RC Sproul has stunned me...

[Matthew1344]

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


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

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

Anyone ever heard this before?

 

[jwright82]

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

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

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

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

 

[SynodOfDort]

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

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

 

[Don Kistler]

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

 

[cmaglaughlin]

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

 

[Dearly Bought]

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

• Did Rahab sin by deceiving the King?
• Lying and the Nazis at your door
• Moral Absolutes: Lying

One recurring piece mentioned is the work of John Murray on this subject, "The Sanctity of Truth."

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

Q. 12. What is it for a person to make an officious lie?

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

Q. 13. Does not the apostle ascribe this action of hers to her faith, when he says, Heb. 11:31 -- "By faith, Rahab, the harlot, perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace?"

A. No; What he ascribes to her faith is, her having received the spies with peace, that is, her having consulted their safety and preservation with the greatest care and diligence; but not the lie she invented in order to conceal them. Her protecting the spies is commended, but not the manner in which she did it.

Q. 14. Who are they that plead in favour of officious lies?

A. The Papists, Socinians, and most of our modern moralists.

Q. 15. What arguments do they allege in defence of this sort of lying?

A. That it has been practised by saints in scripture; and that it is so far from being hurtful to any, that it has been beneficial to some in certain cases.

Q. 16. What answer is to be given to the practice of the saints in this matter?

A. That their sinful failures, in this and other instances, are not recorded in scripture for imitation, but for caution and warning, that we fall not into the same snares.

Q. 17. How do you answer the other argument for officious lying, "That it is so far from being hurtful to any, that it has been beneficial and advantageous to some, in certain cases, particularly in saving the life of a dear friend, or useful member of society, which might otherwise have been manifestly endangered?"

A. It is answered thus, that in no case are we to do evil that good may come, Rom. 3:8. If we are not to speak wickedly for God, nor talk deceitfully for him, according to Job 13:7, neither are we to do so, though it were for the benefit of all mankind, or the best among them.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For another perspective, see:

View attachment Lying Always Wrong - Poythress.pdf

As to forgiveness...

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

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

Reconciliation is not always mandated.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

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

We are not required to tell robbers where we have hidden our valuables. Soldiers are not required to tell the enemy where their comrades are positioned. Truth is to be told to those who are due it. We do not please God when we tell the truth to people who do not deserve the truth.​

Sproul, R. C. (2012-09-01). Pleasing God: Discovering the Meaning and Importance of Sanctification (Classic Theology) (p. 170). David C. Cook.​

 

[Toasty]

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

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sproul's context on forgiveness not to be extended to all:

"On the question of whom we must forgive, there is a widespread misunderstanding in Christian circles. Somehow, somewhere, the idea gained currency that Christians are under obligation to grant unqualified, unilateral forgiveness to anyone who sins against them. For example, if a person attacks my character unjustly , it is assumed that I must simply absorb the grievance and forgive that person immediately."

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

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

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

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

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

 

[Matthew1344]

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

This is what i was talking about.

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Matt,

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

 

[BGF]

For another perspective, see:

View attachment 4110

As to forgiveness...

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

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

Reconciliation is not always mandated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Matthew1344]

Thanks!

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[Free Christian]

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

"Tactical life preservation"

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

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

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

 

[Afterthought]

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

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

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

 

[Free Christian]

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

 

[Miss Marple]

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

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

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

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

 

[aadebayo]

Hi All

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[earl40]

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

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