# Lying and the Nazis at your door



## RamistThomist

Okay, this is an old question, but clear thinking would be helpful. I have found the positions on both sides to be rather shallow.

The nazis come to your door. You are hiding Jews. If you tell the truth, the Jews will likely be gassed (assume for the moment they will be). If you lie, the J3ws live. 

1. If you tell the truth to the Nazis, then you will help them murder Jews.
2. If you lie, you save their lives.

But is (2) necessarily a lie, given the context?

Given overly pietistic assumption, both options would be sinful.

But the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all manners but was without sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a way out of temptation. So given the two choices, how do you get out of it without sinning?


----------



## puritan lad

Interesting Question. Rahab gives us a similar example. Ray Sutton holds that she lied and God blessed her for it. My pastor would disagree.

Answer: I would probably lie to the Nazis. Is that a sin? I don't know.


----------



## Craig

1) They are not entitled to the truth
2) I'm not sure we're entitled to lie

You could pre-arrange some sort of a code word or signal so all the Jews sneak out the back door...

Then tell the nazis there are no Jews in your home. If that doesn't work, I'd say protecting the oppressed is within your God-given rights (lethal force if necessary).

Another option...for the theologically inclined...if you know that these Jews are not Christians...I'd tell the nazis you're not *hiding* any Jews...b/c we know a Jew is one who is *inwardly* and not outwardly...so Christians are "Jews"...and since you're answering the door, and consider yourself a "Jew" in the New Testament sense, you are not hiding 

So I guess you could honestly answer you're not hiding any Jews and wait and see if they ask what you mean by "Jew". 

I think I solved the dilemma (except for Dispensationalists!)


----------



## Ivan

Craig said:


> Another option...for the theologically inclined...if you know that these Jews are not Christians...I'd tell the nazis you're not *hiding* any Jews...b/c we know a Jew is one who is *inwardly* and not outwardly...so Christians are "Jews"...and since you're answering the door, and consider yourself a "Jew" in the New Testament sense, you are not hiding



I tripped jumping through the hoops and skinned my knee...

I'd lie.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Ivan said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another option...for the theologically inclined...if you know that these Jews are not Christians...I'd tell the nazis you're not *hiding* any Jews...b/c we know a Jew is one who is *inwardly* and not outwardly...so Christians are "Jews"...and since you're answering the door, and consider yourself a "Jew" in the New Testament sense, you are not hiding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tripped jumping through the hoops and skinned my knee...
> 
> I'd lie.
Click to expand...



I'd say, 
"It's 2008. Don't you guys know Hitler's dead?"


----------



## ChristopherPaul

*Confuse them with double negatives:*

YouTube - Pinocchio


----------



## Grymir

I'm on my lunchbreak at work, so here's the short answer. I'll post more after work.

In your story, you just say the Nazis come to your door. Since they don't knock or ask any questions, you don't have to do either. No sin and the Jews survive another day.


----------



## Ivan

Grymir said:


> I'm on my lunchbreak at work, so here's the short answer. I'll post more after work.
> 
> In your story, you just say the Nazis come to your door. Since they don't knock or ask any questions, you don't have to do either. No sin and the Jews survive another day.



...good one.


----------



## satz

Perhaps it is an overly simple point of view, but I always thought the story of Rahab answered this question fairly conclusively, namely that from God's point of view, lying or deception in order to preserve life is not a sin.

The simple fact, it seems to me, is that Rahab lied to the men of the city and God commended her by putting her into the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 for it.

I believe many commentators think Rahab sinned in lying, but in James 2 God commends her (again) and this time it is in the context of the discussion that faith without works is dead, or that belief without works is dead (v19-20). Hence she is specifically being commended for her works, or what she did.

If we look else where in the bible we can find other examples of this principle. In Exodus 1:19 the hebrew midwives lied to Pharoah to save the children of the Israelites, and the bible describes them as 'fearing God' (v17, 21) and God himself commends and rewards them by building them houses.

There are more examples I cannot remember off hand right now.


----------



## Davidius

Is it then acceptable to break the other commandments in order to save lives? If someone were to threaten to kill your wife unless you commit adultery, would it be acceptable to commit adultery? Would your wife want you to do that to save her life? There are probably better examples, but you get my point.


----------



## ReformedWretch

satz said:


> Perhaps it is an overly simple point of view, but I always thought the story of Rahab answered this question fairly conclusively, namely that from God's point of view, lying or deception in order to preserve life is not a sin.
> 
> The simple fact, it seems to me, is that Rahab lied to the men of the city and God commended her by putting her into the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 for it.
> 
> I believe many commentators think Rahab sinned in lying, but in James 2 God commends her (again) and this time it is in the context of the discussion that faith without works is dead, or that belief without works is dead (v19-20). Hence she is specifically being commended for her works, or what she did.
> 
> If we look else where in the bible we can find other examples of this principle. In Exodus 1:19 the hebrew midwives lied to Pharoah to save the children of the Israelites, and the bible describes them as 'fearing God' (v17, 21) and God himself commends and rewards them by building them houses.
> 
> There are more examples I cannot remember off hand right now.



To me this is the answer to the question, and a very good one.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

puritan lad said:


> Interesting Question. Rahab gives us a similar example. Ray Sutton holds that she lied and God blessed her for it. My pastor would disagree.
> 
> Answer: I would probably lie to the Nazis. Is that a sin? I don't know.



In the past I believed we could follow the Rahab example and lie, but when you look at the references to her in James and Hebrews it doesn't seem so:

"By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace." Hebrews 11:21

"Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:25

In both verses it praises her hiding the spies, but not lying about them. In the case of Nazis and Jews, hiding the Jews definitely would be the right thing, but lying would be sinful. Several points:

1. If our faith were truly that strong, we would not lie about hiding them and trust that's God will be done, as odious as the outcome may seem to us. 
2. If we truly have faith that God is in control of all things, we would uphold the truth at all times. 
3. Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is working in us, He would not lead us to lie (John 16:13). 
4. And finally, telling the truth is not the same as actively killing the Jews - I have a hard time seeing that is a sin.

Having said all that, in the heat of the moment I would probably lie, which would indicate how weak my faith can be at times...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

9 years ago _Christianity Today_ had an interesting article on this topic: "Directions: Is Lying Always Wrong? (We live the truth not for its own sake, but for God's sake and for the neighbor's sake.)" By Allen Verhey, professor of religion at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.

I lost the hardcopy mag somewhere, and now it's only available in CT's online Library, to which one must pay a fee to access articles, and I can't spare the money to do that. If anyone has membership to that Library, here is the url:

Directions: Is Lying Always Wrong? - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com

I'd appreciate getting a copy of it if you access it, as I've been wanting to look at it again for some years now. It was an interesting article.


----------



## satz

Davidius said:


> Is it then acceptable to break the other commandments in order to save lives? If someone were to threaten to kill your wife unless you commit adultery, would it be acceptable to commit adultery? Would your wife want you to do that to save her life? There are probably better examples, but you get my point.



The way I would approach the question is this:

I know the primary command is do not lie. But I see in the bible (not in man's pragmatic reasoning, but the word of God himself) exceptions made. Just as God defines that lying is sin, it is God too who defines what is sinful 'lying'. By looking at the bible, I understand that lying in a situation similar to Rahab's is not sin.

The question whether if this reasoning can be pushed to apply to other sins and situations is perhaps interesting, but I do not think it affects the validity of the reasoning. I see a specific 'exception' made in the context of the command not to lie and I am happy to believe that. Whether or that there is a general principle here that can be extended elsewhere is, In my humble opinion, a completely different question.

To give another example, the fact that there are exceptions from the command not to murder for self defense, war and capital punishment does not logically lead us to think that the principle must be extended to committing adultery in times of war or for self defense. I think the subject of lying can be treated in the same way.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

The Lord told Samuel to tell Saul something other that the truth when he was going to anoint David king. He also sent lying spirits into the mouths of the prophets and will send people strong delusion so that some will believe a lie.
in my opinion, you are not obligated to give the truth to some Christ hating infidel who would use it to kill you or harm others.

1Sa 16:1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. 
1Sa 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear [it], he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. 
1Sa 16:3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me [him] whom I name unto thee.


1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.




1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


----------



## Hippo

I would say that telling a "lie" here would not be "bearing false witness", as long as you told the "lie" in faith it would not be a sin.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Obidiah lied to Jezebel:

1Ki 18:4 For it was [so], when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.

1Ki 18:13 Was it not told my lord what I did when Jezebel slew the prophets of the LORD, how I hid an hundred men of the LORD'S prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

In a war, in which lives and a godly social order are at stake, it is legitimate to lie to the enemy as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives did.


----------



## VictorBravo

I like the Rahab approach, but I'd rather think out of the box: Arm your Jewish friends with some serious firepower, have them stand behind you in the room, and say, "Hiding? Ain't nobody hiding in here!"


----------



## Davidius

satz said:


> To give another example, the fact that there are exceptions from the command not to murder for self defense, war and capital punishment does not logically lead us to think that the principle must be extended to committing adultery in times of war or for self defense. I think the subject of lying can be treated in the same way.



This is, in my opinion, not a good example because we have commands about war and capital punishment. The definition of "murder" in the 10 commandments therefore excludes them. "Murder," by the bible's definition, is not the same as "killing." The argument for lying (and by necessary inference, I believe, other sins) is an argument which is at best based on narrative and silence, and an exception cannot be established in the same way as capital punishment. 

Narrative is of course not irrelevant, but due to the fact that so many commentators have disagreed with what seems to be the standard view in this thread, I would argue that God's approval of the actual lie is up for debate, and that her inclusion in the "hall of faith" may not have been because of the lie. 



Blueridge Baptist said:


> The Lord told Samuel to tell Saul something other that the truth when he was going to anoint David king. He also sent lying spirits into the mouths of the prophets and will send people strong delusion so that some will believe a lie.



This is also beside the point. When it comes down to it, God decrees all lying, and for that matter, all sin. Those prophets who brought strong delusion are not free from guilt because God decreed that they do so.


----------



## Thomas2007

Ivanhoe said:


> Okay, this is an old question, but clear thinking would be helpful. I have found the positions on both sides to be rather shallow.
> 
> The nazis come to your door. You are hiding Jews. If you tell the truth, the Jews will likely be gassed (assume for the moment they will be). If you lie, the J3ws live.
> 
> 1. If you tell the truth to the Nazis, then you will help them murder Jews.
> 2. If you lie, you save their lives.
> 
> But is (2) necessarily a lie, given the context?
> 
> Given overly pietistic assumption, both options would be sinful.
> 
> But the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all manners but was without sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a way out of temptation. So given the two choices, how do you get out of it without sinning?



I don't understand the problem - it seems you are approaching this from a moralistic perspective, not a juridical one.

You've just harbored enemies of the State and have become an enemy in doing so. One would presume you've already dealt with the issue of Lawful Authority and Romans 13 before you set out on this activity whereby the moralistic issue of a lie shouldn't be a conscience problem for you.

If you can flee, then you flee, if you have to lie - then lie, and the third option, is that from the extra stash of weapons and ammunition you've cached for just such an emergency, your houseguests understand that if you hit the floor they are to open fire and let God sort it out.

Thomas


----------



## Wannabee

Is it a lie or not? Is it sinful to lie or not? A third choice was not offered, and that's to remain silent. Could you renounce Christ in order to avoid torture? What if you didn't mean it? You'd be lying right? If that's not okay, then where do you draw the line. Is God unchanging or not? Is God in charge of our circumstances? Does this fit Romans 8:28? Is there a temptation that's somehow unique? Does God provide a way out? (1 Cor 10:13)

Years ago Focus on the Family praised those who lied about their age in order to catch Planned Parenthood in breaking the law. Their defense was similar to the reasoning seen here.



> Dear Mr. Johnson:
> 
> It was thoughtful of you to write and communicate your honest reaction to _Citizen_ magazine's recent article "The Tale of the Tapes" (Karla Dial, September 2002) and the ensuing correspondence between reader Marjory McCarty and editor Tom Hess ("A Lie Is A Lie," December 2002). You have clearly invested a great deal of time and energy in your critique of Mr. Hess's response to Ms. McCarty. The care and diligence with which you have analyzed the biblical passages he cited in support of his position as well as the additional passages you brought to our attention are sincerely appreciated here at Focus on the Family headquarters.
> 
> We regret that you were disturbed by Mr. Hess's comments. You expressed concern that _Citizen_ magazine has grown "wishy-washy" and that we are willing to compromise our standards to reach certain goals. Quite honestly, we simply disagree with you on that point. _Citizen_ magazine strives to use scriptural truths and values to help its readers understand and respond to the variety of issues our society is currently facing. We realize that we are not perfect in every instance but we do feel that the central purpose as well as the material published by _Citizen_ consistently points to biblical truths which call individuals to take a stand -- often in opposition to the more tolerant beliefs around them.
> 
> In defense of Mr. Hess's argument, we'd simply like to point out that the "lying" in which Life Dynamics, Inc. engaged in its attempts to expose the illegal practices of Planned Parenthood was really no different from the undercover tactics used by narcotics agents and FBI investigators in their efforts to nab drug dealers or Mafia moguls. "Narcs" don't openly identify themselves as police officers when they move in to "get the goods" on suspected dope peddlers; instead, they *conceal* the truth, posing as "customers" in order to gather evidence and make the necessary arrests. This concealment is absolutely essential to the effective discharge of their duties as officers of the law.
> 
> Similarly, Corrie ten Boom and her family went to great lengths to keep Nazi officials in the dark with regard to the Jewish refugees who were hidden in their house. As a result, they succeeded in saving scores of innocent lives. Anyone who appreciates the spirit of the law as opposed to its mere letter should be able to see that there is a vast difference between this kind of "cover-up" and the sort of "lying" that aims to deceive and destroy. "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord," says Proverbs 12:22; but the very next verse declares that "A prudent man conceals knowledge" when the circumstances call for discretion (see also Proverbs 11:13). It's our opinion that Rahab and the Hebrew midwives were practicing exactly this kind of biblical discretion when they chose to keep certain information from the rulers of their day.
> 
> We hope this reply has given you a clearer understanding of our perspective. We realize that we may not see eye-to-eye in this particular instance. Although this may be the case, we do want to thank you again for taking the time to write -- your desire to help hold us accountable is appreciated. Don't hesitate to let us know if we can answer further questions on this subject. May God's richest blessings be yours.
> 
> NAME
> Focus on the Family


----------



## sastark

*Westminster Larger Catechism*

*Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?*

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, *to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others*[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]

*Select Scripture References:*
[722] 1 Kings 18:4. For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, *and hid them* by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.)

*Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?*

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] *the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;*[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]
*
Select Scripture References:*
[751] Matthew 25:42-43. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. *James 2:15-16. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?* Ecclesiastes 6:1-2. There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

*I would lie to the nazi*

I would lie to nazi with out regret, remorse. because i know a few theings about them
1) they aim to kill any Jews, blacks, and those who disagree. they have no innocent precepts.
Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16)
Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16)
Not to spare a pursuer, but he is to be slain before he reaches the pursued and slays the latter(Deut. 25:12) 


I would kill the Nazi if at all possible. if one or two come to the door- yea shoot em all. if a platoon comes by... i dunno. invite him in to inspect. Kill him, steal his uniform, then spray the platoon with gunfire and grenades?? i dunno.. Just go rambo on them.


----------



## cih1355

I would probably tell them, "I'm not telling you anything."


----------



## Barnpreacher

ModernPuritan? said:


> i dunno.. Just go rambo on them.



 The problem is, I don't know if we've got any true modern day Rambo's today. He was a wrecking machine. He could take down a whole army with his bare hands. He could.....what???.....he was just a fictional character???


----------



## panta dokimazete

no Jews here!


----------



## Barnpreacher

I remember Bahnsen talking about this in a lecture once, but I can't quite remember his answer.  He gave other illustrations like: If you bought something at a store and then drove 100 miles home and found out the cashier gave you extra change, would you return it? If you had a chance to assasinate a terrorist or serial killer would you do it? 

Makes for interesting and profitable discussion when done correctly, but also can lead to a lot of excessive arguing.

"..._but what doth your arguing reprove_?" *Job 6:25*


----------



## SRoper

An issue I have with so-called moral dilemmas is they assume that you know with certainty what the outcome will be to each option. I am reminded of a story Ravi Zacharias tells of an attempt at an escape from a POW camp. Several guards interrogate one of the conspirators, and the prisoner divulges the plan rather than lying. The guards then tell the prisoner that they want to flee the country and will help them escape. It turns out that the prisoners' escape would have been unsuccessful if they did not have the guards' knowledge of navigation.

Because it is unclear whether the Nazis will actually kill the Jews in question (perhaps they are unable or unwilling), it seems that number one is the best option of the two.



Thomas2007 said:


> I don't understand the problem - it seems you are approaching this from a moralistic perspective, not a juridical one.
> 
> You've just harbored enemies of the State and have become an enemy in doing so. One would presume you've already dealt with the issue of Lawful Authority and Romans 13 before you set out on this activity whereby the moralistic issue of a lie shouldn't be a conscience problem for you.
> 
> If you can flee, then you flee, if you have to lie - then lie, and the third option, is that from the extra stash of weapons and ammunition you've cached for just such an emergency, your houseguests understand that if you hit the floor they are to open fire and let God sort it out.



Not necessarily. The Jews could have just fled to your home minutes before--you may not be intentionally harboring enemies.


----------



## christiana

The people who protected Jews had already considered how they would respond under threat and had made their decision to say what was needed to save lives. They would never have had them in their home otherwise and protected them faithfully!

For me that brings up other episodes of similarity like when Phinehas speared through Zimri and Cosbi deliberately and God honored his zeal for doing so. I find this rather confusing.


----------



## Jon Peters

John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration. 

Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?


----------



## sastark

Jon Peters said:


> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?



I confirm that you have a feeble recollection. 

PS- Hi Jon!


----------



## Davidius

Jon Peters said:


> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?



What was Murray's thesis (I am unfamiliar with Mason and his position)?


----------



## Jon Peters

sastark said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I confirm that you have a feeble recollection.
> 
> PS- Hi Jon!
Click to expand...


Seth, you must treat your elders with more respect!


----------



## ModernPuritan?

cih1355 said:


> I would probably tell them, "I'm not telling you anything."




so by not answering yes or no to the Nazis question you would lie. as you are only giving 2 options 

and of course i dont blame you, I would lie to a nazi too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Jon Peters said:


> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?



Yes, his chapter on "The Sanctity of Truth" covers Rahab, the midwives and other relevant Biblical examples relating to this issue.


----------



## Davidius

Jon Peters said:


> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?





VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, his chapter on "The Sanctity of Truth" covers Rahab, the midwives and other relevant Biblical examples relating to this issue.
Click to expand...




Davidius said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was Murray's thesis (I am unfamiliar with Mason and his position)?
Click to expand...


----------



## Galatians220

Davidius said:


> Is it then acceptable to break the other commandments in order to save lives? If someone were to threaten to kill your wife unless you commit adultery, would it be acceptable to commit adultery? Would your wife want you to do that to save her life? There are probably better examples, but you get my point.


 
Would there be a difference in that in committing adultery, one sins grievously against one's own body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) and against the picture of the covenant relationship that marriage is, whereas by lying with the sole purpose of deceiving a would-be murderer, one saves that life for God's purposes, not those despicable ones of the murderer? I'm not disagreeing; I get your point and I'm thinking about it... I know that one commandment is not more important than any of the others...

Fascinating analogy you raise!  

How about this? - Must We Always Tell the Truth

Margaret


----------



## ServantofGod

What's a Jew?


----------



## Jon Peters

Murray's thesis was that one may never lie; to do so would be to violate the command of God. Am I correct Andrew?


----------



## RamistThomist

Davidius said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, his chapter on "The Sanctity of Truth" covers Rahab, the midwives and other relevant Biblical examples relating to this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was Murray's thesis (I am unfamiliar with Mason and his position)?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Murray recognizes that he can't come out and say Rahab's lie was wrong, sinc e when the New Testament had a chance to condemn Rahab for lying, it didn't. But he is almost embarrassed by the fact that Rahab did lie and spends the next few pages shadowboxing with a few exegetical issues, leaving the reader largely unsatisfied. 

Rahab lied. The New Testament praised her for it. squirming doesn't make it go away.

Some could say that, "Well, the NT praised her for her faith, which was hiding the spies, and not for the lie." This is hyper-knitpicking. Say that she did go out on faith and hide the spies _but didn't lie_. 5 minutes later, both Rahab and the spies are executed. Nice faith, but no outcome.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Jon Peters said:


> Murray's thesis was that one may never lie; to do so would be to violate the command of God. Am I correct Andrew?



Yes. "But the upshot of our examination has been that no instance demonstrates the propriety of untruthfulness under any exigency." (_Principles of Conduct_, p. 146)

Mason's position is found in post #12.


----------



## Thomas2007

Wannabee said:


> Is it a lie or not? Is it sinful to lie or not?



It's a lie, but no it is not sinful. In other words, sin is a transgression of God's law, not your morals. The law is: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16 You, your emotions and feelings are not the standard - His law is.

Our duty is to uphold God's law and advance justice and righteousness - not be moralists imagining we live in a moralistic black and white world. When evil becomes good and good becomes evil and an ordained institution is at the heart of it like this situation, if you become moralistic in your approach to the law, then your moralistic approach to the law will make you a slave to sin and you'll abandoned the faith in self-righteousness.

In this example, the Nazi's don't have the legal standing to receive the truth - lieing to them is not sinful. You've chosen your legal position by your felonious activity of harboring fugitives. Hence, you are already a liar in deed by breaking the law in hiding them, otherwise, why are you hiding?




Wannabee said:


> A third choice was not offered, and that's to remain silent.



Apparently, though, you believe the civil magistrate in this situation has authority to receive the truth, hence lieing also includes being silent when you have a duty to speak.

A suggestion for you to consider - go take the license plates off your car and put them in your backseat and drive around for a few days. In so doing you can begin dealing with the real-world emotions of moralistic antinomian piety vs juridical obedience to Christ.

Test yourself and you'll soon figure out what a big fat liar you are - just like the rest of us. The key is to be able to make the right decision in the right circumstances, so that when the **** crows for you, then you aren't denying Christ in a misinterpreted moralistic antinomian piety whereby you think are doing right, but have instead deceived yourself.




Wannabee said:


> Could you renounce Christ in order to avoid torture?



Maybe, it depends upon what the circumstances are and what your standing is in those circumstances. Judas was honest and told Caiaphas where Christ was at - he told the truth and renounced Christ in doing it. His truth was prior to God's truth, and in his truth he become the son of the father of lies.





Wannabee said:


> What if you didn't mean it? You'd be lying right? If that's not okay, then where do you draw the line. Is God unchanging or not?



Yes, He is - He commands obedience to His law and His Lordship first - our circumstances have to be examined subjective to that absolute, not the ordination of an institution that can and historically does change the law and set up good and evil as opposites.

One thinks this stuff is simple to interpret - until you actually have to make a decision whereby you are disobeying an ordained authority in order to obey God - then it gets much more difficult to properly interpret. Because the question is always in your mind, did you interpret the situation properly when you set out to disobey the ordained authority in the first place?

What makes logical sense in good vs evil analysis - quickly becomes much harder to interpret and apply when good becomes evil and evil becomes good. You have to make numerous judgments within those circumstances and many times unfold an inside out situation before you can ever begin figuring out what your duties and responsibilities are.

We must always strive to insure that our interpretation of circumstances is correct whereby our actions are based upon God's law as the objective absolute and our morality is in subjection to that - when the tables get turned and good becomes evil and evil becomes good, then it is very easy to also become confused whereby our morality becomes objective and God's law becomes subjective to it. Generally, you'll think you are doing the right thing until you cross examine it from several different angles.



Wannabee said:


> Is God in charge of our circumstances? Does this fit Romans 8:28? Is there a temptation that's somehow unique? Does God provide a way out? (1 Cor 10:13)



Yep, obedience to His objective law not our subjective morality.


Cordially In Christ,


Thomas


----------



## Thomas2007

SRoper said:


> Not necessarily. The Jews could have just fled to your home minutes before--you may not be intentionally harboring enemies.



In Germany harboring Jews was an act of sedition - it got you shot on the spot. If these were Jews that fled to your home moments before, then you should have kept your doors locked. Hence, because you weren't consciously acting in the best interest of the State you are guilty anyway - BLAM.


----------



## Don Kistler

I remember discussing this with the late John Gerstner some years ago. He said that we have an obligation to tell the truth to those who have a right to it. The murderous Nazis would have no right to the truth since their intent is to use it to a wicked purpose. 

He also cited examples where we intentionally deceive persons and think nothing of it. For example, a football team is under no obligation to tell the defense that the play going to the right is really a reverse coming back to the left. 

We are under no obligations during times of war to be truthful to the enemy. They have no right to our truth. Deceit is expected under certain circumstances.

For what it's worth...


----------



## Davidius

Ivanhoe said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was Murray's thesis (I am unfamiliar with Mason and his position)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Murray recognizes that he can't come out and say Rahab's lie was wrong, sinc e when the New Testament had a chance to condemn Rahab for lying, it didn't. But he is almost embarrassed by the fact that Rahab did lie and spends the next few pages shadowboxing with a few exegetical issues, leaving the reader largely unsatisfied.
> 
> Rahab lied. The New Testament praised her for it. squirming doesn't make it go away.
> 
> Some could say that, "Well, the NT praised her for her faith, which was hiding the spies, and not for the lie." This is hyper-knitpicking. Say that she did go out on faith and hide the spies _but didn't lie_. 5 minutes later, both Rahab and the spies are executed. Nice faith, but no outcome.
Click to expand...


Considering how convinced you seem of Rahab's innocence, why did you even raise the question?  If her case is cut and dried then we need have no discussion about Jews.


----------



## RamistThomist

I can be convinced of something while wanting better justifications for it.


----------



## Grymir

This isn't fair. I had to wait till I got off from work before I could post. (ie so I wouldn't commit a sin while posting about whether something was a sin or not.) And y'all beat me to the firepower answer, but here it goes anyway. (Major logical kuddo's to the who's a Jew anyway defense)

When you know they are at the door (I'm assuming that they do knock and ask "Hey, ya got any Jews around?), open fire on them with some Uzi's Rambo style [just war, so its not murder] bringing the judgment of God on the Nazis, then grab your Jews and make a dash to the back door and jump on the freight train that is passing by at the moment [your not depriving the R.R. company profit (no theft) because it's a government controlled railroad, and your taxes pay for it anyway], then you jump off the train and run into a library to hide. While you are there, you notice ~~Susita~~ 's bookshelf with her new Mathew Henry books on it [you don't covet them however, because your's is in the original Greek], as you run out the back door....and get into a waiting airplane. You pull out your MasterCalvin card [predetermined limit, earned with grace and the sweat of your brow] and pay for you and your Jews. And the airport taxes [obeying the civil magistrate].

While you are flying to freedom, you notice how modestly the steward people are dressed [to save you from lust, and to be politically correct at the same time, thereby avoiding two sins..one the world's, and one God's]. While over England, the engines go out [you just smile, because as a young earther, you know this is further proof of the young earth, ie, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that came into existence because of the fall...so you don't fear, which some consider a sin]. Luckily, they were putting up a new banner at the Edinburgh Inn which catches your plane and saves everybody's life. [A bunch of TR'ers smoking cigars come out and offer you a Guinness, giving God the glory]

But you notice a bunch of skinheads running toward you, so you grab your Jews and duck into a local pub, The White Horse Inn, were they are discussing whether music can be intrinsically evil or not [but in the spirit of Christian Liberty, you don't cause your weaker brother to stumble]. You then duck out the back door and board a boat full of Dispensationalists heading to America. [Who gladly take you along, because of your Jew's, seeing it is fulfilling God's prophesy in Ezekiel somewhere].

When you get to America, they drop you off at Plymouth harbor, where you hear rumors of Rob Bell being named a new moderator. [righteous indignation is no sin]. By this time the Jews are quite amazed at you (and your peaceable lifestyle), so they start asking about Jesus. You whip out your KJV Pocket New Testament and they convert on the spot. [you spend a year teaching them the reformed faith, so no decisionalism theology, which would be idolatry]. Satisfied, you see your Jews leave and you feel you have fulfilled the Great Commission. Just then a bull rushes at you and you say "I hate the horn's of a dilemma" [carefully not taking the Lord's name in vain]

So there is the right answer without you sinning at all.


----------



## Herald

In a time of war are covert operations considered lying?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Grymir said:


> This isn't fair. I had to wait till I got off from work before I could post. (ie so I wouldn't commit a sin while posting about whether something was a sin or not.) And y'all beat me to the firepower answer, but here it goes anyway. (Major logical kuddo's to the who's a Jew anyway defense)
> 
> When you know they are at the door (I'm assuming that they do knock and ask "Hey, ya got any Jews around?), open fire on them with some Uzi's Rambo style [just war, so its not murder] bringing the judgment of God on the Nazis, then grab your Jews and make a dash to the back door and jump on the freight train that is passing by at the moment [your not depriving the R.R. company profit (no theft) because it's a government controlled railroad, and your taxes pay for it anyway], then you jump off the train and run into a library to hide. While you are there, you notice ~~Susita~~ 's bookshelf with her new Mathew Henry books on it [you don't covet them however, because your's is in the original Greek], as you run out the back door....and get into a waiting airplane. You pull out your MasterCalvin card [predetermined limit, earned with grace and the sweat of your brow] and pay for you and your Jews. And the airport taxes [obeying the civil magistrate].
> 
> While you are flying to freedom, you notice how modestly the steward people are dressed [to save you from lust, and to be politically correct at the same time, thereby avoiding two sins..one the world's, and one God's]. While over England, the engines go out [you just smile, because as a young earther, you know this is further proof of the young earth, ie, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that came into existence because of the fall...so you don't fear, which some consider a sin]. Luckily, they were putting up a new banner at the Edinburgh Inn which catches your plane and saves everybody's life. [A bunch of TR'ers smoking cigars come out and offer you a Guinness, giving God the glory]
> 
> But you notice a bunch of skinheads running toward you, so you grab your Jews and duck into a local pub, The White Horse Inn, were they are discussing whether music can be intrinsically evil or not [but in the spirit of Christian Liberty, you don't cause your weaker brother to stumble]. You then duck out the back door and board a boat full of Dispensationalists heading to America. [Who gladly take you along, because of your Jew's, seeing it is fulfilling God's prophesy in Ezekiel somewhere].
> 
> When you get to America, they drop you off at Plymouth harbor, where you hear rumors of Rob Bell being named a new moderator. [righteous indignation is no sin]. By this time the Jews are quite amazed at you (and your peaceable lifestyle), so they start asking about Jesus. You whip out your KJV Pocket New Testament and they convert on the spot. [you spend a year teaching them the reformed faith, so no decisionalism theology, which would be idolatry]. Satisfied, you see your Jews leave and you feel you have fulfilled the Great Commission. Just then a bull rushes at you and you say "I hate the horn's of a dilemma" [carefully not taking the Lord's name in vain]
> 
> So there is the right answer without you sinning at all.



That's just great, but you forgot about how these converted Jews then go back to start a church (KJV/EP/peado--of course!).


----------



## Grymir

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> That's just great, but you forgot about how these converted Jews then go back to start a church (KJV/EP/peado--of course!).



Oh, the sequel. My wife says that they decide they are the renemant and head out for Utah. 

So many choices!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Thought this might be of interest:



> But what I find fascinating is the umbrage taken by non-believers and evolutionists to the many visual comparisons of Stalin and Hitler to scientists holding to evolution. Or the concern over the falsehoods, in obtaining the interviews, in editing the interviews, in the reasons for kicking PZ Myers out, in the scientific claims made, and in the factual claims made.
> 
> Why? Don’t you get it? To them, they are in a time of war. This is behavior which is to be commended! If this movie was a complete lie, yet was the impetus for Intelligent Design being incorporated in one (1) public school—the Christians promoting this film would consider it a success! The ends most certainly are justified by the means.
> 
> To them, if a lie brings about a moral good—then the lie is no longer morally wrong. If a caricature of anyone holding to evolution being the equivalent of Stalin or Hitler convinces a single person to not investigate evolution on their own—then the caricature was morally good.
> 
> Don’t you see those complaints about falsehoods; complaints about inaccuracies; complaints about incorrect depictions will fall off them like water off a duck’s back? They don’t care; such actions are tolerable when the outcome is noble.



from here


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grymir said:


> This isn't fair. I had to wait till I got off from work before I could post. (ie so I wouldn't commit a sin while posting about whether something was a sin or not.) And y'all beat me to the firepower answer, but here it goes anyway. (Major logical kuddo's to the who's a Jew anyway defense)
> 
> When you know they are at the door (I'm assuming that they do knock and ask "Hey, ya got any Jews around?), open fire on them with some Uzi's Rambo style [just war, so its not murder] bringing the judgment of God on the Nazis, then grab your Jews and make a dash to the back door and jump on the freight train that is passing by at the moment [your not depriving the R.R. company profit (no theft) because it's a government controlled railroad, and your taxes pay for it anyway], then you jump off the train and run into a library to hide. While you are there, you notice ~~Susita~~ 's bookshelf with her new Mathew Henry books on it [you don't covet them however, because your's is in the original Greek], as you run out the back door....and get into a waiting airplane. You pull out your MasterCalvin card [predetermined limit, earned with grace and the sweat of your brow] and pay for you and your Jews. And the airport taxes [obeying the civil magistrate].
> 
> While you are flying to freedom, you notice how modestly the steward people are dressed [to save you from lust, and to be politically correct at the same time, thereby avoiding two sins..one the world's, and one God's]. While over England, the engines go out [you just smile, because as a young earther, you know this is further proof of the young earth, ie, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that came into existence because of the fall...so you don't fear, which some consider a sin]. Luckily, they were putting up a new banner at the Edinburgh Inn which catches your plane and saves everybody's life. [A bunch of TR'ers smoking cigars come out and offer you a Guinness, giving God the glory]
> 
> But you notice a bunch of skinheads running toward you, so you grab your Jews and duck into a local pub, The White Horse Inn, were they are discussing whether music can be intrinsically evil or not [but in the spirit of Christian Liberty, you don't cause your weaker brother to stumble]. You then duck out the back door and board a boat full of Dispensationalists heading to America. [Who gladly take you along, because of your Jew's, seeing it is fulfilling God's prophesy in Ezekiel somewhere].
> 
> When you get to America, they drop you off at Plymouth harbor, where you hear rumors of Rob Bell being named a new moderator. [righteous indignation is no sin]. By this time the Jews are quite amazed at you (and your peaceable lifestyle), so they start asking about Jesus. You whip out your KJV Pocket New Testament and they convert on the spot. [you spend a year teaching them the reformed faith, so no decisionalism theology, which would be idolatry]. Satisfied, you see your Jews leave and you feel you have fulfilled the Great Commission. Just then a bull rushes at you and you say "I hate the horn's of a dilemma" [carefully not taking the Lord's name in vain]
> 
> So there is the right answer without you sinning at all.




Now THAT was good!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

My view on this seems to be the minority on here, and I'm actually surprised by that. Some of the comments are very interesting, but there's two major reasons I don't believe lying is right, and IS a sin:

1. The means don't justify the end. Nowhere in the Bible, at least to my knowledge, are we given a pass to break one commandment for a "greater good," and a perceived greater good at that. God never says we ignore one commandment for the sake of a more important one. This concept is completely foreign to Scripture. The only thing that even comes close is Jesus "breaking" the Sabbath laws, but even then He held a very high regard for the Sabbath, and wasn't breaking it so much as fulfilling it. And the examples Blueridge Baptist gave were taken way out of context, especially the 1 Kings verses, which were referring to false prophets whose lying spirits were actually sent from Satan, not from God. So, a sin is always a sin, regardless of our intent and to what end it strives to accomplish. Lying is sinful. The Bible gives no qualifiers. 

2. By lying, we are presuming to know God's will and God's plan. Naturally God doesn't want us to murder people, but who says it isn't part of God's will for these people to be captured and/or die? Remember Job? God allowed terrible things to happen to him for a very important reason, reasons that were never explained to Job. It's hard to imagine God having a reason for allowing the murder of innocent people, but then again, we aren't God and can't possibly understand His will. By lying in order to do what WE think is right we may be interfering with God's plan. How do we know what will happen to these people? Maybe they will be freed, maybe somehow God will use them to somehow impact the Nazis - we have no way of knowing. By lying, we are assuming we know exactly what God wants and exactly how what His plans are. But that's not our responsibility and not what God commands us to do. We do know he commands our obedience, and He is very clear that we are not to lie, without qualification. 

So in light of all that, all we can do is obey what God clearly commands us to do in His Word, and that is to tell the truth, and trust Him that what happens next is in His hands. I hate to think we have the ability to rationalize exceptions and add clauses to the Ten Commandments.


----------



## SolaScriptura

ColdSilverMoon said:


> 1. The means don't justify the end. Nowhere in the Bible, at least to my knowledge, are we given a pass to break one commandment for a "greater good," and a perceived greater good at that. God never says we ignore one commandment for the sake of a more important one. This concept is completely foreign to Scripture. The only thing that even comes close is Jesus "breaking" the Sabbath laws, but even then He held a very high regard for the Sabbath, and wasn't breaking it so much as fulfilling it. And the examples Blueridge Baptist gave were taken way out of context, especially the 1 Kings verses, which were referring to false prophets whose lying spirits were actually sent from Satan, not from God. So, a sin is always a sin, regardless of our intent and to what end it strives to accomplish. Lying is sinful. The Bible gives no qualifiers.





Are you kidding me? The fact that you can sit there and seriously reiterate that the Bible gives "no qualifiers" despite the fact that several people have pointed to multiple verses and examples that DO SEEM TO QUALIFY what constitues lying... and you still sit there saying "the Bible gives no qualifiers..." Ok... There are people who still think that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. Whatever. 

Perhaps the real issue here is that you won't allow repeated examples from within Scripture to influence what you believe Scripture is teaching in its precepts.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Grymir said:


> This isn't fair. I had to wait till I got off from work before I could post. (ie so I wouldn't commit a sin while posting about whether something was a sin or not.) And y'all beat me to the firepower answer, but here it goes anyway. (Major logical kuddo's to the who's a Jew anyway defense)
> 
> When you know they are at the door (I'm assuming that they do knock and ask "Hey, ya got any Jews around?), open fire on them with some Uzi's Rambo style [just war, so its not murder] bringing the judgment of God on the Nazis, then grab your Jews and make a dash to the back door and jump on the freight train that is passing by at the moment [your not depriving the R.R. company profit (no theft) because it's a government controlled railroad, and your taxes pay for it anyway], then you jump off the train and run into a library to hide. While you are there, you notice ~~Susita~~ 's bookshelf with her new Mathew Henry books on it [you don't covet them however, because your's is in the original Greek], as you run out the back door....and get into a waiting airplane. You pull out your MasterCalvin card [predetermined limit, earned with grace and the sweat of your brow] and pay for you and your Jews. And the airport taxes [obeying the civil magistrate].
> 
> While you are flying to freedom, you notice how modestly the steward people are dressed [to save you from lust, and to be politically correct at the same time, thereby avoiding two sins..one the world's, and one God's]. While over England, the engines go out [you just smile, because as a young earther, you know this is further proof of the young earth, ie, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that came into existence because of the fall...so you don't fear, which some consider a sin]. Luckily, they were putting up a new banner at the Edinburgh Inn which catches your plane and saves everybody's life. [A bunch of TR'ers smoking cigars come out and offer you a Guinness, giving God the glory]
> 
> But you notice a bunch of skinheads running toward you, so you grab your Jews and duck into a local pub, The White Horse Inn, were they are discussing whether music can be intrinsically evil or not [but in the spirit of Christian Liberty, you don't cause your weaker brother to stumble]. You then duck out the back door and board a boat full of Dispensationalists heading to America. [Who gladly take you along, because of your Jew's, seeing it is fulfilling God's prophesy in Ezekiel somewhere].
> 
> When you get to America, they drop you off at Plymouth harbor, where you hear rumors of Rob Bell being named a new moderator. [righteous indignation is no sin]. By this time the Jews are quite amazed at you (and your peaceable lifestyle), so they start asking about Jesus. You whip out your KJV Pocket New Testament and they convert on the spot. [you spend a year teaching them the reformed faith, so no decisionalism theology, which would be idolatry]. Satisfied, you see your Jews leave and you feel you have fulfilled the Great Commission. Just then a bull rushes at you and you say "I hate the horn's of a dilemma" [carefully not taking the Lord's name in vain]
> 
> So there is the right answer without you sinning at all.








Wow, the only thing you left out is how you got home from emergent space in the first place to lead this grand adventure.


----------



## ServantofGod

> There are people who still think that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. Whatever.



That's silly. We all know it was staged at Area 52.


----------



## Grymir

Southern, I can't break a vow, but i don't want to lie either...let me just say it's has to do with the temporal prime directive.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

ServantofGod said:


> There are people who still think that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's silly. We all know it was staged at Area 52.
Click to expand...





Most Illogical!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Grymir said:


> Southern, I can't break a vow, but i don't want to lie either...let me just say it's has to do with the temporal prime directive.


----------



## Wannabee

*ColdSilverMoon* - Excellent post!



Thomas2007 said:


> A suggestion for you to consider - go take the license plates off your car and put them in your backseat and drive around for a few days. In so doing you can begin dealing with the real-world emotions of moralistic antinomian piety vs juridical obedience to Christ.


This is a completely nonsensical statement. 


Thomas2007 said:


> Test yourself and you'll soon figure out what a big fat liar you are - just like the rest of us. The key is to be able to make the right decision in the right circumstances, so that when the **** crows for you, then you aren't denying Christ in a misinterpreted moralistic antinomian piety whereby you think are doing right, but have instead deceived yourself.


What's up with the rhetoric Thomas? I'm not sure of your motive, but this comes across as a direct attack. Striving for excellence and perfection in Christ is not the same as claiming to have attained it. Your comments seem terribly reactionary. And your reasoning has a postmodern flair to it.

It's interesting to note that this was dealt with on this board several years ago and all parties agreed that lying was a sin, period (the thread appears to have been deleted over the years). At least four of the then current moderators are no longer involved with this forum. The consideration here is what exactly is subjective morality. I, and few others, have stated that the objective answer is that there is never an excuse to lie. Others have argued that morality (in this case lying) is subject to circumstances. There is no escaping it. To claim that the black and white answer that asserts that all lying is sin is subjective moralism throws the decree of God on it's ear and makes His very character subject to our flawed reasoning. This, in truth, is subjective reasoning (subjective moralism); attempting to validate and justify our weaknesses and lack of understanding by turning God's commandments into what we want them to be. In such a case man stands over God's Word in judgment of that which God provides to judge man.

As for the commandment; note the clarity given to this commandment as uttered by Jesus (Matt 10:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20) and Paul (Rom 13:9 - omitted by NU), "You shall not bear false witness." Nothing is mentioned about neighbors. This is similar to the understanding of adultery being clarified. It's a matter of the heart. While the heart is deceitful, the regenerate heart is capable of not sinning. We are not to commit any of the sins of the decalogue in our hearts, which includes lying.

Consider Scriptural mandate:
Matthew 5:33-37 (James 5:12)
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 *But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.* 



Consider also the evidence against lying:
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. *When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.* 

John 8:55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 

Psalm 15 

Psalm 51:6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, 
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom. 
The New King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ps 51:6.

1 John 2:21
21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that *no lie is of the truth*. 

Ps 25:10 All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, To such as keep His covenant and His testimonies. 

1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, *for liars*, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is *contrary to sound doctrine*, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. 

Revelation 21:8
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and *all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death*.” 

Jeremiah 9:3-6
3 “And like their bow they have bent their tongues for lies. 
They are not valiant for the truth on the earth. 
For they proceed from evil to evil, 
And they do not know Me,” says the Lord. 
4 “Everyone take heed to his neighbor, 
And do not trust any brother; 
For every brother will utterly supplant, 
And every neighbor will walk with slanderers. 
5 Everyone will deceive his neighbor, 
And will not speak the truth; 
They have taught their tongue to speak lies; 
They weary themselves to commit iniquity. 
6 Your dwelling place is in the midst of deceit; 
Through deceit they refuse to know Me,” says the Lord. 

Proverbs 14:5
5 A faithful witness does not lie, 
But a false witness will utter lies. 

Zechariah 8:16-17
16 These are the things you shall do: 
Speak each man the truth to his neighbor; 
Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace; 
17 Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; 
And do not love a false oath. 
For all these are things that I hate,’ 
Says the Lord.” 

Romans 3:5-8
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. 

Colossians 3:9-10
9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 

One of the most compelling passages is found in Proverbs
Proverbs 12:17-23
17 He who speaks truth declares righteousness, 
But a false witness, deceit. 
18 There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword, 
But the tongue of the wise promotes health. 
19 The truthful lip shall be established forever, 
But a lying tongue is but for a moment. 
20 Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, 
But counselors of peace have joy. 
21 No grave trouble will overtake the righteous, 
But the wicked shall be filled with evil. 
22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, 
But those who deal truthfully are His delight. 
23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, 
But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness. 


Admittedly, most of these do not lend themselves to dogmatism. But they clearly express the character of God who cannot lie. And that's what it comes down to. Is God the God of truth? Are we created in the image of God? Is God holy? Are we commanded to be holy as God is holy? How can we, who are created in the image of God and commanded to be conformed into the image of Christ, practice a lie that God would never perpetuate? Is God able to deliver us from any circumstance? Is death not preferable to dishonoring God?

There is not one passage in Scripture where anyone is directed by God to lie or commended by God for lying. The attempts to claim so do not allow Scripture to speak for itself and impose flawed understanding on the text. God is of truth, and never a lie. I would strongly urge those who waive the "you're too pious" or legalism flag to step back and evaluate their own hearts. Are you actually willing to claim that God can embrace a lie and commend you for it? Could you pray to God, "Thank you Lord, for helping me come up with that lie and delivering me from those circumstances through a lie"? One might as well thank God for compromising His character and not relying on His sovereignty to overcome the circumstances. Though I am probably too weak and cowardly to do so, I pray that God would give me the grace to overcome such a temptation in the face of such a trying confrontation.


----------



## Thomas2007

ColdSilverMoon said:


> So in light of all that, all we can do is obey what God clearly commands us to do in His Word, and that is to tell the truth, and trust Him that what happens next is in His hands. I hate to think we have the ability to rationalize exceptions and add clauses to the Ten Commandments.



The truth is the word of God, not our obedience. 

One simply cannot claim innocence when their words, although externally compliant with the letter of God's law, are in fact a feigned negative pregnant that guts it spiritually of its intent.

We can know what the will of God is and not have any doubt about it, He tells us explicitly in Scripture. We are to love the Lord with all of our hearts, minds and souls and our neighbor as ourself.

In the example given, a class of people are attained and condemned to death for nothing more than being a class of people. The civil magistrate can only bear the sword unto death for a violation of a capital crime and that with due process of law and the testimony of at least two witnesses.

The law is: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16

When you know that the civil magistrate is interrogating you regarding your activities in providing sanctuary to a class of people he has attained and is rounding up to execute; and you then tell him they are down in the basement behind a false wall and justify it under this moralistic premise that you cannot lie - it is the same thing as bearing false witness against him in a capital case. His blood is on your head.

Exodus 23:1-2,7 & 9 instructs: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment....Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked...Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." 

The abstraction of the "truth" in these responses in justifying oneself as a malicious witness to empower the mob to work their evil and wrest judgment and slay the innocent is beyond my comprehension.

In my understanding of Scripture, we are created in God's image, and we speak analogical words. This analogical word is a word of a faithful witness in the act of obedience, hence, word and deed are connected and the truth and a true witness has reference to God and His Justice, not to man and his attempts to extract truth from us for his evil and unlawful ends.

What you see as a heinous sin in a lie, I see as the testimony of a faithful witness unto the truth of God and His law in exercising dominion and interceding on behalf of the innocent to frustrate the evil plans of the wicked.


----------



## k.seymore

I'd pull a Rahab and make day appear to be night, for the Bible tells me so:

"Give counsel;
grant justice;
make your shade like night
at the height of noon;
shelter the outcasts;
do not reveal the fugitive;
let the outcasts of Moab
sojourn among you;
be a shelter to them [heb: be _"a hiding place"_]
from the destroyer." (Is 16:3-4)

Even if the one who escaped was a slave:

"You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him." (Deut 23:15-16)


----------



## Thomas2007

Wannabee said:


> It's interesting to note that this was dealt with on this board several years ago and all parties agreed that lying was a sin, period (the thread appears to have been deleted over the years). At least four of the then current moderators are no longer involved with this forum. The consideration here is what exactly is subjective morality. I, and few others, have stated that the objective answer is that there is never an excuse to lie. Others have argued that morality (in this case lying) is subject to circumstances. There is no escaping it. To claim that the black and white answer that asserts that all lying is sin is subjective moralism throws the decree of God on it's ear and makes His very character subject to our flawed reasoning. This, in truth, is subjective reasoning (subjective moralism); attempting to validate and justify our weaknesses and lack of understanding by turning God's commandments into what we want them to be. In such a case man stands over God's Word in judgment of that which God provides to judge man.



Hello Joe,

I'm sorry my post came across as a direct attack, it was not intended to be so - just lack of time to think more deeply about presentation. Please forgive me for the appearance of an attack.

However, since you didn't deal with the majority weight of my arguments, but just asserted your position again there isn't much else to say.

I will, however, just add that slander and libel can be the "truth" in substance about a man, yet be false witness against him whereby your word does injury to his character or property. For example, you may say to someone, so and so filed bankruptcy and lost their house and do great damage to his character because you also failed to give them the circumstances in which that was required, which may have been outside of his control. Hence, you became a talebearer, and although he did file bankruptcy the true word devoid of the substance is a false witness. That is no different than this situation. The individuals morality to not lie and give a true word devoid of the substance and enjoin a murdering civil magistrate cannot be defended. Truth cannot be defended on malicious grounds.

Where man is absolutized and made the prior and ultimate consideration as against good and evil, truth and falsity, then man is just carrying out original sin to be his own god whereby his word determines good and evil.

Truth as a malicious witness is being a false witness - that's not turning God's commandments into what we want them to be - rather it is denying to man to be his own god and determine good and evil for himself.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## satz

Davidius said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is, in my opinion, not a good example because we have commands about war and capital punishment. The definition of "murder" in the 10 commandments therefore excludes them. "Murder," by the bible's definition, is not the same as "killing." The argument for lying (and by necessary inference, I believe, other sins) is an argument which is at best based on narrative and silence, and an exception cannot be established in the same way as capital punishment.
> 
> Narrative is of course not irrelevant, but due to the fact that so many commentators have disagreed with what seems to be the standard view in this thread, I would argue that God's approval of the actual lie is up for debate, and that her inclusion in the "hall of faith" may not have been because of the lie.
Click to expand...


Yes, there are not explicit commands for lying as there are for war, but that does not (necessarily) settle the issue. Narrative may not be as strong as an explicit command, but it can still work to teach us exceptions and qualifications to explicit commands. Jesus showed us this principle when he justified his disciples for picking corn on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-38, Matt 12:1-8). He told the pharisees they ought to have known from the example of David and the shewbread that it was ok for the disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath Day. This was despite the fact that there was no explicit exception to the Sabbath given prior to the gospels.

Also, if Rahab is not in the hall of faith for the actual lie what is she there for? The texts in Hebrews and James explicitly state she is there for the incident involving hiding the spies. Is she there simply for having faith in God and good intentions toward the spies? It cannot be, for James specifically says ‘faith without works is dead’ - it is Rahab’s _actions_ that pleased God. Now, she could have simply refused to tell where the spies were, and faced the wrath of her country men, as some posts have suggested, but she did not. She lied, and God commended her after everything was said and done.

If you do not agree, what is your explanation for what Rahab was commended for? How do we deal with the similar passage involving the Hebrew midwives?



Davidius said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord told Samuel to tell Saul something other that the truth when he was going to anoint David king. He also sent lying spirits into the mouths of the prophets and will send people strong delusion so that some will believe a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also beside the point. When it comes down to it, God decrees all lying, and for that matter, all sin. Those prophets who brought strong delusion are not free from guilt because God decreed that they do so.
Click to expand...


Did you check out the actual verses? Those passages are not about God’s secret decree. They involve God actively telling Samuel to deceive Saul, and actively approving of a Spirit’s plan to lie to Ahab.



> 1 Samuel 16:1-4 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee. And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?





> 1 Kings 22:20-23 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.


----------



## satz

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I hate to think we have the ability to rationalize exceptions and add clauses to the Ten Commandments.



I guess my point has been that the exceptions do not come from human rationalization or pragmatism, but from God's own word.


----------



## Wannabee

Thomas, thank you for your thoughtful reply. 

First, I did not say the same thing. In the first one I simply made an assertion. In my second post I provided Scripture that makes it clear that lying is sin both in mandate and in theological consideration of the character of God and our roles as image bearers. 
Please consider that you jump to conclusions. You say that those who claim all lies are sinful are necessarily divulging the truth. The point is, we can conceal knowledge. This was in my last post.

Prov 7:23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, 
But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness. 

Furthermore, we can fight and perhaps die on behalf of those we defend. There is a nobler way than that of the liar.


Rahab was listed for her faith, not for lying. Her faith was demonstrated in hiding the men and when she let the scarlet cord out the window. She trusted God to deliver her rather than blowing the wistle on the Israelites plans. Though she did lie, nowhere does Scripture claim that she was praised for lying. Lying demonstrates a lack of faith that God can deliver. It is never a demonstration of faith.



> 1 Samuel 16:1-4 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee. And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?


The fact is, he did offer the sacrifice. The text is clear. Therefore, there is no lie. We need to be careful not to insert our western sensibilities to the ANE culture.



> 1 Kings 22:20-23 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.


God is pointing out that He will judge Israel through false prophets. There is no lie being justified here. Does God use the sin of men? Obviously so. Does He cause men to sin? Yes! Pharoah and Joseph's brothers are good examples. But God's people are never called on to sin in any way. Micaiah, in this passage, is exposing the false prophets (liars) for what they are and judging the king of Israel. Who shall we emulate? False prophets?

And who ever asserted that the Hebrew midwives lied. They gave an explanation. There is no more that can be verified by the text.

As has been mentioned, narrative cannot be the foundation of our doctrine. Neither can philosophical rationalization. We can rationalize anything we want. But the fact remains that we bear the image of our Creator and are to emulate Him in character. Before responding with more philosophical defense of lying, perhaps it would be good to ponder the verses provided and have a ready reply for each one. The ends only justifies the means if you are God. Self-justification is another lie that men need to avoid. There are no exceptions in God's Word.


----------



## Dena

satz said:


> Perhaps it is an overly simple point of view, but I always thought the story of Rahab answered this question fairly conclusively, namely that from God's point of view, lying or deception in order to preserve life is not a sin.
> 
> The simple fact, it seems to me, is that Rahab lied to the men of the city and God commended her by putting her into the hall of faith in Hebrews 11 for it.
> 
> I believe many commentators think Rahab sinned in lying, but in James 2 God commends her (again) and this time it is in the context of the discussion that faith without works is dead, or that belief without works is dead (v19-20). Hence she is specifically being commended for her works, or what she did.
> 
> If we look else where in the bible we can find other examples of this principle. *In Exodus 1:19 the hebrew midwives lied to Pharoah to save the children of the Israelites, *and the bible describes them as 'fearing God' (v17, 21) and God himself commends and rewards them by building them houses.
> 
> There are more examples I cannot remember off hand right now.



i was going to bring this up, too. I would "lie" if thats still what it is considered here. i would still ask God to forgive me in case i unknowingly sinned.


----------



## puritan lad

Was it not dishonest for Israel to send spies into Canaan in the first place? Isn't a spy, by definition, dishonest to his enemies concerning his identity?

Are we always to be 100% totally honest about every thought and feeling, or is it wise to hold our peace? (i.e., "Do I look fat in this dress?"). If we hold our tongues, are we not is some way practicing dishonesty?

On the flipside, is it OK to lie in order to save your own life, like for example, Peter?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

SolaScriptura said:


> Are you kidding me? The fact that you can sit there and seriously reiterate that the Bible gives "no qualifiers" despite the fact that several people have pointed to multiple verses and examples that DO SEEM TO QUALIFY what constitues lying... and you still sit there saying "the Bible gives no qualifiers..." Ok... There are people who still think that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. Whatever.
> 
> Perhaps the real issue here is that you won't allow repeated examples from within Scripture to influence what you believe Scripture is teaching in its precepts.



Ben, this simply isn't true. The three examples from Scripture are not only taken out of context (particularly the 2 Thessalonians verses), but are not even examples of God allowing, commending, or encouraging a lie. Wannabee has already addressed each of these in Post #67, but a couple of quick points. 

1 Samuel verses: Saul actually DID make the sacrifice. So how was he lying? He also annointed David, but he did not lie to Saul, because he sacrificed the heifer. So, how is this an example of a "good" lie, or a lie at all?

1 Kings verses: false prophets are telling the lies here, not true prophets or anyone God would commend. The text says God allowed a "lying spirit" to come into these false prophets, which MacArthur in his commentary says actually was Satan, whom God allowed to speak to Ahab through the false prophets. So Satan speaking through false prophets is hardly an endorsement of lying. 

2 Thessalonians verses: this is referring to Satan and false prophets, and God simply will allow people to believe his lies. Again, hardly an endorsement of lying in any situation. 

So Ben, these verses do not support lying with even the mildest scrutiny. I would encourage you to read these in their entire context and tell me if you really think God is encouraging, commending, or allowing lying in any of these. 

Once again, nowhere in Scripture is lying commended or allowed. God never set conditions on His commandments. A lie is a lie, no matter what the context, and is always sinful. And clearly God does NOT commend Rahab's lie in the New Testament. It specifically says in both Hebrews and James that her faith was illustrated by her work of taking the spies in and hiding them, not by lying to the guards; read the original passage. Simply because the Bible records a certain event (such as Rahab's lie) does not mean it is an endorsement of it. Note that in Hebrews only the qualities that revealed the faith of the Old Testament figures were listed, not their sins. Even Sarah is listed, despite her laughing derisively and gave her servant to Abraham when she was initially told she would bear children. Does God commend her initial lack of faith and giving her servant to her husband? No, but she eventually revealed her true faith in bearing Isaac. 

The only rationale for lying to the Nazis is moralistic and not Scripturally based. No one has provided a valid argument based on God's Word. Once again, we are commanded to obey God's Word, not to decide for ourselves when it should and should not apply.


----------



## RamistThomist

I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:

Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).

Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).

Riddle me that, batman. 

Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.


----------



## sastark

Ivanhoe said:


> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.



I think it has been shown from Scripture that the first Horn is actually false. In order to protect the life of your neighbor from one seeking to murder him, you are not violating the ninth commandment by misleading the would-be murderer.


----------



## Mayflower

I heard the story, that Nazi's came at the door of Corry de Boom (she and her family were hiding jews from the nazi's), and they ask "are here jews ?" Corry de Boom said, yes they are here and look around, these nazi's started to laugh and took it not seriously, and they did not enter in, but passed by.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

sastark said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has been shown from Scripture that the first Horn is actually false. In order to protect the life of your neighbor from one seeking to murder him, you are not violating the ninth commandment by misleading the would-be murderer.
Click to expand...


I disagree with this - in reality the exact opposite is true. Again, where in Scripture is breaking the ninth commandment ever allowed or condoned in any circumstance?

Horn 2 is false because we are not causing the death of Jews - the Nazis are doing that. Hiding the Jews in the first place absolves us completely of breaking the 6th commandment unless we somehow actively sought the Nazis to tell them the location of the Jews. Besides, we don't know what the response will be or what the future will hold, and we are not asked to predict the future. We are commanded to tell the truth, and trust that whatever may happen is in God's hands.


----------



## sastark

ColdSilverMoon said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has been shown from Scripture that the first Horn is actually false. In order to protect the life of your neighbor from one seeking to murder him, you are not violating the ninth commandment by misleading the would-be murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this - in reality the exact opposite is true. Again, where in Scripture is breaking the ninth commandment ever allowed or condoned in any circumstance?
> 
> Horn 2 is false because we are not causing the death of Jews - the Nazis are doing that. Hiding the Jews in the first place absolves us completely of breaking the 6th commandment unless we somehow actively sought the Nazis to tell them the location of the Jews. Besides, we don't know what the response will be or what the future will hold, and we are not asked to predict the future. We are commanded to tell the truth, and trust that whatever may happen is in God's hands.
Click to expand...


I posted this earlier, but it seems to have been missed in the fray:



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]
> 
> Select Scripture References:
> [722] 1 Kings 18:4. For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.)
> 
> Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]
> 
> Select Scripture References:
> [751] Matthew 25:42-43. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. James 2:15-16. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ecclesiastes 6:1-2. There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.



If you deliver the Jews into the hands of the Nazis you are just as guilty of their blood as the one pulling the trigger.

According to your logic, the Nazis that knock on your door asking for the Jews are only guilty if they themselves murder the Jews. In reality, they most likely will take them to some facility where some other Nazi will commit the physical act of murder. Are then the Nazis knocking on your door innocent as well? Are they not accountable for the blood of the Jews they deliver into the facility where they are murdered? Or are they "just following orders"?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

sastark said:


> If you deliver the Jews into the hands of the Nazis you are just as guilty of their blood as the one pulling the trigger.
> 
> According to your logic, the Nazis that knock on your door asking for the Jews are only guilty if they themselves murder the Jews. In reality, they most likely will take them to some facility where some other Nazi will commit the physical act of murder. Are then the Nazis knocking on your door innocent as well? Are they not accountable for the blood of the Jews they deliver into the facility where they are murdered? Or are they "just following orders"?



No, you are not "delivering" the Jews, you are telling the truth. Delivering the Jews would be parading them down the street waving down the first Nazi you could find. The Catechism's answers regarding the 6th commandment demonstrate that hiding the Jews is perfectly in line with the 6th commandment. Hiding the Jews is doing all you can do to preserve life. Please point out to me where in the Catechism (or even better, the Bible) we are allowed to lie to protect and preserve life?

And Seth, surely you can see the difference between HIDING Jews and knocking down doors in an attempt to find them so they can be killed. Clearly the former is abiding by the 6th commandment, while the latter obviously is not acceptable according to the Catechism.


----------



## SRoper

Ivanhoe said:


> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.



Jacob, may I suggest it's because there is disagreement over whether the lie is actually breaking the ninth commandment? Most who are advocating option one think there is a sort of wartime exception like there is with self-defense. I think another example is needed that doesn't involve deception.

I'll suggest an alternative. Let me know what you think.

A married woman is in a concentration camp with her family. A guard offers to let them escape if the woman will sleep with him. If she refuses, the family will be killed the next day. She has reason to believe the guard because she has witnessed others let go if they agree. She has also witnessed others who refused killed by the guards. What should she do?


----------



## VictorBravo

SRoper said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, may I suggest it's because there is disagreement over whether the lie is actually breaking the ninth commandment? Most who are advocating option one think there is a sort of wartime exception like there is with self-defense. I think another example is needed that doesn't involve deception.
> 
> (snip)
Click to expand...


I'd add that the answer to question 145 of the WLC actually calls "speaking the truth unseasonably" a sin. Telling would-be murderers the location of their intended victims seems to fall into this category pretty easily.


----------



## sastark

ColdSilverMoon said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deliver the Jews into the hands of the Nazis you are just as guilty of their blood as the one pulling the trigger.
> 
> According to your logic, the Nazis that knock on your door asking for the Jews are only guilty if they themselves murder the Jews. In reality, they most likely will take them to some facility where some other Nazi will commit the physical act of murder. Are then the Nazis knocking on your door innocent as well? Are they not accountable for the blood of the Jews they deliver into the facility where they are murdered? Or are they "just following orders"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are not "delivering" the Jews, you are telling the truth. Delivering the Jews would be parading them down the street waving down the first Nazi you could find. The Catechism's answers regarding the 6th commandment demonstrate that hiding the Jews is perfectly in line with the 6th commandment. Hiding the Jews is doing all you can do to preserve life. Please point out to me where in the Catechism (or even better, the Bible) we are allowed to lie to protect and preserve life?
> 
> And Seth, surely you can see the difference between HIDING Jews and knocking down doors in an attempt to find them so they can be killed. Clearly the former is abiding by the 6th commandment, while the latter obviously is not acceptable according to the Catechism.
Click to expand...


Hiding the Jews is _all you can do_ to preserve life? Come on! The Nazis are at the door asking if there are any people in their they can kill! What is the greatest commandment? The ninth or the sixth? Neither! Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets. So, you, if the roles were reversed, would rather have the family hiding you confess to the Nazis that you were in the house so they could arrest, detain, torture and murder you? I mean, at least the man hiding you would have a clear conscience, right? 

Examples of preserving life by deceiving the murderer in Scripture:

Egyptian Midwives.
Rahab and the spies. (and, as already mentioned, the spies themselves!)

Further, James 2:15-16 (quoted above) directly applies: How are we to tell the Jews "be warm and filled, but I will turn you into the first Nazi that asks about you"?

Answer 135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, *which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any*...*and protecting and defending the innocent*.

Were the Nazis just in taking away the lives of the Jews? No. Therefore, according to the Catechism, they ought to be resisted, which resistance includes protecting and defending the innocent.

The catechism doesn't say it's ok to lie to the Nazis but it does say you ought to defend the innocent Jew. So, I guess we shouldn't lie, we should just kill the Nazi and by so doing sacrifice ourselves, our family and the Jews we were hiding, once the other Nazis find out about it. Or, perhaps, we can use our God-given discretion to preserve our lives and the lives of the Jews we are hiding, bu simply not handing over the innocent to be slaughtered.


----------



## k.seymore

In order to avoid death you might:

1) Hide yourself under vegetation and have someone else say you are not here to deceive them into thinking you are not here.
2) Wear a shirt that says, "I am not here, I am vegetation," in order to deceive really stupid people into thinking you are not here.
3) Wear a camo outfit that looks like vegetation–that is, which says, "I am vegetation" in a more sophisticated way than #2–to deceive others into thinking you are not here.

I think all of these are deception, and the same deception. Perhaps someone would like to defend the morality of wearing British red-coats instead of our current troops' camo and hiding in the trees? Anyone?

If walls could speak, and they can, they say "there are no Jews hidden behind this wall that has no visible door." This is no less deception than if a person said it out loud–that is their intent when making a hidden room. Or when making things that should be visible in the day as hidden as if it was night, _when it isn't actually night_:

"Make your shade like night
at the height of noon;
shelter the outcasts;
do not reveal the fugitive;
let the outcasts of Moab
sojourn among you;
be a shelter to them [heb: be "a hiding place"]
from the destroyer." (Is 16:3-4)


No Jews here. Move along.


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, may I suggest it's because there is disagreement over whether the lie is actually breaking the ninth commandment? Most who are advocating option one think there is a sort of wartime exception like there is with self-defense. I think another example is needed that doesn't involve deception.
> 
> I'll suggest an alternative. Let me know what you think.
> 
> A married woman is in a concentration camp with her family. A guard offers to let them escape if the woman will sleep with him. If she refuses, the family will be killed the next day. She has reason to believe the guard because she has witnessed others let go if they agree. She has also witnessed others who refused killed by the guards. What should she do?
Click to expand...


That example comes right out of Fletcher's _Situation Ethics_. It is a good question.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

sastark said:


> The catechism doesn't say it's ok to lie to the Nazis but it does say you ought to defend the innocent Jew. So, I guess we shouldn't lie, we should just kill the Nazi and by so doing sacrifice ourselves, our family and the Jews we were hiding, once the other Nazis find out about it. Or, perhaps, we can use our God-given discretion to preserve our lives and the lives of the Jews we are hiding, bu simply not handing over the innocent to be slaughtered.



I think we agree about preserving life and hiding the Jews. I would do everything I could to keep them from being slaughtered, including hiding them, helping them escape, or doing anything else I could to help them, as I think we are obligated to do under the 6th commandment. I agree with all of that. But when it comes down to being asked point blank, "Are you hiding Jews?" I believe it would be wrong to lie. Forget the cop out about being silent and dodging the question - I think all that's fine, but if pressed and you have to give an answer, I don't see how lying would not be sinful. It would be going directly against God's Word and the very nature of God Himself. I'm not saying we voluntarily round up Jews for the Nazis, but I am saying it is NEVER acceptable to break the 9th commandment. 

By the way, just because the Bible records historical lies (Rahab, Egyptian midwives) doesn't make it acceptable. Rachel lied about having her menstrual period to hide Laban's idols. Was this an acceptable lie also? Or was the reason not good enough?

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. I certainly understand your view and I would probably lie in the heat of the moment, but it would still be a sin. I will never believe God's Law is ever conditional.


----------



## sastark

Ivanhoe said:


> That example comes right out of Fletcher's _Situation Ethics_. It is a good question.



Does Fletcher provide an answer?


----------



## ServantofGod

ColdSilverMoon said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The catechism doesn't say it's ok to lie to the Nazis but it does say you ought to defend the innocent Jew. So, I guess we shouldn't lie, we should just kill the Nazi and by so doing sacrifice ourselves, our family and the Jews we were hiding, once the other Nazis find out about it. Or, perhaps, we can use our God-given discretion to preserve our lives and the lives of the Jews we are hiding, bu simply not handing over the innocent to be slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we agree about preserving life and hiding the Jews. I would do everything I could to keep them from being slaughtered, including hiding them, helping them escape, or doing anything else I could to help them, as I think we are obligated to do under the 6th commandment. I agree with all of that. But when it comes down to being asked point blank, "Are you hiding Jews?" I believe it would be wrong to lie. Forget the cop out about being silent and dodging the question - I think all that's fine, but if pressed and you have to give an answer, I don't see how lying would not be sinful. It would be going directly against God's Word and the very nature of God Himself. I'm not saying we voluntarily round up Jews for the Nazis, but I am saying it is NEVER acceptable to break the 9th commandment.
> 
> By the way, just because the Bible records historical lies (Rahab, Egyptian midwives) doesn't make it acceptable. Rachel lied about having her menstrual period to hide Laban's idols. Was this an acceptable lie also? Or was the reason not good enough?
> 
> I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. I certainly understand your view and I would probably lie in the heat of the moment, but it would still be a sin. I will never believe God's Law is ever conditional.
Click to expand...


This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why? The command is clear:

Romans 13:1,2-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 

1 Peter 2:13,14- Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 

So:

1. Hiding the Jews is a sin

2. Lying about the Jews is a sin.

We can do #1, because we don't believe God's Word commands us to obey Nazi's, but we can't lie to them? 

NOTE: This being directed towards CSM's post.


----------



## sastark

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I think we agree about preserving life and hiding the Jews. I would do everything I could to keep them from being slaughtered, including hiding them, helping them escape, or doing anything else I could to help them, as I think we are obligated to do under the 6th commandment. I agree with all of that. But when it comes down to being asked point blank, "Are you hiding Jews?" I believe it would be wrong to lie.



I do not. 



> Forget the cop out about being silent and dodging the question - I think all that's fine, but if pressed and you have to give an answer, I don't see how lying would not be sinful. It would be going directly against God's Word and the very nature of God Himself.



And I remained convinced that preserving the life of my neighbor is actually more correctly reflecting God's nature.



> I'm not saying we voluntarily round up Jews for the Nazis, but I am saying it is NEVER acceptable to break the 9th commandment.
> 
> By the way, just because the Bible records historical lies (Rahab, Egyptian midwives) doesn't make it acceptable. Rachel lied about having her menstrual period to hide Laban's idols. Was this an acceptable lie also? Or was the reason not good enough?
> 
> I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.



That's fine. And let us both pray that we never have to make this type of decision in real life!



> I certainly understand your view and I would probably lie in the heat of the moment, but it would still be a sin. I will never believe God's Law is ever conditional.



And I do think that God's Law is conditional, when God Himself demonstrates conditions requiring a more nuanced reading of the Law.

But if you'd like to agree to disagree, I will certainly be glad to leave it at that.


----------



## satz

ServantofGod said:


> This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why? The command is clear:
> 
> Romans 13:1,2-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13,14- Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
> 
> So:
> 
> 1. Hiding the Jews is a sin
> 
> 2. Lying about the Jews is a sin.
> 
> We can do #1, because we don't believe God's Word commands us to obey Nazi's, but we can't lie to them?



I think that just as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives show us that lying to save a life is allowed by God, those passages also show us that disobeying the government is likewise allowed when an innocent life is at stake.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

satz said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why? The command is clear:
> 
> Romans 13:1,2-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13,14- Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
> 
> So:
> 
> 1. Hiding the Jews is a sin
> 
> 2. Lying about the Jews is a sin.
> 
> We can do #1, because we don't believe God's Word commands us to obey Nazi's, but we can't lie to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that just as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives show us that lying to save a life is allowed by God, those passages also show us that disobeying the government is likewise allowed when an innocent life is at stake.
Click to expand...


According to our friend's logic, if the civil government required us to hand over children to them - so that they could murder them - we would have to obey them. Instead the texts cited above only tell us that it is the God-ordained role of the state to punish crime. They do not tell us that we have to obey the state in all circumstances. The state's authority is not absolute, it is limited by the word of God, and so is our obedience to it.


----------



## ServantofGod

Daniel Ritchie said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why? The command is clear:
> 
> Romans 13:1,2-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13,14- Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
> 
> So:
> 
> 1. Hiding the Jews is a sin
> 
> 2. Lying about the Jews is a sin.
> 
> We can do #1, because we don't believe God's Word commands us to obey Nazi's, but we can't lie to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that just as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives show us that lying to save a life is allowed by God, those passages also show us that disobeying the government is likewise allowed when an innocent life is at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to our friend's logic, if the civil government required us to hand over children to them - so that they could murder them - we would have to obey them. Instead the texts cited above only tell us that it is the God-ordained role of the state to punish crime. They do not tell us that we have to obey the state in all circumstances. The state's authority is not absolute, it is limited by the word of God, and so is our obedience to it.
Click to expand...


Twas only trying to get to Mason's justification behind disobeying one, but obeying another law. It's called sarcasm, I think?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ServantofGod said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that just as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives show us that lying to save a life is allowed by God, those passages also show us that disobeying the government is likewise allowed when an innocent life is at stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to our friend's logic, if the civil government required us to hand over children to them - so that they could murder them - we would have to obey them. Instead the texts cited above only tell us that it is the God-ordained role of the state to punish crime. They do not tell us that we have to obey the state in all circumstances. The state's authority is not absolute, it is limited by the word of God, and so is our obedience to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twas only trying to get to Mason's justification behind disobeying one, but obeying another law. It's called sarcasm, I think?
Click to expand...



So that is what you think his logic is leading to then?


----------



## ModernPuritan?

fine, its not that hard folk!!!

say yes, get the nazi in your house, than kill the nazi.

that way, you told the truth + 1
you saved a life +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

then steal the uniform, grenades, rifle and go unload it all on other nazis.. Rambo style!


----------



## ServantofGod

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to our friend's logic, if the civil government required us to hand over children to them - so that they could murder them - we would have to obey them. Instead the texts cited above only tell us that it is the God-ordained role of the state to punish crime. They do not tell us that we have to obey the state in all circumstances. The state's authority is not absolute, it is limited by the word of God, and so is our obedience to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twas only trying to get to Mason's justification behind disobeying one, but obeying another law. It's called sarcasm, I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So that is what you think his logic is leading to then?
Click to expand...


I think his logic is inconsistent. That is what I was leading to. He can break one law, disobeying leaders and hiding Jews, to, knowingly deceiving a Nazi soldier is breaking the ninth commandment. But he will justify breaking the first, but can't for the second.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ServantofGod said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twas only trying to get to Mason's justification behind disobeying one, but obeying another law. It's called sarcasm, I think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is what you think his logic is leading to then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think his logic is inconsistent. That is what I was leading to. He can break one law, disobeying leaders and hiding Jews, to, knowingly deceiving a Nazi soldier is breaking the ninth commandment. But he will justify breaking the first, but can't for the second.
Click to expand...


That pretty much sums it up. According to this logic its okay to kill people as long as we are not breaking the ninth commandment. Never mind the fact that assisting in a murder is a breach of the sixth commandment, and so lying to stop a murder (in these circumstances) cannot be a breach of the ninth commandment at all.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that is what you think his logic is leading to then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think his logic is inconsistent. That is what I was leading to. He can break one law, disobeying leaders and hiding Jews, to, knowingly deceiving a Nazi soldier is breaking the ninth commandment. But he will justify breaking the first, but can't for the second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That pretty much sums it up. According to this logic its okay to kill people as long as we are not breaking the ninth commandment. Never mind the fact that assisting in a murder is a breach of the sixth commandment, and so lying to stop a murder (in these circumstances) cannot be a breach of the ninth commandment at all.
Click to expand...


There are clear exceptions to Romans 13. It is acceptable to disobey a sinful law, but not acceptable to lie about it. See Acts 4:13-22. When forbidden to preach the name of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, Peter and John directly refused and continued preaching His name anyway. Furthermore, in Acts 5:29 Peter says plainly "We ought to obey God rather than men." Also see Daniel 6:4-10. When Daniel (and all the Jews) were ordered not to pray, Daniel knelt in a public place in direct defiance of this law. Clear, unquestioned examples, Biblically condoned, of intentionally disobeying sinful laws (exceptions to Romans 13). So, hiding and aiding Jews would NOT be a sin. Point #1 of Ian's post is simply not true. Hiding the Jews is not a sin. 

Daniel, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was acceptable to break the 6th commandment. But telling the truth about hiding Jews is NOT breaking the 6th commandment, especially if you've taken every measure you can to help the Jews in the first place. Besides, there's no way to know what will happen to the Jews. You are assuming they will die, but perhaps they won't. Perhaps God would protect them somehow. Perhaps He intends for them to die. We can't know. All we can do is obey God's clear, unconditional commandment. 

The bottom line to this discussion is as follows: Are there any times when lying is acceptable? If you say yes, then please provide a Biblical precedent. If no, then lying is always a sin. I say again, do you have any Scripture where the God specifically encourages, allows, or commends lying for any reason? I understand your point, but in the absence of directions from God's Word your position is indefensible.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

sastark said:


> And I do think that God's Law is conditional, when God Himself demonstrates conditions requiring a more nuanced reading of the Law.



Please site a specific Biblical reference for this. Simple historical examples do not necessarily imply commendation. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, records many horrible actions. When did God ever demonstrate a nuanced reading of the Law? If anything He elevated it to even higher standards (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).


----------



## RamistThomist

ModernPuritan? said:


> fine, its not that hard folk!!!
> 
> say yes, get the nazi in your house, than kill the nazi.
> 
> that way, you told the truth + 1
> you saved a life +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> 
> then steal the uniform, grenades, rifle and go unload it all on other nazis.. Rambo style!



Whiel I appreciate the sentiment, this is not "Medal of Honor: Eurapean Assault." For some reason I dont think that would work out in real lfe.


----------



## jambo

I am reminded of an incident in Spurgeon's life when a madman came to the door to attack him. "I'm looking for someone called Spurgeon." yelled the madman. Spurgeon replied, "You must mean my brother for that is his name."


----------



## Thomas2007

SRoper said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think many here actually see the horns of the dilemma:
> 
> Horn 1: You lie and save the Jews (which is following the sixth commandment but breaking the 9th).
> 
> Horn 2: You tell the truth (obeying the 9th commanmdnet) but Jews die (which implicates you in breaking the sixth commandment).
> 
> Riddle me that, batman.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming the Westminsterian understanding of the ten commandments. If you are not Reformed in your understanding of the ten commandments, cease posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, may I suggest it's because there is disagreement over whether the lie is actually breaking the ninth commandment? Most who are advocating option one think there is a sort of wartime exception like there is with self-defense. I think another example is needed that doesn't involve deception.
> 
> I'll suggest an alternative. Let me know what you think.
> 
> A married woman is in a concentration camp with her family. A guard offers to let them escape if the woman will sleep with him. If she refuses, the family will be killed the next day. She has reason to believe the guard because she has witnessed others let go if they agree. She has also witnessed others who refused killed by the guards. What should she do?
Click to expand...


Maintain her fidelity to her husband and keep her vow, same thing in this scenario. One's covenant obligations to God supercede men. This and the issue with the Nazi's is more about the third commandment than the dichotomy between the sixth and ninth that Jacob proposes.

In my view those that have a conscience problem about lieing to the Nazi's presuppositionally hold to a moralistic standard which includes an implicit statism. Hence, they can't put together or understand their standing in the Covenant and hold that as a unity against the wicked civil magistrate that has enjoined itself as a false prophet against God.

To them, then, the unlawful means of communication is to "lie" to the Nazi's not the "truth" they told. To them a lie or a truth is the revelation of abstract facts - not the revelation or maintainence of concrete truth. This position concedes to satan a moral justification for sin and like Adam and Eve in the garden it compounds sin by placing the blame of the outcome on satan and refuses to recognize their own potential guilt.

When satan tempted Christ in the desert He responded with: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Satan claimed a power that was not his to give, likewise the Nazi's claimed a power that was not theirs.

While Rahab is the correct example in Scripture - the opponents talk circles around the lie, never dealing with the fact that she was a harlot, and the spies (who are engaged in deception for espionage purposes) lodged with a harlot. She then made a covenant with the spies, "swear unto me by the LORD," and the spies did upon the grounds "if ye utter not this our business." Rahab was not concerned with her own life, but the life of all of her family, her father, mother, brethern and sisters.

So, Rahab not only lied to the king, but she did so upon covenant grounds in the name of the LORD, consistent with the third commandment. In other words, to tell the truth would have been perjury against the LORD. I am really amazed at people that would perjure against the Lord before they will perjure against the civil magistrate and then argue that the blame falls upon the civil magistrate.

God took a harlot, and when she received angels of the Lord with peace and entered that Covenant in the name of the LORD, enjoined their espionage activities, and adopted her unto the family of God. While Scripture honors her for this, moralists condemn her, no that was a heinous sin they say - but God made her into a covenant child and honorable married woman in Israel the loins of which were blessed as a progenitor of the incarnate Christ.

Her espionage activity in harboring spies and lieing to the civil magistrate is held up by Scripture as evidence of true faith - because it is covenantal in it's scope, not moralistic.


----------



## k.seymore

ServantofGod said:


> This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why?



One example: "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him." (Deut 23:15-16)


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Ivanhoe said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> fine, its not that hard folk!!!
> 
> say yes, get the nazi in your house, than kill the nazi.
> 
> that way, you told the truth + 1
> you saved a life +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> 
> then steal the uniform, grenades, rifle and go unload it all on other nazis.. Rambo style!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whiel I appreciate the sentiment, this is not "Medal of Honor: Eurapean Assault." For some reason I dont think that would work out in real lfe.
Click to expand...


yea it wouldnt..

i was thinking of Call of Duty 3 btw, not MOH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think his logic is inconsistent. That is what I was leading to. He can break one law, disobeying leaders and hiding Jews, to, knowingly deceiving a Nazi soldier is breaking the ninth commandment. But he will justify breaking the first, but can't for the second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much sums it up. According to this logic its okay to kill people as long as we are not breaking the ninth commandment. Never mind the fact that assisting in a murder is a breach of the sixth commandment, and so lying to stop a murder (in these circumstances) cannot be a breach of the ninth commandment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are clear exceptions to Romans 13. It is acceptable to disobey a sinful law, but not acceptable to lie about it. See Acts 4:13-22. When forbidden to preach the name of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, Peter and John directly refused and continued preaching His name anyway. Furthermore, in Acts 5:29 Peter says plainly "We ought to obey God rather than men." Also see Daniel 6:4-10. When Daniel (and all the Jews) were ordered not to pray, Daniel knelt in a public place in direct defiance of this law. Clear, unquestioned examples, Biblically condoned, of intentionally disobeying sinful laws (exceptions to Romans 13). So, hiding and aiding Jews would NOT be a sin. Point #1 of Ian's post is simply not true. Hiding the Jews is not a sin.
> 
> Daniel, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was acceptable to break the 6th commandment. But telling the truth about hiding Jews is NOT breaking the 6th commandment, especially if you've taken every measure you can to help the Jews in the first place. Besides, there's no way to know what will happen to the Jews. You are assuming they will die, but perhaps they won't. Perhaps God would protect them somehow. Perhaps He intends for them to die. We can't know. All we can do is obey God's clear, unconditional commandment.
> 
> The bottom line to this discussion is as follows: Are there any times when lying is acceptable? If you say yes, then please provide a Biblical precedent. If no, then lying is always a sin. I say again, do you have any Scripture where the God specifically encourages, allows, or commends lying for any reason? I understand your point, but in the absence of directions from God's Word your position is indefensible.
Click to expand...


By saying that it's okay to hand people over to state authorities whom you know are going to unlawfully kill people you are assisting others break the sixth commandment; that is why it is lawful to lie in such a situation. Hence that is why the midwives and Rahab lied and are commended for it.


----------



## sastark

Thomas2007 said:


> In my view those that have a conscience problem about lieing to the Nazi's presuppositionally hold to a moralistic standard which includes an implicit statism. Hence, they can't put together or understand their standing in the Covenant and hold that as a unity against the wicked civil magistrate that has enjoined itself as a false prophet against God.
> 
> To them, then, the unlawful means of communication is to "lie" to the Nazi's not the "truth" they told. To them a lie or a truth is the revelation of abstract facts - not the revelation or maintainence of concrete truth. This position concedes to satan a moral justification for sin and like Adam and Eve in the garden it compounds sin by placing the blame of the outcome on satan and refuses to recognize their own potential guilt.
> 
> When satan tempted Christ in the desert He responded with: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Satan claimed a power that was not his to give, likewise the Nazi's claimed a power that was not theirs.
> 
> While Rahab is the correct example in Scripture - the opponents talk circles around the lie, never dealing with the fact that she was a harlot, and the spies (who are engaged in deception for espionage purposes) lodged with a harlot. She then made a covenant with the spies, "swear unto me by the LORD," and the spies did upon the grounds "if ye utter not this our business." Rahab was not concerned with her own life, but the life of all of her family, her father, mother, brethern and sisters.
> 
> So, Rahab not only lied to the king, but she did so upon covenant grounds in the name of the LORD, consistent with the third commandment. In other words, to tell the truth would have been perjury against the LORD. I am really amazed at people that would perjure against the Lord before they will perjure against the civil magistrate and then argue that the blame falls upon the civil magistrate.
> 
> God took a harlot, and when she received angels of the Lord with peace and entered that Covenant in the name of the LORD, enjoined their espionage activities, and adopted her unto the family of God. While Scripture honors her for this, moralists condemn her, no that was a heinous sin they say - but God made her into a covenant child and honorable married woman in Israel the loins of which were blessed as a progenitor of the incarnate Christ.
> 
> Her espionage activity in harboring spies and lieing to the civil magistrate is held up by Scripture as evidence of true faith - because it is covenantal in it's scope, not moralistic.



That, sir, was *very* well said.


----------



## k.seymore

Thomas2007 said:


> To them, then, the unlawful means of communication is to "lie" to the Nazi's not the "truth" they told. To them a lie or a truth is the revelation of abstract facts - not the revelation or maintainence of concrete truth.



I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

This also reminds me of when Jesus walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus' plan is to reveal himself to them in the breaking of bread. They have no clue of the joy that he is about to reveal. They are about to see the living, breathing truth of God made manifest before their eyes. Jesus is going to reveal who truth is. But notice the means by which he makes this happen. He deceives them, and this assures that they themselves ask him into their home to break bread:

"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. _He acted as if he were going farther,_ but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” _So he went_ in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)

A completely moral (not to mention polite) deception was a part of the means by which the truth walked into their house and was revealed to them. And then "their eyes were opened, and they knew him" (Luke 24:31). Then they immediately ran to the others and with joy proclaimed the truth about Jesus and how "he was known to them in the breaking of the bread" (Luke 24:35).

_That_ is telling the truth.


----------



## RamistThomist

ModernPuritan? said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> fine, its not that hard folk!!!
> 
> say yes, get the nazi in your house, than kill the nazi.
> 
> that way, you told the truth + 1
> you saved a life +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> 
> then steal the uniform, grenades, rifle and go unload it all on other nazis.. Rambo style!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whiel I appreciate the sentiment, this is not "Medal of Honor: Eurapean Assault." For some reason I dont think that would work out in real lfe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea it wouldnt..
> 
> i was thinking of Call of Duty 3 btw, not MOH
Click to expand...


No sir, medal of honor any day over call of duty.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Ivanhoe said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whiel I appreciate the sentiment, this is not "Medal of Honor: Eurapean Assault." For some reason I dont think that would work out in real lfe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea it wouldnt..
> 
> i was thinking of Call of Duty 3 btw, not MOH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, medal of honor any day over call of duty.
Click to expand...


bah, im afraid well have to disaggre. Especially now that I have Call of Duty 4 so i can fight terrorists.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

jambo said:


> I am reminded of an incident in Spurgeon's life when a madman came to the door to attack him. "I'm looking for someone called Spurgeon." yelled the madman. Spurgeon replied, "You must mean my brother for that is his name."



When the madman told him that 10 men had to restrain him, Spurgeon replied "you'll be no match for me", at which point the lunatic fled in fear.


----------



## Nse007

Ivanhoe said:


> Okay, this is an old question, but clear thinking would be helpful. I have found the positions on both sides to be rather shallow.
> 
> The nazis come to your door. You are hiding Jews. If you tell the truth, the Jews will likely be gassed (assume for the moment they will be). If you lie, the J3ws live.
> 
> 1. If you tell the truth to the Nazis, then you will help them murder Jews.
> 2. If you lie, you save their lives.
> 
> But is (2) necessarily a lie, given the context?
> 
> Given overly pietistic assumption, both options would be sinful.
> 
> But the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all manners but was without sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a way out of temptation. So given the two choices, how do you get out of it without sinning?



All you have to say is "I'm not telling"


----------



## ServantofGod

Nse007 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this is an old question, but clear thinking would be helpful. I have found the positions on both sides to be rather shallow.
> 
> The nazis come to your door. You are hiding Jews. If you tell the truth, the Jews will likely be gassed (assume for the moment they will be). If you lie, the J3ws live.
> 
> 1. If you tell the truth to the Nazis, then you will help them murder Jews.
> 2. If you lie, you save their lives.
> 
> But is (2) necessarily a lie, given the context?
> 
> Given overly pietistic assumption, both options would be sinful.
> 
> But the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all manners but was without sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a way out of temptation. So given the two choices, how do you get out of it without sinning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to say is "I'm not telling"
Click to expand...


Or play "21 questions."


----------



## RamistThomist

Nse007 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this is an old question, but clear thinking would be helpful. I have found the positions on both sides to be rather shallow.
> 
> The nazis come to your door. You are hiding Jews. If you tell the truth, the Jews will likely be gassed (assume for the moment they will be). If you lie, the J3ws live.
> 
> 1. If you tell the truth to the Nazis, then you will help them murder Jews.
> 2. If you lie, you save their lives.
> 
> But is (2) necessarily a lie, given the context?
> 
> Given overly pietistic assumption, both options would be sinful.
> 
> But the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all manners but was without sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a way out of temptation. So given the two choices, how do you get out of it without sinning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to say is "I'm not telling"
Click to expand...


And then they would put a bullet in your head, search the house, find the Jews, and execute them. So what you have said by saying nothing is option #1.


----------



## Wannabee

Gentlemen, please understand that I love you guys. However, I must share that I find the sort of reasoning I've seen here most disturbing. Those who are reformed should, of all people, rest and trust in the sovereignty of God in all things. Furthermore, we are to exemplify His character and bring Him glory in all things. Is the act of lying glorifying to God? Could you stand before God and say, "Yes God, I lied for your honor and glory. I know that you're sovereign and could be glorified in my death through the truth. But I also know that you considered my lie justified because these men are evil"? Consider MacArthur's response to a similar question.


John MacArthur Q&A said:


> The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-1, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.
> 
> Question
> 
> My daughter asked me a question and it is out of Joshua 2:3-7, 18-21, and it's talking about Rahab. Her main question is: that God forbids us to lie, and she said, "Mom, Rahab lied to the king and she hid God's people, but God said that it is a sin to lie. How do you reconcile the fact that she lied and God honored her lie?"
> 
> Answer
> 
> No, she sinned and God honored her faith. God did not honor her lie; she didn't have to do that, God would have saved His people anyhow, but she had very little information. All she knew about God was what she heard as they moved from Egypt into Canaan, and she heard the exploits of this great God, and she believed in the true God. In fact, if you follow the story and you follow it all the way into the Book of Matthew, where she's listed among the heroes of faith--Rahab believed God, Rahab believed God. She didn't know all that there was to know about God, but she believed God. Maybe she didn't understand all there was to the morality that God had identified as what is right, maybe in her culture lying was acceptable, but what she did know she believed and adhered to. She knew this was the true God and she wanted to stand with the true God against her entire society.
> 
> God honored her faith, God didn't honor her lie, and if she would have told the truth God would have equally, in fact, more gloriously and wonderfully spared His spies. In fact, I have often thought to myself, if she hadn't lied and David hadn't played the fool, and if other people in the Bible had just done just what is upright and truthful, think of what things God would have that He was not able to do because they lied and covered up something. So God didn't honor her lie.





John MacArthur Q&A said:


> The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-15, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 1994 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
> 
> Question
> 
> At what point does deception become sin? For example, Rahab was commended for her faith, but apparently she lied when she was hiding spies. And, more specifically, what would you do if you happened to be hiding Jews in your house, and officials asked you if you were hiding Jews, how would you respond to that?
> 
> Answer
> 
> Well, in answer to that question, I would, if asked directly, tell the truth. Because I trust God. God does not need my deception to accomplish His purpose. So, I know people are going to say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. What about the Second World War? What about Corrie ten Boom? What about all that?” I’m just saying, God does not need my deception to achieve His sovereign purposes. If he’s going to save the Jews, He has proven capable of doing it, without me saying, “I think I can work this deal out, by telling a few lies here and there.” So, first of all, my belief in the sovereignty of God puts me in a position where I would just tell the truth. Now, I wouldn’t necessarily feel compelled to go down the street yelling it. But, if asked, I would feel I would have to entrust myself to God and speak the truth.
> 
> That sort of reminds me of the story of David, you remember, when he was in the Philistine capital and he wanted to escape and so he pretended like he was crazy, and he drooled in his beard, and he acted like he’d lost his mind--he scratched the walls and the gates. And the king said, “Look, we’ve got enough crazy people around here. Get this guy out of here.” And they shipped him out and he went off into a cave in the wilderness and asked God to forgive him for his lack of trust, that he had to act a fool to orchestrate his own escape rather than waiting to see the hand of God.
> 
> Now, in the case of Rahab, what you have to understand is God commended her faith, not her lie. There’s nothing in the scripture to indicate that He commended her lie, but He did commend her faith, and that’s a good reminder that believers do lie. I mean, there are times when the noblest of Christians may commit the sin of lying. And God will not damn us for the lie, but He will save us eternally for the faith. So, what was distinctive about Rahab and her commendation was she was commended for faith, and had she have told the truth, who knows what wonderful thing God might have done to deliver Israel.




I'll not continue to spar on this discussion. The situational ethics of the post-modernist vision espoused here should simply be abandoned. While all of us struggle in some understanding of God, that a lie is sin is no more confusing than the fact that truth is objective and absolute. As soon as truth is no longer absolute (which is what justifying lying says) then there is no end to the downward spiral. Each man will do what is right in his own eyes. Furthermore, how can we trust one who's understanding of truth is so subjective? You may defend me until it no longer suits your purposes, then turn on me as the situation seems to warrant it according to your understanding and evaluatio of the ethics involved. 
The propagation of truth being subject to circumstances continues to dominate these discussions, with an absolute lack of Scriptural mandate (notice I did not say questionable example). I will close with Calvin's treatment of Rahab's response of faith mixed with sin. May God bless you all.


> As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie 3737 Latin, “Mendacium officiosum.” French, “Le mensonge qui tend au profit du prochain;” “The lie which tends to our neighbor’s profit.” The mendacium officiosum is an expression of frequent use among the Casuists, and properly means, “a lie which it may be an act of duty to tell.” One of the most common instances given is the case in which a simple statement of the truth might essentially endanger the interest, or, it may be, the life of an individual whom we are under a natural or conventional obligation to defend from all injury. A son, for example, is pursued by murderers; he takes shelter under the paternal roof; his mother has just succeeded in concealing him when the murderers arrive. Is she entitled to give a false answer to their interrogatories? The question is one of the most difficult and delicate that can be raised; but Calvin has undoubtedly given the right decision when he lays down the broad principle, that those who hold any lie to be excusable, “do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God.” Were anything necessary to reconcile us to this decision, we may easily find it in the havoc which has been made of all morality by acting on its opposite, as evinced particularly in the case of Jesuit and other Romish casuists. — Ed. to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose, be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses.
> 
> Rebecca (Genesis 27. 3838 The original text had the reference to Genesis 28, an obvious typesetting error. —fj. ) in procuring the blessing to her son Jacob, follows the prediction. In obedience of this description a pious and praiseworthy zeal is perceived. But it cannot be doubted that in substituting her son Jacob in the place of Esau, she deviated from the path of duty. The crafty proceeding, therefore, so far taints an act which was laudable in itself. And yet the particular fault does not wholly deprive the deed of the merit of holy zeal; for by the kindness of God the fault is suppressed and not taken into account. Rahab also does wrong when she falsely declares that the messengers were gone, and yet the principal action was agreeable to God, because the bad mixed up with the good was not imputed. On the whole, it was the will of God that the spies should be delivered, but he did not approve of saving their life by falsehood.


----------



## SRoper

Thomas2007 said:


> In my view those that have a conscience problem about lieing to the Nazi's presuppositionally hold to a moralistic standard which includes an implicit statism. Hence, they can't put together or understand their standing in the Covenant and hold that as a unity against the wicked civil magistrate that has enjoined itself as a false prophet against God.



I think that might be true, although I wouldn't call it "statism." I see it as a working out of 1 Pet. 2:18, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." The context of the verse is submission to the governing authorities and Christ's example. I don't believe that one is implicated in the murder of the Jews by not lying to the Nazis. The position that unjust authority should not be submitted to seems to make Peter's resistance with the sword the correct action.


----------



## SRoper

Thomas2007 said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A married woman is in a concentration camp with her family. A guard offers to let them escape if the woman will sleep with him. If she refuses, the family will be killed the next day. She has reason to believe the guard because she has witnessed others let go if they agree. She has also witnessed others who refused killed by the guards. What should she do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintain her fidelity to her husband and keep her vow, same thing in this scenario. One's covenant obligations to God supercede men. This and the issue with the Nazi's is more about the third commandment than the dichotomy between the sixth and ninth that Jacob proposes.
Click to expand...


If the guards kill her husband first she would be free from her covenant obligations. What would be the best option then?


----------



## k.seymore

Wannabee said:


> Gentlemen, please understand that I love you guys. However, I must share that I find the sort of reasoning I've seen here most disturbing. Those who are reformed should, of all people, rest and trust in the sovereignty of God in all things. Furthermore, we are to exemplify His character and bring Him glory in all things. Is the act of lying glorifying to God? Could you stand before God and say, "Yes God, I lied for your honor and glory...



But God uses means, and we are often those means. And also verbal and body language are not merely a vehicles for conveying true facts but they do other true things as well. They can be means by which one makes things happen. Language isn't only used to convey things. It can do things too. Your post seems to focus on the way language conveys facts at the expense of other uses. But notice how that would make Christ a sinner in the following passage:

"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. _He acted as if he were going farther,_ but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' _So he went_ in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)

Was Christ's body language proclaiming true facts? No. If we were to judge this based on facts, it would be an unjust lie. Was Christ a sinner? No. But is it Christ's intent here to convey true _facts?_ No. Was this the means which Christ used and God sovereignly planned in order that they would invite him in to their house so that Christ could break bread and reveal himself to them? Yes. The language was intended to accomplish something the opposite of what it conveyed in regard to facts. And this totally righteous deception _as to facts_ was glorifying to God, accomplished God's sovereign will, and was the means by which truth was revealed... however it did not in itself convey true _facts_.

Just like wearing camouflage that says you are not there, and accomplishes what it is intended to do. The truth that camouflage conveys is not facts (in that case it would be immoral) but the truth it conveys is life. And love. We love our soldiers, we long to preserve their lives. That is the truth the language of hiding someone conveys.

Or telling Ninevah they were going to be destroyed in 40 days. True in regard to facts? No. But God told Jonah to say it. It wasn't meant to convey true facts about the future, it was meant to cause an action: Ninevah repented. The truth in regard to _facts_ was the opposite of what Jonah was told to say.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> I'll not continue to spar on this discussion. The situational ethics of the post-modernist vision espoused here should simply be abandoned. While all of us struggle in some understanding of God, that a lie is sin is no more confusing than the fact that truth is objective and absolute. As soon as truth is no longer absolute (which is what justifying lying says) then there is no end to the downward spiral. Each man will do what is right in his own eyes. Furthermore, how can we trust one who's understanding of truth is so subjective? You may defend me until it no longer suits your purposes, then turn on me as the situation seems to warrant it according to your understanding and evaluatio of the ethics involved.
> The propagation of truth being subject to circumstances continues to dominate these discussions, with an absolute lack of Scriptural mandate (notice I did not say questionable example). I will close with Calvin's treatment of Rahab's response of faith mixed with sin. May God bless you all



I'll leave it at that as well, Wannabee. Thank you for that excellent post. When MacArthur and Calvin agree on something it's very hard argue against it. You and I agree on this, and the 9th commandment supports our position. No need to elaborate any further...


----------



## Thomas2007

Dear Joe,

Brief response is in context for clarity.




Wannabee said:


> Gentlemen, please understand that I love you guys. However, I must share that I find the sort of reasoning I've seen here most disturbing.



Likewise, I love and respect you as well, but I find your reasoning most disturbing.





Wannabee said:


> Those who are reformed should, of all people, rest and trust in the sovereignty of God in all things. Furthermore, we are to exemplify His character and bring Him glory in all things. Is the act of lying glorifying to God? Could you stand before God and say, "Yes God, I lied for your honor and glory. I know that you're sovereign and could be glorified in my death through the truth. But I also know that you considered my lie justified because these men are evil"?




I agree with your first sentence, it is the basis of my position. Yes, I could stand before God and say I lied to the Nazi's for your honor and glory. The reason is the Covenant in which God is Sovereign, not an abstract Sovereignty.

We are Covenant children, elected by Grace, justified by Faith and sealed as Covenant members in our Baptism's, brothers of Jesus Christ and children of God. So, when I brought these refugee's into my home, they are, whether believers or not, under my protection and dwelling in unity with me in the Covenant. The blood of the Covenant is on my doorposts and when the destroyers knocks at my door, he will passover my house. In other words, they are strangers to the Covenant of God, but must be under the same law. I may not vex them and treat them as if they are under a different law, the law of the Nazi's - for there shall be one law unto me and the stranger. (Exodus 12:49, Lev. 24:22, Numbers 15:16)

When I chose to engage in criminal activity by hiding these people and offering them sanctuary, then, I've already settled the issue of the authority of the civil magistrate - he has none. My response to his actions have identified him as being outside of the Covenant and working contrary to it. He is Pharaoh unto me. I know this, because I know God's will revealed in His law - which is what prompted me to offer them sanctuary. The only way I know of God's Sovereignty is His revealed word, and His enscripturated word is the objective authority, not my obedience - nor my obedience subjective to an abstraction of His Sovereignty based upon an unknown of what He could do, but rather a known of what His will is, and what He says He will do.

The issue here seems to be an interpretation of Sovereignty based upon prediction of the future. It seems to be the basis of your argument, the other gentlemen "ColdSilverMoon" seemed to use it, as does John McArthur when he says: "But, if asked, I would feel I would have to entrust myself to God and speak the truth." He then goes into elaborate explanations of how great God is and what He could possibly do.

At this point John McArthur has abandoned the faith - his entire line of reasoning is contrary to the faith, once delivered to the saints. The Faith is Covenantal, it is not an abstraction of what God could do or would do. Here through an amazing display of twisted reasoning McArthur becomes his own god in direct contrast to the 1st Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." He places his morals as prior to God's word, and sits in judgment over God's word because he doesn't trust the written word of God, God could do this or that he says, and doesn't need him....yada yada.

Prediction does not rest in unknowns, for we can never have exhautive knowledge, it rests in knowns and God's Sovereignty is known as it is revealed in His word - not what He could do independent of us, when in fact what He is doing has us embroiled right in the middle of it, just as it did Rahab. Prediction in God's Sovereignty is comprehensive obedience to the word of God within the structure of the Covenant.

All of MacArthur's twisted reasoning is directly in opposition to the Word of God, he concludes by saying, if she had told to the truth, who knows what wonders and how God could have done something different. So, she was commended for her faith, not her lie, says MacArthur - but what does God say:

"And the men said unto her, We will be blameless of this thine oath which thou hast made us swear. Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethern, and all thy father's household, home unto thee. And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless: and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him. And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear." Joshua 2:17-20

If she would have revealed their location, God surely could have saved them another way, but Rahab would not be in Scripture as an example of justification by Faith - she would have been slain, her and her father, mother, and all of her father's house.

Consider Jacob, his brother is hungry - does he treat him like a brother and share his food with him, being hospitable as Scripture requires? No, he has him pledge his birthright unto him. How, then, does Jacob pull this off and receive the blessing of Isaac in place of Esau? He conspires with Rebekah, they make skins of goat to put over his hands and upon his neck, so he would feel hairy like Esau. He then goes unto his father, lies to his face, saying "I am Esau they firstborn" (Genesis 27:19) give me your blessing. Isaac heard the voice of Jacob, but then felt of him and thought he was Esau and gave him the blessing.

Is Jacob and Rebekah ever condemned for conspiring together to deceive Isaac and lieing to his face that he was Esau and not Jacob? Rebekah placed priority upon the Covenant word of God that the elder shall serve the younger, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

This is not situational ethics, it is the ethics of the Covenant and God is steadfast and unmoveable. It is His word that is truth, not ours. I could not know the truth for but His word telling me what truth even was. The world, however, may move around us and turn itself inside out - we must be wise as serpents in discerning these things and maintain a steadfast covenant loyalty.

No one is saying here that lieing is a standard nor that we should endeavor to lie to maintain the truth, rather that covenant loyalty may require deception when the enemy breaks upon us with the intent to destroy and make us accomplices to bring blood upon our house.

In closing you said this:



Wannabee said:


> "You may defend me until it no longer suits your purposes, then turn on me as the situation seems to warrant it according to your understanding and evaluatio of the ethics involved. "



This is precisely my point. You can defend these people and hide them until it no longer suits your purposes and then turn on them as the situation seems to warrant it according to your understanding and evaluation of the ethics involved. Why does offering them sanctuary and becoming a criminal in so doing not engage the same conscience problem for you? You defend your position by appealing to an unknown will of God in an abstract Sovereignty, when the only thing you can know is what the will of God is revealed in His word.

Faith is trusting in the word of God, not an abstraction of what you imagine His will to be.

This lie, is in principle, no different that the requirement of building a fence around your roof so that "thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." (Deuteronomy 22:8) If negligence can bring the guilt of blood upon our house, how much more so than intentionally giving up those who you have pledged to protect, based upon moral qualms of a verbal deception necessary to carry out the criminal act in the first place.

Laws of liability are laws of responsibility - once you offer these people sanctuary to hide them from being murdered, then your liability is your responsibility to carry it out - not some notion of limited liability that tempts God to act some other way than through the responsibility you have.

Covenantal continuity is the only answer a person can arrive at and maintain a right understanding of Scripture. In any court today Jacob would be estopped from receiving his brother's birthright and blessing, he did it under deception and bad faith. But God nowhere condemns Him for acting in bad faith and this is the very means by which His word is made manifest that the Promise is by election.


----------



## satz

Wannabee said:


> Consider MacArthur's response to a similar question.
> 
> 
> John MacArthur Q&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question
> 
> My daughter asked me a question and it is out of Joshua 2:3-7, 18-21, and it's talking about Rahab. Her main question is: that God forbids us to lie, and she said, "Mom, Rahab lied to the king and she hid God's people, but God said that it is a sin to lie. How do you reconcile the fact that she lied and God honored her lie?"
> 
> Answer
> 
> No, she sinned and God honored her faith. God did not honor her lie; she didn't have to do that, God would have saved His people anyhow, but she had very little information. All she knew about God was what she heard as they moved from Egypt into Canaan, and she heard the exploits of this great God, and she believed in the true God. In fact, if you follow the story and you follow it all the way into the Book of Matthew, where she's listed among the heroes of faith--Rahab believed God, Rahab believed God. She didn't know all that there was to know about God, but she believed God. Maybe she didn't understand all there was to the morality that God had identified as what is right, maybe in her culture lying was acceptable, but what she did know she believed and adhered to. She knew this was the true God and she wanted to stand with the true God against her entire society.
> .
> .
> .
> Now, in the case of Rahab, what you have to understand is God commended her faith, not her lie. There’s nothing in the scripture to indicate that He commended her lie, but He did commend her faith, and that’s a good reminder that believers do lie.
Click to expand...


Just wanted to comment on this.

I would disagree with MacArthur. If faith without works is dead, how can someone be commended for their faith when the first work that flows out of that faith is a sin? Yes, God does have the prerogative to sometimes be merciful like with Asa, but the general tone of the bible is that good motives cannot make up for sinful actions. Also we know Rahab's example cannot possibly be a case of God commending faith despite bad actions because James specifically praises her in the context of faith with works.

Also, with regard to the paragraph about Rahab not knowing much about God's morality... the question might be asked, how did Rahab know the God of Israel would accept lying to save his spies? Well, because of the two ambassadors he had sent her... _spies_ are not exactly involved in the business of being truthful.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll not continue to spar on this discussion. The situational ethics of the post-modernist vision espoused here should simply be abandoned. While all of us struggle in some understanding of God, that a lie is sin is no more confusing than the fact that truth is objective and absolute. As soon as truth is no longer absolute (which is what justifying lying says) then there is no end to the downward spiral. Each man will do what is right in his own eyes. Furthermore, how can we trust one who's understanding of truth is so subjective? You may defend me until it no longer suits your purposes, then turn on me as the situation seems to warrant it according to your understanding and evaluatio of the ethics involved.
> The propagation of truth being subject to circumstances continues to dominate these discussions, with an absolute lack of Scriptural mandate (notice I did not say questionable example). I will close with Calvin's treatment of Rahab's response of faith mixed with sin. May God bless you all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave it at that as well, Wannabee. Thank you for that excellent post. When MacArthur and Calvin agree on something it's very hard argue against it. You and I agree on this, and the 9th commandment supports our position. No need to elaborate any further...
Click to expand...


That is a bit like arguing that the 6th commandment supports the view that the death penalty is unlawful; it fails to take into account the whole counsel of God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

satz said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider MacArthur's response to a similar question.
> 
> 
> John MacArthur Q&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question
> 
> My daughter asked me a question and it is out of Joshua 2:3-7, 18-21, and it's talking about Rahab. Her main question is: that God forbids us to lie, and she said, "Mom, Rahab lied to the king and she hid God's people, but God said that it is a sin to lie. How do you reconcile the fact that she lied and God honored her lie?"
> 
> Answer
> 
> No, she sinned and God honored her faith. God did not honor her lie; she didn't have to do that, God would have saved His people anyhow, but she had very little information. All she knew about God was what she heard as they moved from Egypt into Canaan, and she heard the exploits of this great God, and she believed in the true God. In fact, if you follow the story and you follow it all the way into the Book of Matthew, where she's listed among the heroes of faith--Rahab believed God, Rahab believed God. She didn't know all that there was to know about God, but she believed God. Maybe she didn't understand all there was to the morality that God had identified as what is right, maybe in her culture lying was acceptable, but what she did know she believed and adhered to. She knew this was the true God and she wanted to stand with the true God against her entire society.
> .
> .
> .
> Now, in the case of Rahab, what you have to understand is God commended her faith, not her lie. There’s nothing in the scripture to indicate that He commended her lie, but He did commend her faith, and that’s a good reminder that believers do lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just wanted to comment on this.
> 
> I would disagree with MacArthur. If faith without works is dead, how can someone be commended for their faith when the first work that flows out of that faith is a sin? Yes, God does have the prerogative to sometimes be merciful like with Asa, but the general tone of the bible is that good motives cannot make up for sinful actions. Also we know Rahab's example cannot possibly be a case of God commending faith despite bad actions because James specifically praises her in the context of faith with works.
> 
> Also, with regard to the paragraph about Rahab not knowing much about God's morality... the question might be asked, how did Rahab know the God of Israel would accept lying to save his spies? Well, because of the two ambassadors he had sent her... _spies_ are not exactly involved in the business of being truthful.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the fact that there were spies in the first place shows us that, in certain circumstances (such as a war), deception is lawful.


----------



## Thomas2007

SRoper said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view those that have a conscience problem about lieing to the Nazi's presuppositionally hold to a moralistic standard which includes an implicit statism. Hence, they can't put together or understand their standing in the Covenant and hold that as a unity against the wicked civil magistrate that has enjoined itself as a false prophet against God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that might be true, although I wouldn't call it "statism." I see it as a working out of 1 Pet. 2:18, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." The context of the verse is submission to the governing authorities and Christ's example. I don't believe that one is implicated in the murder of the Jews by not lying to the Nazis. The position that unjust authority should not be submitted to seems to make Peter's resistance with the sword the correct action.
Click to expand...


Love fulfills the law - thou shalt love the Lord thy God and your neighbor as yourself. When you know that someone is going to commit a crime, and their success in so doing depends upon information you provide, you are under no obligation to tell them the truth. If you do, you've become an accomplice and the blood guilt of that crime is upon your head.

Love works no ill toward your neighbor.


----------



## RamistThomist

God is sovereign over my teeth, but I still brush them for some reason.


----------



## Grymir

O.k. since situational ethics is bogus anyway, The U.S.S. Voyager comes along and beams you and the Nazis aboard. The beam you and your Jews to America (Outside of John Hagee's church. They rush out and help the Jews get settled into America). Then they deliver the Nazis to the Borg. They are assimulated, so they don't have to die either. (Capt. Janeway could kick Rambo's behind anyday.)







Of course when someone presents a situational ethic's problem to you, any answer you give doesn't have to be, shall we say, given in the way that they want. Which is the problem with situational ethics. This is the real 's in my answer.

Enjoy! - Grymir


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's an old exchange from the pages of Antithesis that I found on this issue.


----------



## Pilgrim

The following is by Dr. F.N. Lee from a heated and prolonged debate on this issue on another list a few years ago. It is a private list but I trust he won't mind my reposting it here. 



> The "Godly Liar's" Decalogue:--
> 
> 1) Worship Jehovah alone -- save when you need to save human lives!
> 
> 2) Worship God spiritually -- except where Gibson's Jesus movie can save
> souls!
> 
> 3) Don't blaspheme -- except at multifaith services to build bridges!
> 
> 4) Hallow Sabbath -- when with Jews, but go to the game with Gentiles!
> 
> 5) Honour parents -- save when they disagree with you theologically!
> 
> 6) Don't murder -- except the memory of Calvin's views on Rahab's lie!
> 
> 7) Don't steal -- except when you think you're starving!
> 
> 8) Don't whore -- except in your private wars to save your life!
> 
> 9) Don't lie -- except when you can justify it (as always)!
> 
> 10) Don't covet -- except to save life, liberty, property, and the pursuit
> of happiness!



From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's _Situation Ethics_ and moral relativism.


----------



## SRoper

Let's raise the stakes a bit. What if the Nazis that are going door to door ask you to take an oath in God's name that you are not hiding Jews. Refusal to take the oath gets your house searched.

If you say it's OK to lie but not OK to lie while taking an oath, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teaching of let your yes be yes and your no be no?


----------



## k.seymore

SRoper said:


> Let's raise the stakes a bit. What if the Nazis that are going door to door ask you to take an oath in God's name that you are not hiding Jews. Refusal to take the oath gets your house searched.
> 
> If you say it's OK to lie but not OK to lie while taking an oath, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teaching of let your yes be yes and your no be no?



I definitely don't think we should ever swear to other gods which would violate the first commandment, so no. I wouldn't swear to the Nazis' god.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

SRoper said:


> Let's raise the stakes a bit. What if the Nazis that are going door to door ask you to take an oath in God's name that you are not hiding Jews. Refusal to take the oath gets your house searched.
> 
> If you say it's OK to lie but not OK to lie while taking an oath, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teaching of let your yes be yes and your no be no?



I would cite Christ saying that my yes needs to be yes and my no needs to be no and not take an oath. I'd then ask them why they want me to violate my conscience and scripture and take an oath when I've already said no.....


----------



## SRoper

k.seymore said:


> I definitely don't think we should ever swear to other gods which would violate the first commandment, so no. I wouldn't swear to the Nazis' god.



They are asking you to swear by your God, not theirs.



BlackCalvinist said:


> I would cite Christ saying that my yes needs to be yes and my no needs to be no and not take an oath. I'd then ask them why they want me to violate my conscience and scripture and take an oath when I've already said no.....



I'm having difficulty following you. Are you saying that there is no place for oaths? What of WCF Ch. 22 (LBCF Ch. 23)?

All this is very interesting. If I understand correctly, both of you are willing to lie to save the Jews, but you draw the line at taking an oath.


----------



## A5pointer

I have just peaked into this thread and am too lazy too read all the responses. I say lie. Could any of us really do otherwise? We just examined John's account of the burial today. Joseph and Nicodemus were secret followers of Jesus, this does not seem to be explicitly condemned as agregious.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

SRoper said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would cite Christ saying that my yes needs to be yes and my no needs to be no and not take an oath. I'd then ask them why they want me to violate my conscience and scripture and take an oath when I've already said no.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having difficulty following you. Are you saying that there is no place for oaths? What of WCF Ch. 22 (LBCF Ch. 23)?
> 
> All this is very interesting. If I understand correctly, both of you are willing to lie to save the Jews, but you draw the line at taking an oath.
Click to expand...


WCF 22 lets me off the hook.

III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] *neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform*.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] *It cannot oblige to sin*; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]

Is it good for me to give Jews up to death because they are Jews ?

Then I don't *have to* take the oath.


----------



## RamistThomist

BlackCalvinist said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would cite Christ saying that my yes needs to be yes and my no needs to be no and not take an oath. I'd then ask them why they want me to violate my conscience and scripture and take an oath when I've already said no.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having difficulty following you. Are you saying that there is no place for oaths? What of WCF Ch. 22 (LBCF Ch. 23)?
> 
> All this is very interesting. If I understand correctly, both of you are willing to lie to save the Jews, but you draw the line at taking an oath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WCF 22 lets me off the hook.
> 
> III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] *neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform*.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]
> 
> IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] *It cannot oblige to sin*; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]
> 
> Is it good for me to give Jews up to death because they are Jews ?
> 
> Then I don't *have to* take the oath.
Click to expand...


It is implicit in the situation that silence or noncompliance is tantamount to admitting you are sheltering outlaws. I work with kids who go in and out of jail everyday. I know when they are lying and telling the truth.


----------



## JTDyck

Pilgrim said:


> From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's _Situation Ethics_ and moral relativism.



Amen! The law is the law. And the law is exceeding broad. And sin is the transgression of the law. Whenever we open doors to excuse sin, we place ourselves in danger of sinning presumptuously. 

Sin complicates life. God always sees in black and white, but Satan wants us to believe that we live in some kind of a grey area in between. Yes, sometimes we appear to be in a situation where it looks as if no matter what we do we will sin. But we are also often forced to make a decision in a moment's notice -- not able to complete a detailed theological study. Would I lie to save a life? Perhaps (maybe even probably) I would, but it would still be a lie. That lie would be a sin to be confessed and and forgiven by the blood of Christ.

God never approves of sin, but in His sovereignty He always uses it for his own honour and glory. The wrath of man shall praise Him and the remainder of wrath He will restrain. That must never be used as an excuse to indulge in sin.

How many times have you seen the Lord bless the circumstances of your life even though you have sinned and been unfaithful to Him? Is that not an evidence of His marvelous grace? If it encourages us to sin, then we do not understand His saving and sanctifying grace. We can only stand in awe of His absolute sovereignty and his forbearance with His own blood-bought lambs.

I have actually heard men use the "war" analogy to say "We're at war with Arminians, so we don't owe them the truth" or "We're at war with the government, we don't owe them the truth, so we don't have to be honest on our tax returns or other govt forms." They could well end up being at war with everyone and become chronic liars.

Beware the leaven of sin.


----------



## k.seymore

SRoper said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely don't think we should ever swear to other gods which would violate the first commandment, so no. I wouldn't swear to the Nazis' god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are asking you to swear by your God, not theirs...
> All this is very interesting. If I understand correctly, both of you are willing to lie to save the Jews, but you draw the line at taking an oath.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you've brought up a good point. My first reaction is to lie to the wicked but not to God or in God's name. On the one hand I feel free to lie to save a non-Christian's life in order to be faithful to God's justice. On the other hand I don't feel free to enter into an oath before God with a group of nazis to be as faithful to them as I am to God regarding the truth. I don't want to be bound to be faithful to a group of Nazis who will come back week after week asking the same question and reminding me of my oath to be faithful to them. 

Notice how Joshua seems to have had no problem sending out spies "camoflagued" as if they were not Israelites in order to spy out the land. But then one of the lands around them returns the favor and camouflages themselves to return the favor:

"But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, they on their part acted with cunning and went and made ready provisions and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes. And all their provisions were dry and crumbly" (Josh 9:3-5).

Joshua has no problem sending out people camouflaged in order to scope out the land, so he can't very well complain when it happens to him. But he should have been far more cautious in swearing in God's name. Joshua considers breaking this oath as being worse than nullifying it so as to not break God's earlier command, "you must devote them to complete destruction..."

"But the people of Israel did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders. But all the leaders said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them. This we will do to them: let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.”" (Josh 9:18-20)

Thus I would not swear oaths in God's name that I will be bound to be faithful to Nazis, even though I would have no problem deceiving them in other ways, like with a camouflaged room behind a wall that has no visible door that speaks out and says, "there is no room, therefore no Jews here!".


----------



## k.seymore

JTDyck said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's _Situation Ethics_ and moral relativism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen! The law is the law. And the law is exceeding broad. And sin is the transgression of the law. Whenever we open doors to excuse sin, we place ourselves in danger of sinning presumptuously.
> 
> Sin complicates life. God always sees in black and white, but Satan wants us to believe that we live in some kind of a grey area in between
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right: it truly is God that sees in black and white. And we all try to, but we often disagree on whether God interprets something as black or white. In the case of Rahab, she deceived others into thinking that the spies had left that town and gone on to another. Black or white? What about when Jesus himself acts as if he is leaving a town and going on to another? White, obviously. Was Jesus expressing true facts by his actions? No, that wasn't his intent. His body language was meant to accomplish the opposite of the "facts" it expressed:

"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. _He acted as if he were going farther,_ but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' _So he went_ in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)

Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage, the type of deception that Christ uses to get the disciples to invite him in is completely just and no sin at all. This tells me that there is a justifiable form of deception. A type of deception which is about accomplishing the truth, not meant to express true facts. Like acting as if one is going to another town in order to do the opposite. Or like telling Ninevah they'll be destroyed in 40 days when those are not true facts in order to accomplish the truth of repentance in them.

It is true that things are black and white in God's eyes. Day and night in God's eyes. God knows if we are hiding Jews. But I still think it is justified to make white appear to be black sometimes. It is justified to make day appear as it it is night:

"_Make your shade like night at the height of noon;_ shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them [heb: be "a hiding place"]from the destroyer." (Is 16:3-4)

In other words I currently believe it was just of Joshua to deceive by the use of spies, I think it was just of Rahab to deceive by making the spies appear to be not there but merely piles of flax, I believe that it was just of Rahab to act as if the spies had left the city and gone on to another, I believe it was just of God to say he was going to destroy Ninevah in 40 days even when he was planning on doing the opposite, I believe it was just of Samuel to deceive by telling a half-truth, I believe it was just of Jesus to act like he was going to another city when it was his intent to do the opposite. I believe it was just of those in WWII who made rooms that deceived by appearing to be merely walls. I believe it is just to deceive our enemies by dressing up our soldiers in camouflage clothing that says, "I am not here, I am just vegetation" instead of the far less deceptive British red coats... etc.



JTDyck said:


> I have actually heard men use the "war" analogy to say "We're at war with Arminians, so we don't owe them the truth" or "We're at war with the government, we don't owe them the truth, so we don't have to be honest on our tax returns or other govt forms." They could well end up being at war with everyone and become chronic liars.
> 
> Beware the leaven of sin.



It is obviously true that some people try to justify sins they are committing using justification that only applies to something else altogether. But this doesn't make the war analogy invalid. And it also seems like you are saying that all deception is leaven. So would you argue that we shouldn't use spies during wartime, or we shouldn't camouflage our troops to deceptively appear to be vegetation? Should we go the red-coat route or are some forms of deception justifiable?


----------



## JTDyck

k.seymore said:


> In other words I currently believe it was just of Joshua to deceive by the use of spies, I think it was just of Rahab to deceive by making the spies appear to be not there but merely piles of flax, I believe that it was just of Rahab to act as if the spies had left the city and gone on to another, I believe it was just of God to say he was going to destroy Ninevah in 40 days even when he was planning on doing the opposite, I believe it was just of Samuel to deceive by telling a half-truth, I believe it was just of Jesus to act like he was going to another city when it was his intent to do the opposite. I believe it was just of those in WWII who made rooms that deceived by appearing to be merely walls. I believe it is just to deceive our enemies by dressing up our soldiers in camouflage clothing that says, "I am not here, I am just vegetation" instead of the far less deceptive British red coats... etc.



My point is that it was *not* _just_ of Rahab. Only God is just. But, praise His name, He is also gracious and merciful, even when we sin. It is His mercy that must be our focus. 

Shouldn't Christians ask "How can I obey?" rather than looking for ways to disobey? God will honour those who honour Him.

I think we do well to consider Dr. Lee's "Godly Liar's Decalogue" posted above.


----------



## k.seymore

JTDyck said:


> My point is that it was *not* _just_ of Rahab. Only God is just. But, praise His name, He is also gracious and merciful, even when we sin. It is His mercy that must be our focus... I think we do well to consider Dr. Lee's "Godly Liar's Decalogue" posted above.



You will notice that I said "Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage..." it wouldn't prove that there is no such thing as just deception because of the examples of people like Jesus, Jonah and God. I feel like I am a broken record since I keep repeating the same biblical examples over and over and yet no one seem to want to touch these particular passages of scripture. For instance, replying to my examples you say, "Only God is just... it is his mercy that must be our focus." How does this respond to my examples? Was it unjust of Jonah to say what God told him to say? Or is he only able to justly say this because God is, to use your words, "gracious and merciful" in regard to the deception? That would make Jonah a sinner for saying what God told him to say. Or was it unjust of Jesus to act as though he was leaving the city? Or is he only able to justly act in this way because God is "gracious and merciful" in regard to the deception? Of course not, that would make Christ a sinner. I know you do believe it was unjust of Rahab say the spies had left the city. I guess I can only assume from your particular language that you would also decry the immorality of wartime deceptions such as spies, camouflage, etc.. But then again, I can't be certain what you believe in regard to the justness of these types of deception, particularly the biblical examples, because for some reason you avoided saying anything about them–except for Rahab. Ok, I thought of a way to express what I am trying to say... see the next post...


----------



## k.seymore

_"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22)_

Those who believe no forms of deception are just may find the following letter useful. Please print this letter out, sign and send.



> NAME___________________
> STREET__________________
> CITY__________ STATE____
> ZIP_____________________​
> _Dear brothers and sisters in the military,
> parents of those engaged in battle,
> military leaders, congressmen,
> and our Commander in Chief,_
> 
> It has come to our attention that our troops are required to wear uniforms which are meant to deceive the enemy. It is our understanding that these uniforms make human beings appear to be nothing but harmless inanimate aspects of the surrounding environment, when in fact the opposite is true. We understand your intentions in trying to support our troops lives in this way, but as Christians we believe that all manner of deceit is wrong, even in wartime. This would not only include camouflage, but also the use of spies, disinformation, and any other form of deceit. The Bible, which we hold to be the very word of God, condemns all forms of deceit. It teaches us that it is Satan who is "the deceiver of the whole world" and "a liar and the father of lies." Satan is the source of all forms of deceit, and the Bible cautions us to be careful that as Satan "deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray." So since "no lie is of the truth" we are told to "put away... all deceit." Therefore our conscience is bound, not only to commit no form of deceit, but to not approve of those who deceive. We are told in our scriptures that those who practice "deceit... though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Therefore, we cannot give our support to the actions of troops which deceive the enemy without being guilty ourselves. Those who practice such things "deserve to die" we are told, and so the true way we can love and support our troops is to tell them to turn from deceit such as this. All humans have practiced deceit in their lives but thanks be to God, he has provided forgiveness for sins through Jesus Christ. The best way we can love our troops is with a call to repentance and faith in Christ!
> 
> _Sincerely,_
> 
> ___________________________________
> BY AFFIXING MY NAME HERE I PROCLAIM THAT ALL FORMS OF _DECEPTION_ ARE WRONG, AND BY SENDING THIS LETTER I INTEND TO SHOW THAT I AM NOT MERELY A HEARER OF THE WORD BUT A DOER AND THUS AM NOT LIKEWISE _DECEIVING_ MYSELF


----------



## Grymir

k. seymore, That is great!!


----------



## Answerman

I've got the solution, just start calling your ammunition Jews so when the Nazi's come asking for Jew's tell them, "sure, I have whole cases of them right here!" then commence unloading all of your "Jews" on them.


----------



## HaigLaw

*systematics better than Biblical theology?*



k.seymore said:


> In the case of Rahab, she deceived others into thinking that the spies had left that town and gone on to another. Black or white? What about when Jesus himself acts as if he is leaving a town and going on to another? White, obviously. Was Jesus expressing true facts by his actions? No, that wasn't his intent. His body language was meant to accomplish the opposite of the "facts" it expressed:
> 
> "So they drew near to the village to which they were going. _He acted as if he were going farther,_ but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' _So he went_ in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)
> 
> Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage, the type of deception that Christ uses to get the disciples to invite him in is completely just and no sin at all. This tells me that there is a justifiable form of deception. A type of deception which is about accomplishing the truth, not meant to express true facts. Like acting as if one is going to another town in order to do the opposite. Or like telling Ninevah they'll be destroyed in 40 days when those are not true facts in order to accomplish the truth of repentance in them.
> 
> It is true that things are black and white in God's eyes. Day and night in God's eyes. God knows if we are hiding Jews. But I still think it is justified to make white appear to be black sometimes. It is justified to make day appear as it it is night:
> 
> "_Make your shade like night at the height of noon;_ shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them [heb: be "a hiding place"]from the destroyer." (Is 16:3-4)
> 
> In other words I currently believe it was just of Joshua to deceive by the use of spies, I think it was just of Rahab to deceive by making the spies appear to be not there but merely piles of flax, I believe that it was just of Rahab to act as if the spies had left the city and gone on to another, I believe it was just of God to say he was going to destroy Ninevah in 40 days even when he was planning on doing the opposite, I believe it was just of Samuel to deceive by telling a half-truth, I believe it was just of Jesus to act like he was going to another city when it was his intent to do the opposite. I believe it was just of those in WWII who made rooms that deceived by appearing to be merely walls. I believe it is just to deceive our enemies by dressing up our soldiers in camouflage clothing that says, "I am not here, I am just vegetation" instead of the far less deceptive British red coats... etc.








I see others have differed, because, essentially, these examples and arguments can be abused. 

It seems to me that there is a danger in composing a systematic theology that is so tight that it excludes precedents and examples from Biblical theology. That is, trying to develop a systematics better than God's Himself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Answerman said:


> I've got the solution, just start calling your ammunition Jews so when the Nazi's come asking for Jew's tell them, "sure, I have whole cases of them right here!" then commence unloading all of your "Jews" on them.


----------



## RamistThomist

JTDyck said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words I currently believe it was just of Joshua to deceive by the use of spies, I think it was just of Rahab to deceive by making the spies appear to be not there but merely piles of flax, I believe that it was just of Rahab to act as if the spies had left the city and gone on to another, I believe it was just of God to say he was going to destroy Ninevah in 40 days even when he was planning on doing the opposite, I believe it was just of Samuel to deceive by telling a half-truth, I believe it was just of Jesus to act like he was going to another city when it was his intent to do the opposite. I believe it was just of those in WWII who made rooms that deceived by appearing to be merely walls. I believe it is just to deceive our enemies by dressing up our soldiers in camouflage clothing that says, "I am not here, I am just vegetation" instead of the far less deceptive British red coats... etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Christians ask "How can I obey?" rather than looking for ways to disobey? God will honour those who honour Him.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are not catching the thrust of the argument. I am not asking "How can I disobey God?" Rather, I am stating the fact that obedience in one area (given situation x) might actually be disobedience in another area.


----------



## Grymir

Answerman said:


> I've got the solution, just start calling your ammunition Jews so when the Nazi's come asking for Jew's tell them, "sure, I have whole cases of them right here!" then commence unloading all of your "Jews" on them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Again, this isn't "Delta Force." You would kill the first few Nazis. Other patrols would likely be nearby. While your spontaneous Rambo skills would get you through the first round, it is doubtful you will be able to protect your family from Gestapo raids in the next few minutes. So, you have just sentenced your family to death. While you can likely machine gun everyone who comes near the doorway, there is little you can do to stop them from angling a grenade into your window.


----------



## k.seymore

Ivanhoe said:


> You are not catching the thrust of the argument. I am not asking "How can I disobey God?" Rather, I am stating the fact that obedience in one area (given situation x) might actually be disobedience in another area.



Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying... I have to admit now I am unsure of what you are saying. English is my second language, and I don't have a first.


----------



## RamistThomist

k.seymore said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not catching the thrust of the argument. I am not asking "How can I disobey God?" Rather, I am stating the fact that obedience in one area (given situation x) might actually be disobedience in another area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying... I have to admit now I am unsure of what you are saying. English is my second language, and I don't have a first.
Click to expand...


No, you understand what I am saying. Your posts have been very good so far.


----------



## Grymir

A 'situational ethics' question deserves a 'situational ethics' answer!


----------



## Answerman

Ivanhoe said:


> Again, this isn't "Delta Force." You would kill the first few Nazis. Other patrols would likely be nearby. While your spontaneous Rambo skills would get you through the first round, it is doubtful you will be able to protect your family from Gestapo raids in the next few minutes. So, you have just sentenced your family to death. While you can likely machine gun everyone who comes near the doorway, there is little you can do to stop them from angling a grenade into your window.



I just hope that American citizens would not let their guns get confiscated so we could band together and keep Gestapo patrols at bay if they ever try to pull that here. I would also hope that veterans and active military would split off with a good portion of military hardware so that we would be able to make actions like these short-lived. I would expect Rich and others like him to be leading the revolt against such rank tyranny.

I have some comfort when I see statistics on how many Americans have guns. It would take some changes to make what happened in Germany possible here. Most men that I know would not take to kindly to the government coming to confiscate their guns. I am starting to get involved in politics, and so I am working toward getting rid of laws that make gun owners register their guns, get licenses to conceal and carry etc. this has always been the first step toward military dictatorships and a violation of our second amendment rights.

I am starting to get off topic here so I will stop here.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Rahab's lie was praised in Hebrews & James.*



ColdSilverMoon said:


> In the past I believed we could follow the Rahab example and lie, but when you look at the references to her in James and Hebrews it doesn't seem so:
> 
> "By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace." Hebrews 11:21
> 
> "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:25
> 
> In both verses it praises her hiding the spies, but not lying about them. In the case of Nazis and Jews, hiding the Jews definitely would be the right thing, but lying would be sinful....



I think you're parsing her words too specifically, splitting hairs, if you will, and beating yourself up too much for reaching a bottom line, correct answer.

If the Holy Spirit had meant to praise her for only certain acts and condemn her for others, He would have said so, but instead He only praises her, which lends the inference is was for her entire course of conduct in saving the spies.


----------



## BertMulder

Hate to say this guys, but this is a little rediculous.

As if the Germans, coming to your door (they would first of all have had a tip off to be coming to your door), would then just accept your lie and walk off, without searching the place...

Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.


----------



## satz

BertMulder said:


> Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.



Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.

The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.

The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.

This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BertMulder said:


> Hate to say this guys, but this is a little rediculous.
> 
> As if the Germans, coming to your door (they would first of all have had a tip off to be coming to your door), would then just accept your lie and walk off, without searching the place...
> 
> Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.



Rahab had faith in God (as the author of Hebrews and the apostle James testify), but she used deception.


----------



## HaigLaw

*well put!*



satz said:


> BertMulder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.
> 
> The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.
> 
> The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.
> 
> This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.
Click to expand...


This is about as well-put as I've seen, and I've been following this issue for years. Thank you!


----------



## JTDyck

k.seymore said:


> "So they drew near to the village to which they were going. _He acted as if he were going farther,_ but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' _So he went_ in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)
> 
> Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage, the type of deception that Christ uses to get the disciples to invite him in is completely just and no sin at all. This tells me that there is a justifiable form of deception. A type of deception which is about accomplishing the truth, not meant to express true facts. Like acting as if one is going to another town in order to do the opposite.



To which Calvin would reply, in his commentary on Luke 24:28:



> Now as to the question, Can insincerity apply to him who is the eternal truth of God? I answer, that the Son of God was under no obligation to make all his designs known. Still, as insincerity of any kind is a sort of falsehood, the difficulty is not yet removed; more especially as this example is adduced by many to prove that they are at liberty to tell lies. But I reply, that Christ might without falsehood have pretended what is here mentioned, in the same manner that he gave himself out to be a stranger passing along the road; for there was the same reason for both. A somewhat more ingenious solution is given by Augustine, (in his work addressed _To Consentius_, Book II., chap. 13, and in the book of _Questions on the Gospels_, chap. 51,) for he chooses to enumerate this kind of feigning among tropes and figures, and afterwards among parables and fables. For my own part, I am satisfied with this single consideration, that as Christ for the time threw a veil over the eyes of those with whom he was conversing, so that he had assumed a different character, and was regarded by them as all ordinary stranger, so, when he appeared for the time to intend to go farther, it was not through pretending any thing else than what he had resolved to do, but because he wished to conceal the manner of his departure; for none will deny that _he did go farther_, since he had then withdrawn from human society. So then by this feigning he did not deceive his disciples, but held them for a little in suspense, till the proper time should arrive for making himself known. It is, therefore, highly improper to attempt to make Christ an advocate of falsehood; and we are no more at liberty to plead his example for feigning any thing, than to endeavor to equal his divine power in shutting the eyes of men. Our safest course is to adhere to the rule which has been laid down to us, to speak with truth and simplicity; not that our Lord himself ever departed from the law of his Father, but because, without confining himself to the letter of the commandments, he kept by the true meaning of the law; but we, on account of the weakness of our senses, need to be restrained in a different manner.



This is what I have been trying to say. Calvin just does it much better.  It is a matter of emphasis. I have not denied (in fact, I suggested it could be likely) that I myself might lie or deceive in order to serve the Lord with my very limited understanding of my circumstances. But the fact that God overrules it for His glory is credited to his grace, not to my lie.

I do think that you run yourself into major problems by putting the examples of Rahab and the Hebrew midwives in the same category as the examples of Jesus on the road to Emmaus and God and Nineveh. Calvin warns against this by reminding us that we are finite and God is infinite.


----------



## JTDyck

satz said:


> The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.



With all due respect, this is very dangerous reasoning. Christ exactly, completely and entirely fulfilled the law without exception. He is my absolutely perfect law-keeper, our Second Adam.

If this is not so, I am not saved, and neither is anyone else. Christ did not go easy on the law, and God did not go easy on Christ when He punished His only begotten Son on the cross: 



> Many hands were raised to wound him,
> None would interpose to save;
> But the deepest stroke that pierced him
> Was the stroke that Justice gave.



Christ certainly rebuked the pharasaical interpretation and their false understanding of the law, but he never mitigated the firm and absolute demands of the law in any way whatsoever. This is but one of the things that makes my salvation so precious. Whatever Jesus did, he obeyed the Father in both the spirit and letter of the law.

Christ could not have sinned and did not sin in any way. When I sin, however, God forgives me. He does not overlook it. Christ was punished for every sin I commit. For Jesus' sake, God forgives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

HaigLaw said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past I believed we could follow the Rahab example and lie, but when you look at the references to her in James and Hebrews it doesn't seem so:
> 
> "By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace." Hebrews 11:21
> 
> "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:25
> 
> In both verses it praises her hiding the spies, but not lying about them. In the case of Nazis and Jews, hiding the Jews definitely would be the right thing, but lying would be sinful....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're parsing her words too specifically, splitting hairs, if you will, and beating yourself up too much for reaching a bottom line, correct answer.
> 
> If the Holy Spirit had meant to praise her for only certain acts and condemn her for others, He would have said so, but instead He only praises her, which lends the inference is was for her entire course of conduct in saving the spies.
Click to expand...


No, this isn't consistent with the rest of the verse, especially Hebrews 11. Remember, Sarah initially laughed at the thought of having a child and gave Hagar to Abraham because she didn't believe she could conceive, showing a clear lack of faith. Yet Hebrews 11:11 praises her faith that she could conceive. Are you saying the Bible also tacitly praises her laughter and giving Hagar to Abraham because it doesn't specifically denounce it? Of course not! The same thing applies to Rahab. It praises her hiding the sheltering the spies but does not condone her lying about them. Hebrews 11 and James 2 only list the positive actions that reveal faith - it never denounces their sins and mistakes. So, it isn't parsing words at all: if the lie were acceptable surely somewhere in the Bible it would have praised her for it.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

For those of you who agree that it is acceptable to lie to save lives, what do you think about Peter denying Christ? Afterall, he did lie to save his life and possibly those of the other disciples. Isn't this essentially the same situation? He doesn't deny Christ is God, he denies that he was with Jesus. Isn't this acceptable then, since he lied in order to protect life?


----------



## BertMulder

satz said:


> BertMulder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.
> 
> The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.
> 
> The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.
> 
> This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.
Click to expand...



Esteemed Mark, what you are saying does not hold true. Christ did not make exceptions in the sabbath law, but merely clarified it.

And nowhere does Scripture commend lying in the case of the midwives and Rahab. Scripture commends their faith, not their action.

To extend that a little further, Jacob lied to Isaac. Was that ok as well?

Lying to the nazis, as I attempted to illustrate, would serve no good purpose, tempting as it would be at the time. And this whole thread is started on a foolish premise. Situation ethics. The end justifies the means. The BIG lie of the Jesuits, by which the reformed church was ravaged even more than by the Inquisition.

While I have not lived under the nazis, I am second generation. And while I do not have personal experience, I am in a better position to understand their behavior. Much trickery was used regarding this issue, but using a lie, in the first place to save your own skin, is outright condemned in Scripture.


----------



## k.seymore

JTDyck said:


> To which Calvin would reply, in his commentary on Luke 24:28... This is what I have been trying to say. Calvin just does it much better.



Calvin does point out rightly that it wasn't intended to deceive the disciples. I think I pointed this out the first time I quoted the passage, that it appears to me to be a polite means by which he got them to ask him to come into their house. It was probably a common means in that culture saying, "I don't want to impose, but I sure would like it if you'd invite me in." I was not focusing on whether or not the disciples were deceived. They probably understood immediately what he intended by his actions. I was focusing on the language itself. The language, in of itself, does not express true facts. Jesus did not intend, at that moment, to go further up the road. It appears that the disciples understood his language, and invited him in.

Notice Calvin's reasoning about scripture saying Christ "acted as if" he was going further up the road: 



> Now as to the question, Can insincerity apply to him who is the eternal truth of God? I answer, that the Son of God was under no obligation to make all his designs known. Still, as insincerity of any kind is a sort of falsehood, the difficulty is not yet removed; more especially as this example is adduced by many to prove that they are at liberty to tell lies.



In this thread a number of people have pointed out that they believe that reasoning in the way I have is a slippery slope and that people will use this reasoning to try and justify all lies. I totally agree that people will try to justify any sin using arguments they find strong. Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus–that doesn't make scripture a slippery slope even though sinners will justify their actions with scripture. I agree with Calvin's intent which he stated at the end of the quote above. And reading all his comments gives us the impression that he knows people who justify _sin_ using this passage about Jesus acting as if he is going to do something. Notice how he resolves the problem word "pretend" which he earlier said was a "difficulty" because it is "insincerity":



> Christ might without falsehood have pretended what is here mentioned... when he appeared for the time to intend to go farther, it was not through pretending any thing else than what he had resolved to do...



Since the phrase "what he had resolved to do" is the same thing as his "intent" here is what Calvin is saying:

"When he acted as if it was his intent to go further, that pretense was nothing else but what he intended to do." !?!!!

He just argued that although scripture says Jesus was "pretending" as if it was his intent to do this, he wasn't actually pretending because it was really his intent! Does that line of thinking convince you? Now if that line of thinking really _fully_ convinced Calvin we probably wouldn't expect him to say what he does next:



> Our safest course is to adhere to the rule which has been laid down to us, to speak with truth and simplicity; not that our Lord himself ever departed from the law of his Father, but because, without confining himself to the letter of the commandments, he kept by the true meaning of the law; but we, on account of the weakness of our senses, need to be restrained in a different manner.



He says our _safest_ course is to conform to the letter of the law as it is laid down, and although Jesus did not confine himself to the letter of the law as it is laid down, he still never departed from the commandments but kept their true meaning... in contrast to this: we are so weak that we couldn't possibly understand the true meaning of a commandment to be restrained in a different manner than Jesus: through the letter of the law.

So Calvin in another sense didn't believe Jesus was keeping the letter of the commandment in this passage in Luke, but Calvin argues that we should not follow his example because we are too weak to know the true meaning of the command, therefore we should simply obey the letter of the law. And why? Because we don't know the "true meaning" we can't fully understand the _true_ course... so Calvin tells us to obey the "safest course"...the letter of the law!

I'll bet everyone would agree with Calvin that keeping the letter of the law is the safest course! ...even though one might not always be keeping the true meaning of the law!


----------



## k.seymore

ColdSilverMoon said:


> For those of you who agree that it is acceptable to lie to save lives, what do you think about Peter denying Christ? Afterall, he did lie to save his life and possibly those of the other disciples. Isn't this essentially the same situation? He doesn't deny Christ is God, he denies that he was with Jesus. Isn't this acceptable then, since he lied in order to protect life?



Jesus interprets what Peter was going to do "You will deny me" and Peter says "I will never fall away." It is never right to deny Christ. Not only that but we are told he 1st denied Christ, then the 2nd time he made an oath that he never knew Christ, then 3rd he invoked a curse on himself and swore that he did not know Christ. This isn't the same situation. Rahab and the spies actually swore an oath to God which said, “Our life for yours even to death!" Rahab was under a curse to preserve the spies lives in order to be faithful to the oath she swore to God. No matter if you interpret the way she was faithful to God as sin or not, it isn't the same situation.


----------



## Thomas2007

You know the really sad part about all of this is? Many Christians today don't seem to have any concept of what Scriptural covenanting even means, hence the covenant that Rahab and the spies enter is meaningless to them. As a result, I think we can learn a good lesson from this discourse - if you ever get into a situation where you need to escape persecution or some other violation of your life and property, trying to covenant with your fellow Christians for aid is a very bad idea.


----------



## satz

JTDyck said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, this is very dangerous reasoning. Christ exactly, completely and entirely fulfilled the law without exception. He is my absolutely perfect law-keeper, our Second Adam.
> 
> If this is not so, I am not saved, and neither is anyone else. Christ did not go easy on the law, and God did not go easy on Christ when He punished His only begotten Son on the cross:
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I don't quite understand you...

I never said Christ sinned, ever.

Perhaps my choice of the word 'exceptions' was confusing. Christ was not 'fudging' on his obedience to the law, he was clarifying what the law really meant. 

The 'firm and absolute' demands of the sabbath law -completely uncompromised in any form- allowed for works of necessity and mercy. 

I am saying the command against lying also allows - by God's design and intention - certain exceptions. Perhaps you disagree with the verses I used but I don't see how what you wrote above conflicts with them...




> Christ certainly rebuked the pharasaical interpretation and their false understanding of the law, but he never mitigated the firm and absolute demands of the law in any way whatsoever. This is but one of the things that makes my salvation so precious. Whatever Jesus did, he obeyed the Father in both the spirit and letter of the law.
> 
> Christ could not have sinned and did not sin in any way. When I sin, however, God forgives me. He does not overlook it. Christ was punished for every sin I commit. For Jesus' sake, God forgives.



I am in complete agreement with you. The firm and absolute demands of Gods law against lying however, are not to be understood just by taking one or two verses and deciding those are God's final view on the subject. It must be understood by looking at the entire bible and God's dealings with people. 

Again, Jesus reasoned from David eating the shewbread that works of necessity were allowed on the sabbath day. The story he gave had nothing really to do with the sabbath. So to say there is no explicit allow for lying in the bible does not answer the question. God expects us to infer it from the narrative examples that have been referenced in this thread.


----------



## satz

BertMulder said:


> Esteemed Mark, what you are saying does not hold true. Christ did not make exceptions in the sabbath law, but merely clarified it.



Hi Bert,

As I said in the post above, I agree. I used the word exceptions in the context of the strict reading that might result from only reading one verse in Exodus or Deuteronomy. My point is there _is_ work that is allowed on the sabbath, whether you consider that an exception or a clarification.

For now, I believe that the same principle applies to the commandment against bearing false witness.



> And nowhere does Scripture commend lying in the case of the midwives and Rahab. Scripture commends their faith, not their action.
> 
> To extend that a little further, Jacob lied to Isaac. Was that ok as well?



For Rahab, scripture specifically commends not just her faith, but her works as well, as James states. Yes, she did well in hiding the spies, but if she had given them up to the men of the city after that would she still have been commended? Faith without works is dead, after all. She did hide the spies, but after that she was confronted by the men of the city. If she did not want to give up the spies, she had a choice, she could refuse to answer, lie or take some other action. The fact is, she chose to lie, and God commended her entire course of action. No, there is not a specific verse praising her for specifically lying, but I do not think it is so easy to try to seperate lying from what she did, as it was a essential part of her successfully hiding the spies. 



> Lying to the nazis, as I attempted to illustrate, would serve no good purpose, tempting as it would be at the time. And this whole thread is started on a foolish premise. Situation ethics. The end justifies the means. The BIG lie of the Jesuits, by which the reformed church was ravaged even more than by the Inquisition.
> 
> While I have not lived under the nazis, I am second generation. And while I do not have personal experience, I am in a better position to understand their behavior. Much trickery was used regarding this issue, but using a lie, in the first place to save your own skin, is outright condemned in Scripture.



I actually agree with your comments regarding the use of lying to the nazis. However, I thought the point of this thread was just to use that situation as a launching pad to discuss the issue.

I disagree that the arguments for lying in certain circumstances have been made on situational ethics, or ends justify the means reasoning. Unless you mean it is God saying that the ends justify the means. Lots of scriptures have been given with examples from the bible to prove the point that God allows deception in certain circumstances. There may be disagreement about the verses, but to call his situational ethics in the sense you mean is unfair and ignoring the arguments put forth.


----------



## BertMulder

God does use sinful men. As Brakel puts it, God uses a crooked stick...
But that does not make man's action any less sinful.

Just like Abraham sinned by lying to Pharao and Abimelech...
Just like Isaac lied by lying to Abimelech...
Just like Jacob deceived his father..
Just like the brothers of Joseph sinned selling Joseph into slavery...
Just like David pretended he was witless in Gaza...
Just like Abraham sinned with Hagar
Just like Jacob sinned having 2 wives
Just like David sinned having multiple wives

God was often long suffering, not punishing the sins of all these holy people. And God used all these sinful actions of sinning saints, for our edification.

All things MUST work together for good, those that love him, and are called according to His purpose. Even the sinful actions of sinful saints. Even the sinful actions of the reprobate, for that matter.

But to transgress God's law is still sin.


----------



## SRoper

Thomas2007 said:


> You know the really sad part about all of this is? Many Christians today don't seem to have any concept of what Scriptural covenanting even means, hence the covenant that Rahab and the spies enter is meaningless to them. As a result, I think we can learn a good lesson from this discourse - if you ever get into a situation where you need to escape persecution or some other violation of your life and property, trying to covenant with your fellow Christians for aid is a very bad idea.



Thomas, you are willing to lie, but are are you willing to swear false oaths in order to protect your fellow man? If not, then why should someone go to you when they are persecuted? Should they not go to someone else without such scruples?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> But to transgress God's law is still sin.



But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.


----------



## BertMulder

Daniel Ritchie said:


> But to transgress God's law is still sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.
Click to expand...


That is what the Jesuits believed to, and used it to slaughter thousands (millions?) of protestants...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BertMulder said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to transgress God's law is still sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the Jesuits believed to, and used it to slaughter thousands (millions?) of protestants...
Click to expand...


Maybe it is, but that is irrelvant as the Jesuits are not fighting a godly war.


----------



## MrMerlin777

This is indeed a tough question.

Frankly my opinion means little to it, however, I would do what it took to preserve the lives I was protecting. Including, lying and even killing (defensively) if I had to. Notice though the act would be to preserve life, the Jesuits acted to destroy lives. Therein, I believe, lies a big difference.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MrMerlin777 said:


> This is indeed a tough question.
> 
> Frankly my opinion means little to it, however, I would do what it took to preserve the lives I was protecting. Including, lying and even killing (defensively) if I had to. Notice though the act would be to preserve life, the Jesuits acted to destroy lives. Therein, I believe, lies a big difference.



Thanks brother, you have made the point better than I could.


----------



## Davidius

So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?

Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?


----------



## RamistThomist

In war, if you use diversionary tactics, are you sinning?


----------



## Davidius

I know we've been around and around, but nobody seems to have a good answer.

May a female spy seduce a high-ranking enemy officer in order to obtain information that would save lives? If not, why not? Why can she break the 9th commandment but not the 7th?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Davidius said:


> So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?
> 
> Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?



We are not saying that any of the commandments are "fair game" at all, what we are saying is that the 9th commandment does not forbid lying_ in this particular circumstance_ due to the examples set down in Scripture. Just as we argue that killing someone is not a breach of the 6th commandment either in warfare or if they have committed a crime worth of death as defined by God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Davidius said:


> I know we've been around and around, but nobody seems to have a good answer.
> 
> May a female spy seduce a high-ranking enemy officer in order to obtain information that would save lives? If not, why not? Why can she break the 9th commandment but not the 7th?



Can you provide us with a Biblical example to justify this?


----------



## Davidius

I'm asking the question based on "good and necessary consequence." If lying is okay, why not adultery?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Davidius said:


> I'm asking the question based on "good and necessary consequence." If lying is okay, why not adultery?



But you have not proved that lying is a sin in that particular circumstance, if it is then why is Rahab commended by the NT writers for her faith which was evidenced by lying to protect the spies?


----------



## satz

Davidius said:


> So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?
> 
> Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?



I know I have said this before, but while your question is a good one, it does not really affect the answer to the OP.

God specifically gives us examples show his approval of lying in _certain _situations.

Exactly what situations he approves of, and how far those principles may be extended to other commandments is a worthwhile discussion, but does not invalidate the principle that there are exceptions to the strict reading of the 9th commandment, just as there are to the 4th commandment.

EDIT: Just saw your post above... to put it another way, I think we can establish clearly from the bible that God allows lie in war, or to save innocent lives. How far good and necessary consequence will extend this principle beyond fact situations similar to those in the bible is up for debate, but the answer does not, In my humble opinion, affect the validity of the exceptions to the 9th commandment that those bible examples show.


----------



## Davidius

And around and around we go. No need to discuss the same issues six times.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Davidius said:


> And around and around we go. No need to discuss the same issues six times.


----------



## BertMulder

The way to hell is paved with good intentions....


----------



## BertMulder

The esteemed apostle Paul also intended well, when persecuting the church, prior to the Lord opening his eyes.

Yet, although he was pardoned for those sins, he was still sinning, even if, as he himself writes, he committed them 'ignorantly, out of unbelief'.

And even that sinful act God used to scatter the church away from Jerusalem, so that the Gospel was, as a consequence, brought to the surrounding contries.

Still, that does not lessen the sin.


----------



## RamistThomist

A moral action requires three things:

1) obedience to a norm
2) proper motive
3) understanding the situation properly

Stealing is wrong, but in wartime I will steal information.
Killing is wrong, but in wartime I will kill


----------



## Davidius

Ivanhoe said:


> A moral action requires three things:
> 
> 1) obedience to a norm
> 2) proper motive
> 3) understanding the situation properly
> 
> Stealing is wrong, but in wartime I will steal information.
> Killing is wrong, but in wartime I will kill



Adultery is wrong, and in wartime you will commit adultery to get information? You should change the variable to something that isn't in the category which everyone knows "in their common sense" is okay during wartime. 

The Jews had to offer sacrifices for sins of ignorance, didn't they?


----------



## RamistThomist

Davidius said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> A moral action requires three things:
> 
> 1) obedience to a norm
> 2) proper motive
> 3) understanding the situation properly
> 
> Stealing is wrong, but in wartime I will steal information.
> Killing is wrong, but in wartime I will kill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adultery is wrong, and in wartime you will commit adultery to get information? You should change the variable to something that isn't in the category which everyone knows "in their common sense" is okay during wartime.
> 
> The Jews had to offer sacrifices for sins of ignorance, didn't they?
Click to expand...


Is killing in wartime legit? Maybe. Instead of adultery, let's say "make love to wife." That is honorable but if I do it for the wrong motive (to get something, bribe, power) it is sin. If I do it in the wrong situation (where it damages her health, etc).

Moral theology, and the Bible, does reason this way:

1. We must walk according to the commandments (God's word--our _normative perspective_)
2. We must have the the proper telos (we must seek the kingdom/glory of God; do *all* things to the glory of God) _situational perspective_
3. We must have the proper motive (love, a heart purified by faith--our _existential perspective_ ).


----------



## VictorBravo

Wrap it up


I think this thread has pretty much run its course. So many issues and diversions have been raised, and we are on at least the second or third rehash of unanswered questions.

If anyone is interested in continuing the subdiscussions, feel free to open threads on the specific issues.

Closing the thread in 15 minutes. . . .

Edit: BTW, this isn't a negative comment on any of the recent posts. It's just a matter of the thread spreading out into too many directions.


----------



## BertMulder

Thanks Vic


----------



## BertMulder

Ivanhoe said:


> Moral theology, and the Bible, does reason this way:
> 
> 1. We must walk according to the commandments (God's word--our _normative perspective_)
> 2. We must have the the proper telos (we must seek the kingdom/glory of God; do *all* things to the glory of God) _situational perspective_
> 3. We must have the proper motive (love, a heart purified by faith--our _existential perspective_ ).




And that ain't multiple choice, but AND AND AND


----------

