Do the ends ever justify the means for us?

Do the ends EVER justify the means?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • No

    Votes: 35 71.4%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.
PS: the Internet is holding a debate with a mere housewife

Wow that sounds terribly intimidating. I think the housewife had better stick to folding her laundry! :)

I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions; I think that what you are saying misses some of what I have said; but I wouldn't wish to convince others against conscience, and am satisfied for my own conscience' sake. I'm sincerely grateful that we are agreed in wishing always to obey God rather than men; and in believing that His law is always the means that justifies the end. & I truly didn't enter the thread with a view to doing anything more than stating another side of that same case!

So I cede the 'debate' (though I privately maintain my pigheaded obstinacy :) to the vast knowledge and greater resources of Internet. Thanks :)
 
So I cede the 'debate' ... to the vast knowledge and greater resources of Internet. Thanks :-)[/QUOTE said:
I laughed and spilt coffee on my keyboard :)

My apologies if I have taken a 'superior' air ... such was not my intent. My debating skills were learned in strange places, and I am aware that at times my approach can be somewhat arrogant.

Please be assured that the Internet, whilst claiming to retain a vast array of knowledge, is nothing more than a huge Women's Weekly magazine, without an index. Its a big jumble in there and all these ramblings just help to try and organise the mess.

Now, what shall I do to make up for my misdemeanour? Hang on, the end in sight was simply the finding of truth in this matter of obedience. It doesn't really matter how I get there does it?
 
Dave truly it didn't cross my mind to think that you were arrogant, and I intended nothing sarcastic or personal! 'The internet' just sounds so awe inspiring :).

No doubt it was a utilitarian philosopher who said that if we cause someone to laugh and spill coffee on the keyboard it will have been worth the conflict :).
 
Yes, it COULD happen even if you travelled at 30mph or whatever. But when you were exceeding the limit, you are breaching the secular law ... morality and ethics doesn't rate a mention here. I find nowhere in God's law stating anything like:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's unless you think you can get away with it because in your judgment the chances of mishap are close to zero, or if you think the ends justify the means." The command to obedience is unconditional.

I too, if placed in that situation would probably lose the plot, and just go at it the best way I knew how, even if that meant 60mph. BUT, that does not make it right in any sense of true obedience to God.

Where do we draw the line? 70mph? 100mph? OK, so you would exercise common sense ... but THAT is exactly what the secular law has attempted [right or wrong] to do. Governments are ordained by God, and we are commanded to obey them.

The question seems more to be linked to defining when an action 'contradicts or opposes God's laws'. And therein too lies the rub. We are commanded not to murder. If we do we break not only the secular law, but God's law. If the Government rules that every adult must kill a teenager, then clearly we cannot. There is a clear mandate that this is sin and disobedient.

There are no clear mandates that we must protect, preserve, prolong, or anything, another's life - as in the 60mph case. We only strive to help based on compassion and the value of life, NOT because failing to try to get to the hospital is a sin against a command of God.

Thankfully though we err we find grace through forgiveness.

PS: the Internet is holding a debate with a mere housewife

Surely though, the problem with this specific example is that the government or any traffic policeman would most probably say you are right and in the spirit of the law to speed in such a situation.
 
George Downame has an excellent short work on Christian Freedom

It addresses these issues.
One a bit off topic that was interesting because our pastor wants it, is kneelers.

He said if you are concerned you will make your brother stumble by kneeling for communion, but that is how you church does it, you must take communion because it concerns the more weighty matter. Your salvation, the glory of God, the peace of the church. If your brother, is stumbled, oh well.

So there may be situations, {because I do not pretend all that could arise come to my mind right this minute}, that would warrant a greater and lesser for the glory of God.
-----

One mentioned not sinning to prvent another sin.
In some cases it would not be sin to do the means, though under another situation it would be sin.

A thing is not always sinful in itself.

To shoot a gun and kill someone is neither sinful or not, until we know the circumstance.

It is not sin to kill a man if he is breaking into your house and your life is threatened.

Now the courts may debate this because the law is not so clear and you may lose in court.
So does that make it sin? If you used poor judgment and thought it was justifiable homicide and yet the circumstances were not that dangerous.
Say it turns out he has a toy gun, or a cell phone not a gun etc.

We may even say it was sin to have acted, yet not intentional. It was due to your conscience saying this is more important.

We sin in mistaken convictions.

So the point is not only whether it is wrong or sin, but is it still proper to not hesitate and risk your families life, though acting may be a sin?

What if you tell your wife call 911 I will go down to stop him. The gun toting burglar says, is anyone else here? Or where is your wife. Will you tell the truth and endanger her life?
Yes, she is just up the stairs in this bedroom, quick go stop her before she dials 911?
There are other options, you have no obligation to answer at all, but should he say, I will shoot you if you don't tell me, then what. You should seek to preserve your life also.

God warns us and tells us to pray that our flight would not have to be on the Sababth when tribulation comes that our Sabbath is robbed by the possibly lawful act of fleeing.
We do not know for sure our life is in danger always, yet it would be negligent to risk it just to avoid straining the gnat.

The glory of God is to be primary and not our selfishness.

Did Christ break the law when instead of stoning the woman caught in adultery He did not?
Or do we say He had authority to change the law then, though He did not change it for the state? Was it not a sin because He was a type for the church which would not be bound by OT laws for Israel??

Num 15:26 It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally.
27'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them. NKJV

There is a difference in an intentional sin and an unintentional.
 
No the end does not justify the means for christians -
other wise just think about the means we would be able to use considering the end
 
Of course the ends sometimes justify the means. If my end is having a full belly then that is proper justification for going to the fridge and getting food. If my end is being able to pay may mortgage that is NOT justification to steal money from my neighbor to pay it. So sometimes the end justifies the means and sometimes it doesn't.

-----Added 4/22/2009 at 10:12:50 EST-----

I voted no because the thread survey was modified with "for us" in the post. When we are tempted to use improper means to reach an end, God gives us a way out. 1 Cor 10:13, Heb 2:18 for a short list.

With God the ends and the means are both just because He would not contradict Himself or sin. Psalm 145:17

That's the real question we have to ask ourselves. If the end is proper, are there also proper means?

Let's say my end is to see people converted to faith in Christ. Proper means to accomplish that goal is to share the gospel with them. So clearly the end of seeing people converted to Christ justified (or warranted) the act of sharing the gospel. It does not justify ALL means, but some means certainly are justified by proper ends.

I believe Joshua is correct. It depends on whether the means are sinful or not.

If the means are NOT sinful, then the ends don't have to justify them, do they? They are already just.
 
We have a hyper-evangelist Jack Hyles, pragmatic enough to start a fist fight to draw a crowd. After the crowd has gathered he stands up and preaches to them.

What's wrong with this picture? The "end" justifies the means, you say. Fine, but he has been deceitful. People attracted by a fight ... are they really ready to make a life-changing "decision"? When we rely on fist fights, we deny the power of God to do things His way.
 
We have a hyper-evangelist Jack Hyles, pragmatic enough to start a fist fight to draw a crowd. After the crowd has gathered he stands up and preaches to them.

What's wrong with this picture? The "end" justifies the means, you say. Fine, but he has been deceitful. People attracted by a fight ... are they really ready to make a life-changing "decision"? When we rely on fist fights, we deny the power of God to do things His way.

Ooohh this would have been a good one for the thread on what methods are legit to get the word out.
:offtopic:
 
Jer 48:10
Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully, And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.


Here are some examples of men who did what was right in their own eyes in ways that some might see as noble. What arrogance man has in doubting and questioning God almighty. We praise God for what He does, regardless of our understanding. If it seems unjust in our minds it is because of our depravity and the fact that we do not have the mind of God.

  • 1 Samuel 15:9
    9But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

    1 Kings 20:42
    42Then he said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have let slip out of your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.’ ”

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 10:53:15 EST-----

Simply put, the means must be confined and constrained by the command of God. Regardless of the ends, if the means defies the parameters of God's law then we are in sin. Furthermore, as has been stated somewhat differently, if the means are corrupt, then the end is corrupted by the very means by which it is attained, even if apparently noble and just. Self-justification is an abomination and denigrates the work of the cross.

:):up:

If it can be established that God, in his word, has not authorized committing a *small* transgression in order to achieve a proposed good end, then we can draw a conclusion from scripture that the ends do not justify the means.

Correct?

Correct! And it can be established... :)
 
Jer 48:10
Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully, And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.


Here are some examples of men who did what was right in their own eyes in ways that some might see as noble. What arrogance man has in doubting and questioning God almighty. We praise God for what He does, regardless of our understanding. If it seems unjust in our minds it is because of our depravity and the fact that we do not have the mind of God.

  • 1 Samuel 15:9
    9But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

    1 Kings 20:42
    42Then he said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have let slip out of your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.’ ”

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 10:53:15 EST-----

Simply put, the means must be confined and constrained by the command of God. Regardless of the ends, if the means defies the parameters of God's law then we are in sin. Furthermore, as has been stated somewhat differently, if the means are corrupt, then the end is corrupted by the very means by which it is attained, even if apparently noble and just. Self-justification is an abomination and denigrates the work of the cross.

:):up:

If it can be established that God, in his word, has not authorized committing a *small* transgression in order to achieve a proposed good end, then we can draw a conclusion from scripture that the ends do not justify the means.

Correct?

Correct! And it can be established... :)

Agreed. Yet, look at the polls--almost 1/4 here disagree. Now, there was some confusion in the begining about the nature of the question so lets say / hope 15% would be more likely.

My frustration lies in how this can be such a difficult topic. Should we do wrong in hopes of a good end and believe we are not guilty for the wrong?

The red light / prevent death scenario only clouds the matter. :2cents:
 
Surely though, the problem with this specific example is that the government or any traffic policeman would most probably say you are right and in the spirit of the law to speed in such a situation.

In what country would this occur? The response of the policeman would depend entirely on
A: whether he/she was late for lunch
B: whether they lost their retirement fund
C: whether their superior kicked them at the start of the shift
D: maybe just a little substance given to your 'excuse'

If they do so, then they are guilty of the same breach ... yes, maybe some do sometimes, but I don't see that sort of leniency in Aus ... more likely they will hammer you.

If it gets to court then the pendulum would swing and a conviction would be reduced or community service or dropped altogether.

These things do not negate the force of the argument. God commands obedience to the law of the land through His appointed Governments, so long as the actions arising are not contrary to His law. Exceeding the speed limit is breaking the secular laws, and therefore is directly flouting God's law and is.
 
Surely though, the problem with this specific example is that the government or any traffic policeman would most probably say you are right and in the spirit of the law to speed in such a situation.

In what country would this occur? The response of the policeman would depend entirely on
A: whether he/she was late for lunch
B: whether they lost their retirement fund
C: whether their superior kicked them at the start of the shift
D: maybe just a little substance given to your 'excuse'

If they do so, then they are guilty of the same breach ... yes, maybe some do sometimes, but I don't see that sort of leniency in Aus ... more likely they will hammer you.

If it gets to court then the pendulum would swing and a conviction would be reduced or community service or dropped altogether.

These things do not negate the force of the argument. God commands obedience to the law of the land through His appointed Governments, so long as the actions arising are not contrary to His law. Exceeding the speed limit is breaking the secular laws, and therefore is directly flouting God's law and is.

Dave,

Would an australian politican would come out and say he thought that breaking the speed limit to save a life was a crime? How many australians have been convicted of speeding in that situation?

People routinely exceed the speed limit for short periods for time for the purpose of overtaking, and the police and government are fine with that. There is a difference between that sort of exceeding the speed limit and flagrant speeding, and both government and policemen acknowledge that. The same thing applies, I believe, to speeding to get someone to hospital.

I am not talking about when christians may disobey God's law to obey government. But I find it hard to believe even the australian government shares your interpretation of their road laws.
 
"I am not talking about when christians may disobey God's law to obey government. But I find it hard to believe even the australian government shares your interpretation of their road laws."

Well then, you may choose to disagree from your friendly state in Singapore. If you cruise the rest of my post you will see that there are many marginal calls that can be made. In general, however, the Aussie copper is big-headed, and likes to 'rule' from their position of authority.

Why did you gloss over the last paragraph? God commands us to obey the Government. That Government only holds the position by God's grace. To break a secular law is to flout God's law. It is sin. Thus, no matter if it is the end or the means ... if it is illegal so to do, then it is sin.
 
My position, at present, is that the government itself does not think it is wrong for you to speed if you are rushing someone to a hospital. So God's law does not even enter into the equation because you are not breaking man's law in the first place.

Do people ever exceed the stated speed limit when you over take on the road? I do not believe the government intends the speed limit to be observed in the way you are implying...
 
I don't see how the road laws of any given country are relevant to the thread's topic.

For the sake of the OP, assume that it is illegal everywhere to speed under any circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top