prove that?

How about in cases like submitting to Hitler?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

etexas said:


> What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?




That fits in with part of my criteria. If I am a U.S. citizen, then the Islamic country that imprisoned me on trumped up charges, isn't my government. I don't have to submit to them in any and all instances. They have no sovereignty over me.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 14, 2008)

Like in Prison Break, you can escape - but don't let T Bag escape with you. He's a bad man.



We are not obligated to obey wicked laws. ANd obeying a law that imprisons an innocent man is wicked. Escape if you can. In military scenarios, escape doubly so..you are in fact obligated to at least try.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 14, 2008)

Flight (if possible) is an obligation. It is your duty to preserve your own life. The example of David fleeing (escaping) is a counter point to the citation of Godly men in the scripture who sat in jail.

One issue overlooked in the discussion here, is the nature of modern prison vs the ancient concept. In our day long terms are the norm as part of the punitive process. In the ancient world jail was mearly a holding place for (relativly) short periods of time. In the Hebrew law code it was unknown.

The fact that some men may (and have) forgone this opportunity to escape (such as Paul did with divine assistence!) for some reason does not prove that remaining incarcerarted is the "christians duty". in my opinion


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 14, 2008)

sorry for leaving this almost open ended guys. But when I say wrongly convicted, I mean that a real crime was committed, just not by you. The prosecutor was sincere, the jury was sincere and the judge was sincere and the cops were sincere. The only problem is, since they were not omniscient, they got the wrong guy "You". And you were wrongly convicted. Now the opportunity came to escape. Would you do it?

ps thanks for the preceeding responses and the eventual proceeding responses.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.

The difference between the two examples is rather glaring, surely? Murder is explicitly forbidden, while the same is not true of escaping from prison when unjustly accused/convicted.

Since we're told to obey the laws of the government so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of God, then a Christian could not murder upon the government's command, but could - and I'm thinking should - obey the government's law against escaping from prison.

I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics? 

Unless the law specifically allows prisoners to escape so long as they didn't actually commit...to their own mind, anyway...the crime of which they've been accused, and I'm fairly certain there's no such caveat in any nation's laws. Including ours.

Considering fallen mankind's propensity for rationalizing sin, saying that it's permissible to break the law by escaping prison if one is convinced one has been wrongly accused/convicted is tantamount to erasing the law entirely. We're capable of convincing ourselves it wasn't really theft because we were owed money; it wasn't murder, it was self-defense; etc.

A few years ago at a mission luncheon at church we heard from someone who'd been to North Korea, training pastors. Naturally this is not acceptable to the government there, and the word had come down that the authorities were aware of the actual reason for the man's visit and where the meeting would take place, and was going to swoop down and arrest everyone.

The speaker admitted he was scared almost witless at the thought of winding up in a foreign prison, and there was discussion at the meeting with the pastors as to whether it should be canceled and moved. The pastors were puzzled as to why this should be necessary. Virtually all of them had spent time in prison for their faith, and as one of 'em put it, "I can evangelize just as well in prison as out of it! They need to hear the gospel, too, and if that's where the LORD wants me to preach it, that's where I'll be."

Humbled by these men's cheerful faith and ready acceptance of possible imprisonment, the meeting continued (with no visit from the authorities, BTW).

Point being, if we wind up in prison for a crime we didn't commit, it doesn't mean the LORD slipped up somehow. Presumably He wants us in that place at that time, for reasons of His own (evangelization of other prisoners or guards, whether through word or example?), and is perfectly capable of arranging us to leave without breaking the law through an illegal escape.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > originally posted by the *Apostle Paul*
> > II Cor. 11:32 _In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands._
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.
> ...



I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.
> 
> .



Actually, he was.

I know the cases are different. 

But, he postedsome verses with NO commentary.

This lead the reader to believe his argument was that you should saty put in jail if the gov. put you there because you should do *everythin* a gov. commands.

If this *wasn't* his argument, then without supplying commentary, he's made *no* point. if you don't *always* have to obey the gov. and you put forward *no* argument saying that x case is a case where you do, then you've done *nothing* to help the discussion out.

I just get bothered when people put forth a verse, and nothing else, and think that somehow proves their case. It's as if they are saying this: "Well of course I'm right, God's word is obviously on my side here."

So, yes, my point about Hitler was *very* relevant, and his comeback was obtuse.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > North Jersey Baptist said:
> ...



I thought it was rather obvious. I even spelled it out with an argument above.

I say we can escape in some situations.

You say, "No, we can't, look at the examples of Daniel and Joseph."

I say, "What does that prove?" (drawing you into my web  )

You say, "it proves those govs were sinful to, and they stayed."

I say, "Okay, so I guess your argument is:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2) J & D stayed in jail.

3) We should too.

Now, if that *wasn't* your argument, they *what* were you trying to prove. That a Muslim country was "just as bad" as the countries that imprisoned J & D? Well, despite this questionable assumption (i.e., have you studied the ANE here? Read detailed histories of Egypt and Babylon, etc.? Have you studied modern reports on Muslim countries. Do you have any detailed analysis to go along with you claim, etc.), we can let it slide for now. Because even *if* it were true, it has no relevance to my argument. Unless, you assume something like the above argument (1-3).

If so, we can do this:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2*) J & D did (or would have) included their children in the covenant, and given them the sign.

3*) We should too.

Now, this is valid just like my representation of your argument above. The only debatable premise is (1), if it is true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, you are bound to baptise your children!

Now, of course you can deny (1), but then what happens to your positive argument against my position? It vanishes.

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics?
> 
> .



There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."

Guess what, in some situations I would not lie, in others I would (to protect a wife from a husband looking to murder her).

Guess what, in some instances the right thing for me to do is to save your grandchild from a burning building, not in others (if *my own* child was in there and I only had time to save one. I have a higher moral obligation to my own children than yours).

Many, if not most, Christian ethicists have recognized a place for situational ethics within a broader Christian framework.

Read J.M. Frame's "Doctrine of the Christian Life" for a more robust defense of this position.


----------



## Herald (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



I hate to unravel your "web" but I believe words mean things. Show were I said that because Daniel and Joseph were imprisoned by ungodly captors that it prohibited you from escape. Read my words carefully. All I did was take away the relevance of your Muslim comment in relation to biblical precedent. In light of that I think you should revisit the whole or your retort.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."


*Gasp* He's a relativist!!!


----------



## sastark (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!




QFT


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I hate to unravel your "web" but I believe words mean things. Show were I said that because Daniel and Joseph were imprisoned by ungodly captors that it prohibited you from escape. Read my words carefully. All I did was take away the relevance of your Muslim comment in relation to biblical precedent. In light of that I think you should revisit the whole or your retort.



No, because my argument is multi-pronged.

You see, Bill, this is precisely why I asked you just what you thought you were proving.

You did not take away my Mulsim comment. 

This is *exactly* what I said,



> If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.
> 
> I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.




I never mentioned bad laws, Egypt, Babylon, etc.

I simply *described* a situation where I would try to escape if I could.

So, your comment, which is the other side of my web, has been rendered totally irrelvant.

I made an argument for why I could escape. You posted in response. Sorry, I guess I confused you for trying to make a relevant rebuttal to my argument.

So, we can agree, that as it stands now, you did nothing to undermine my argument and so my argument has been left unchallenged.

Btw, I *also* made an argument from the "ungodly" Roman gov. and II Cor. 11. That had the *opposite* conclusion you tried to draw. So, I have completely rendered your comments superfluous.

This was the intent.

This is why I asked you what you were trying to prove.

I knew you wouldn't accept the paedo reductio, so you took the other horn of the dilemma--irrelvance.

So I take it you agree that you have no put forward a positive case for why we shoulld *not* try to escape jail in any and all instances with your Joseph and Daniel comment.

Lastly, though I won't press you, you didn't prove what you think you did. You simply *asserted* that the govs and laws were on par. You have shown no detailed familiarity with the required background reading in order to make the claim you did.

So though your response to my post was irrelevant to my post, it also didn't prove what you (now) say it did. Assertions are not proofs.

This is all why I asked you what you thought you were trying to prove.

Sorry the web was so sticky.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Romans 13:1-5
> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
> 
> 
> It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion




Those "higher powers" are just as subject to God as you are. You have no duty to obey a higher power who is in direct violation of God's law. If they command something He forbids or forbid something He commands you have no duty to obey. Remember, ALL power is of God and is subject to His law.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 14, 2008)

I don't think so. I have also struggled with what to do in hard situations where it appears that no avenue exists to avoid one sin without committing another. In these cases, one must choose the higher principle, such as the lying to Nazis to prevent them from knowing you are hiding Jews classic scenario. This is far from relativism.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 14, 2008)

Actually, depending upon the situation, we may be overthinking this one a bit. 

If you "know" that the man is guilty because he says so, and he is asking you if it is appropriate to try to escape from an American prison, then be careful.

While some innocent people do get wrongly convicted, it is not uncommon for a guilty person to plead innocence to soft-hearted, well-intentioned Christians. How about them transient folks who come by the church office with their amazing stories of being a diabetic who cannot afford the insulin, or needing money to go see a sick relative, or the "pastor" who needs to fix the transmission on his car to get back to his family, etc. I am perhaps too cynical. However, it would take a lot to convince me that a prisoner was wrongly incarcerated and needed to get out via an illegal escape from an American prison.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 14, 2008)

Dr Mike Kear said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> > If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?
> ...



So God helps Peter escape from prison. I wouldn't be too hasty to condemn it then.

Cheers,


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Dennis, did you read the entire thread???


----------



## etexas (Mar 14, 2008)

What about Providence? You are in some backwash Nation and they trump up charges to pinch your families life's savings! Now follow me! The jailor slaps you around one day then goes to his desk pulls out a bottle of homemade hootch and drinks till he passes out. You notice the front door is open! He never does this! Then you look and see the jailor left the keys in the lock! The jailor is a drunk and very cruel BUT he is always very careful about the keys and the doors! How do you not know this is the very Hand of Providence! I mean Brethren! That is how I would view it. Suppose you just did a peek around and outside is a jeep with his keys in switch! Are you going to say this might be the hand of Providence! Or, do you slide on back in, lock yourself in the cell and say "Boy-Howdy I am HOLY for not leaving!" Just a hypothetical!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 14, 2008)

*Obtuse?*

Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
Andy Dufresne: Obtuse? Is it deliberate?
Warden Samuel Norton: You're forgetting yourself.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 14, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."
> 
> Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.
> 
> ...



"Thick as a brick"...No, it's worse than that--



> Obtuse: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: INSENSITIVE, STUPID....(Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary: Tenth Collegiate Edition



I didn't come here to be insulted. I done with this thread!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."
> 
> Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.
> 
> ...




No it's not, especially when he knew perfectly well why he cited that verse.

He knew perfectly well what my Hitler comment meant.

I meant it as you say, so, yes, "obtuse."


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

It's quite possible that TomBombadil wasn't clear on the definition of "obtuse", remember. I think it's one of those words a lot of people _think_ they know how to use, but actually don't.

Dollars to donuts he'll apologize nicely.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."
> ...




I didn't come here to have verses dogmatically thrown out at me without any commentary as if I were so "obviously wrong" that a plain reading of the text would shut my argument up. I'm done with this thread!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

> ob·tuse /əbˈtus, -ˈtyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-toos, -tyoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
> 2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
> 3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
> 4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.



I meant it in sense #1, minus the "feeling."

Again, he intimated that: "whatever the goverment says you should obey, therefore if they say you are to saty in jail, you should, no matter what."

*That* was his argument. He *knows* that that was his intended meaning.

If it wasn't, then his post was irrelevant. But I'm giving him credit. He's sharper than to post an irrelevant post.

So I offer the reductio.

He says, "Those are aples and oranges."

Here's where he's being obtuse: (a) I knew that Hitler telling you to murder Jews wasn't the same as him telling you to stay in jail. (b) if he stayed with his intended meaning of the verse as it bears on the argument, he would have to say, "Oh, okay, I don't think we should *always* obey the gov." In which case I would say, "Okay, good, now present an actual *argument* for why we should *always* stay in jail under any gov. any circumstance, and for any reason." But that's harder to do. So, rather than get busy with an argument, he started acting obtuse as to my point.

My comment wasn't a name calling as in a play ground or school yard. It was presenting what I took to be the objective state of affairs given hgow I knew he was arguing. Now, the other option is that he didn't think we had to always obey the gov in any and all instances. But if *that* is the intended meaning, then I am at a loss as to the point of his posting Rom. 13. So, either he was being obtuse or irrelevant.


----------



## sastark (Mar 14, 2008)

Just to clarify, obtuse can also mean "indirect or circuitous" - which would apply if someone posted a verse with out any explanation accompanying it.

See: obtuse - Wiktionary


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Gryphonette said:
> ...




You presume too much. Simply because my post appeared after yours in the thread does not mean that it had anything to do with what you had written.

Fact of the matter is, I hadn't read your post until after I wrote mine. 

Rather than judging me, and jumping to conclusions a reasonable question would have been, "Why did you cite that reference? Does it have bearing on what I wrote in the post before it?" 

Then perhaps a reasonable discussion could have ensued. But alas, such is not the case!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...



You should provide commentary along with your verse.

Anyway, either you took your verse to say that we should escape, or that we should't. The odds are, based on the verse, that you meant it to say we shouldn't. If you didn't meant it for either, then your post was more irrelevant that I previously thought. If you meant it that we should not escape, then my argument stands. If you meant it that we should try to escape, then I will offer apologies but also add that that is the weirdest bit of eisogesis I have ever seen. So, giving you the best credit, I read you as meaning that we should not try to escape. In that case, my comments stand.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

Speaking as a moderator, do yourself - _and_ us - a favor and stop explaining.

You're not helping.

I'd prefer the whole thing be dropped _right now_. Okay, gentlemen? No need to respond.

Thanks ever so.

Anne


----------



## Herald (Mar 14, 2008)

> I'm done with this thread!



Really? We'll see.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 14, 2008)

I probably should have provided commentary with my verse. A mistake I'll probably repeat, but what else can you expect from an obtuse being? 

At any rate you seem like _*you think you know *_what I mean, and are content to debate with the straw man you have created. So, I'll leave you carry on our discussion by yourself. Let me know what we decide.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Romans 13:1-5
> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
> 
> 
> It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion



Notice the verse says nothing about escaping.

Notice he admits he meant it that we should not escape.

Notice he underlines whoever resists the power of the gov.

If he took that in a universal way, then he wouldn'ty resist Hitler's commands.

If he doesn't take it in a universal way, then his post was irrelevant, especially minus any commentrary.

So, either his post was irrelevant or absurd.

I thought my Hitler point was obvious as a rejoinder to his post.

He didn't get the Hitler point.

I gave him credit to grasp this simple point.

His response to me, given that I credited him with understanding the simple implication of his own post, his own emphasis, etc., I called him obtuse. 

But, he says that is an improper word to throw at him.

In that case, he didn't get the Hitler point, which would make him obtuse.

He wasn't putting forth the mental effort to grasp his interloctor's point. 

Thus on both scores, however he wants to be read, he was acting obtuse.

I don't know how else to judge the matter.

I have been obtuse on a number of occasions. When I am, I am. It is not a problem to point this out to people. As Paul said, "You *foolish* Galations..." Christ called the discplies "*slow*," etc.

Our culture has been feminized and has bought into false notions of tolerance. We are very touchy feely in the 21st century. As post modernist ideas creep into our grid, we think that when people attack our interpretations of things, we attack *them,* since the interpreter cannot be divorced from his interpretation. So, we get "offended" when people attack our arguments, or point out we are being foolish or even obtuse.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> > I'm done with this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> Really? We'll see.




I was copying Pres Deacon.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> > I'm done with this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> Really? We'll see.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Our culture has been feminized and has bought into false notions of tolerance. We are very touchy feely in the 21st century. As post modernist ideas creep into our grid, we think that when people attack our interpretations of things, we attack *them,* since the interpreter cannot be divorced from his interpretation. So, we get "offended" when people attack our arguments, or point out we are being foolish or even obtuse.


Bingo.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Dr Mike Kear said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > I'm done with this thread!
> ...



But since I was copying someone else, playing that game, and he has still posted, then the  is not on me.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> At any rate you seem like _*you think you know *_what I mean, and are content to debate with the straw man you have created. So, I'll leave you carry on our discussion by yourself. Let me know what we decide.



You told us what you know. You said, after quoting that verse, that "we should not try to escape." You underlined "whoever." If you didn't meant this universally, then you post had no relevance. if you did, then my comments were sport on. So, was your post irrelevant or were my comments sport on? You are now calling your own position a straw man. This all could have ben avoided had you admitted that you were too hasty with your post. Which is what I tried to point out with my Hitler comment. 

But perhaps I was being to abstruse, ambiguous, apocryphal, arcane, cabalistic, cryptic, dark, enigmatic, equivocal, esoteric, evasive, hidden, incomprehensible, inexplicable, murky, mysterious, mystic, mystical, mystifying, occult, opaque, oracular, perplexing, puzzling, recondite, secretive, strange, tenebrous, unclear, unfathomable, uninformative, vague, and veiled in my reference to Hitler.

There' now I was "rude" to myself! I was "mean" to myself.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Mar 14, 2008)

I should have added _commentary_ to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Dennis, did you read the entire thread???



Sorry, I was choosing to skip the interesting points about Hitler and Rom 13 in favor of dealing with what MIGHT possibly be an actual pastoral scenario suggested by the OP. 

Keon was pretty cloaked in his original question and even his clarification. 
He tried to give more specificity when he wrote:



> sorry for leaving this almost open ended guys. But when I say wrongly convicted, I mean that a real crime was committed, just not by you. The prosecutor was sincere, the jury was sincere and the judge was sincere and the cops were sincere. The only problem is, since they were not omniscient, they got the wrong guy "You". And you were wrongly convicted. Now the opportunity came to escape. Would you do it?



Still, I could not tell if this was a "what if" or a "please help me with a problem" kind of situation. Since many of the posts in the thread raised the more profound issue of the biblical record on obedience to the government and what that entailed, I elected to respond to what might be a very homely practical situation with someone claiming that "I wuz wronged." Having dealt with more than my share of lying folks trying to pass their problem off on someone else, I decided to jump in on the point of the original post in the thread, rather than trying to interact with the somewhat heated debate some of the rest of you were already having. Plus, I'm not smart enough to keep up with all of the back-and-forth and quotes and counter-quotes. So, to answer your question: Did I read it? yes. Did I follow it all? no.

Sorry if I stepped in something.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2008)

Paul,
 

This has been a lot of fun to watch.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

No, it hasn't.

I'm going to run an errand, and if the lack of civility continues in this thread, I'll lock it when I return.

Or maybe another moderator'll beat me to it. You never know.

If someone has something of substance and value to say regarding the original post's topic, by all means, say it.

Otherwise, please don't.

Thanks.

Mrs. Ivy


----------



## etexas (Mar 14, 2008)

POST 48 has a good question!!!!!!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2008)

To be fair, in regard to OP, I would say "sometimes" (for the reasons Paul mentions). Heck, if the accomodations were nice enough, I could catch up on my reading. But we can't say all jailbreaks are sinful, because God helped Peter escape (which would equal God helping Peter sin, if the argument holds) and Paul evaded criminal charges in Acts (which he shouldn't do given that he wrote Romans 13).


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Dr Mike Kear said:


> I should have added _commentary_ to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.



You didn't need to add commentary. You did a great job being obtuse without the commentary. Sorry "doc."


----------



## Herald (Mar 14, 2008)

Words mean things my friend. You make all of us hang on *your *words. Any misstatement or verbal faux pas on our part and you attack with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. Ah, but let your own words be used against you and you become the incredible "Teflon Man." Since you hold others to exactness in their words, should we not do the same with you? Where we to guess that you were using Pres Deacon's words against him? You never stated that you were. Perhaps we were to assume? But no. You would have scolded us for taking your words out of context. You come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument. You take great pleasure in trapping people in your "web" (isn't that what you called it?). The affection you display for your family, who you so eloquently wrote about here, is not shared towards others. 

fini


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> If someone has something of substance and value to say regarding the original post's topic, by all means, say it.



That's what I've been begging for. We're "on the same page." Rather than deal with the arguments, the thread has been "conveniently" re-focused on subjective issues. As if we're too good to be called "obtuse," or whatever. This gets pity and shifts the focus away from the bad arguments and the OP. By all means, if I post a bad argument, or am being as thick as abrick, by all means, point it out. Don't worry about catering to my pride. When you've been wrong as often as I have, you get used to it!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2008)

Words do mean things, Bill, but they need contexts. The word "bank" has about 8 different meanings, for example. Likewise, Scriptures not only need contexts but acceptable (or at least stated) fields of application. That is why appeals to Romans 13 don't go very far. Likewise, your references to J & D were shown to prove that we should baptize infants. We grant the meaning to your words, but left without a context, or given a faulty one, we did the best we could with what we had.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 14, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Words mean things my friend. You make all of us hang on *your *words. Any misstatement or verbal faux pas on our part and you attack with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. Ah, but let your own words be used against you and you become the incredible "Teflon Man." Since you hold others to exactness in their words, should we not do the same with you? Where we to guess that you were using Pres Deacon's words against him? You never stated that you were. Perhaps we were to assume? But no. You would have scolded us for taking your words out of context. You come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument. You take great pleasure in trapping people in your "web" (isn't that what you called it?). The affection you display for your family, who you so eloquently wrote about here, is not shared towards others.
> 
> fini



I know words mean things.

Do the same with me.

You were not to guess if I was using his words against him. But, I commented on this above. I was even "mean" to myself. So, you're beind, as usual.

Indeed, given his post, his underlined words, and what he said, there was nothing mysterious about my comment. If you didn't get my point, this could explain why you have problems with my posts.

Look, I expect a certain amount of poor sportsmanship. I understand its no fun having your arguments (here and in other places) put through the wringer. When I'm on your "side," no one has a problem. People PM me and ask, "Can you look at my argument here. Or, can you come in this thread and argu?" It's only when I argue against someone that people have a "problem." Seems odd.

Anyway, do you snip out those places in your Bible where Paul and Jesus "come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument?"

I have also presented arguments as to why I used the word "obtuse." It was your side who has blown this out of proportion. Perhaps you are now jumping in because I also pointed out that you made a totally irrelevant, or absured (depending on which horn of the reductio you accept). Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But you are not your argument.

Okay guys, let's all save the dramma for our momma.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Mar 14, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> > I should have added _commentary_ to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.
> ...



No apology necessary. I was amazingly obtuse. In fact, I was so obtuse I actually transcended obtuse and ventured into obthreese.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

The LORD's sending an angel to get Peter out of jail makes non-divinely-aided jail breaks acceptable?

I dunno. That seems like rather a stretch. 

One thing that occurred to me is how there are myriad stories still told of brave, devout saints who went fearlessly to their deaths for Christ; off the top of my head I can't recall any such stories about saints who dug their way out of prison and escaped.

Peter didn't dig himself out. He had to be prodded by an angel and ordered to get up, dress himself, and hurry _up_ about it. Scripture doesn't say Peter was looking for ways to sneak out.

Come to that, let's keep in mind Acts 16:

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the jail were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's chains came loose. 27 When the jailer woke up and saw the doors of the prison open, he drew his sword and was going to kill himself, since he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul called out in a loud voice, "Don't harm yourself, because all of us are here!"

Huh. Fancy that. The way was clear for an escape but Paul and the others just stayed put.

In the book of Acts when Peter escaped, both times it was at the behest of an angel (Acts 5:19-20; 12:6-10).

So the two times Scripture records an apostle escaping, it wasn't the apostle's idea, but at the urging of an angel, and the one time Scripture records an angel-less opportunity for escape, the apostle didn't go.

This hardly seems to support "if you're satisfied you're innocent, make a break for it if you get the chance".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 14, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Paul,
> 
> 
> This has been a lot of fun to watch.



I don't agree at all. I just woke up to read this and it is not at all fun.

I've called men obtuse before and there are times when I regretted it and there were times when I used it as a Godly rebuke. In this case, it's use should be regretted in my estimation.

There is such a thing as poisoning the well. Whether or not we believe people should "grow up" in certain dialogues is immaterial to the point that we have a responsibility not to speak (or write) in such a way that inflames emotions.

Do people make statements that are unreasonable here? Absolutely. Perhaps they are using the Scriptures improperly and that is dangerous but our job is often to have patience with our Brothers when that is not done in willfull obstinance (which is what the nature of what it means to be obtuse). 

Do you know why this sidebar is more important than the original issue? Because the real life people on this board who are concerned about being trashed here are more important than getting the hypothetical question answered correctly. Whatever we might "settle" here isn't going to settle every situation anyhow as prudence could dictate a million different scenarios where it would be more or less ethical to escape from your captors.

What _is_ absolutely clear, however, is what our attitude ought to be toward those of us who name Christ:
[bible]Romans 12:9-10[/bible]

Even if a brother of ours is caught in a sin:
[bible]Galatians 6:1[/bible]

Thankfully, our High Priest knows and is sympathetic to our weaknesses and the fact that we are spiritually obtuse or we would be surely lost:
[bible]Hebrews 4:15-5:2[/bible]

Signed,

The chief of sinners


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 14, 2008)

Let me add one further clarifying point.

I believe we all can be reminded of the above and this was not intended to single out a single party in the affair. It was unfair of me above to use a specific word and attribute this whole altercation to a single man. Several of us failed here and fail throughout the board.

I would also add that we ought to be held responsible for poor use of Scriptures to make a point. I had no issue with that. Again, let us merely consider _how_ we do so. If an argument decimates our position then sometimes it's better to just admit that we were knuckleheads. Personally, it stings to admit it but it also undergirds our integrity when we're willing to admit that we were mistaken.

All I'm asking is that the mistaken and those pointing out mistakes be kind and tender-hearted to one another. Even as God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven you.


----------

