No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Deja vu
Does God Bless Deception?
- Thread starter NoahBBigley
- Start date
- Status
Deja vu
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Deception appears allowable to defeat an enemy in order to preserve your life or the life of others. A Christian king can thus deceive another Christian king if their nations are lawfully at war.
You are extrapolating the nuances of deception too far - lying in a working relationship would in all cases, I think, lead to theft, something which is already forbidden via a direct commandment.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I say this not in trying to extrapolate, but of what seems a real danger when we start (ambiguously) categorizing levels of permissibility in deception. I recently saw something about a documentary that is coming out, about a well-known SBC mega-pastor who appears to have attempted a take-over of a smaller church and absolve it into his fold as one of his multi-campuses. This was apparently done by having a pastor associated with the mega-pastor, get hired on staff at the church in question, and begin to strategically politic and maneuver the finances of said church towards bankruptcy (I guess so the bigger church could buy it,) while at the same time, promoting joining the mega-church as the solution. The documentary is about the congregants refusing to let it happen and fighting back against the take-over. But my point is, we can say "hey, that is wrong," but this wasnt secular men doing the scheming, it was godly men who justified such methods and neither considered it theft or dishonesty. This is why, while I have seen certain examples of what we would consider deception scripturally exampled here, I dont think anybody else has attempted to outline exactly what deception is permissible, and what deception is not, and in what cases. And because of this ambiguity regarding the issue of deception, if it is left in the realm of subjective justification; cannot the results be catastrophic? Meaning, the danger isn't so much in saying "lying in a working relationship is theft," but, redefining lying, as so it is no longer lying, and thus, no longer theft.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Was it?
As I said in my examples given, the allowances are for the protection of the furtherance of God's revealed will (post # 29) against any and all enemies - even potential enemies that may or may not be true (my hypothetical servant of Samuel that would have been ok with the anointing of David had he known).
Your SBC example proves this is not the same category of action that we have been addressing. Scripture is God's revealed will and Scripture alone.
Incidentally, if US troops round up Jonescues to exterminate, you can come hole up at my place. I will absolutely lie to frustrate their desire to break the 6th Commandment - even as I pray that God would open their eyes to see evil as evil.
You would be perfectly safe as I would actually see offering you to them in "transparency" as a personal breach of the 6th Commandment myself!
But let me know beforehand please, because if you are uncomfortable in lying to them and want to go with them willingly, then it would save me some effort (although I would still pray for you).
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'm afraid I don't see the relevancy of this post - this, to me, is a form of theft, which is forbidden. That theft often involves deceit does not make all deceit immoral, just as murder does not make all killing unlawful.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree, but my question is with the ambiguity of definitions. Early some of these posts where questioning "what is a lie?" This takes a simple definition of "something that is not true" or "purposefully deceiving" and attempts to add justifiable layers to it. By adding those layers, this then allows subjective justification to arise, in which peoples personal interpretation of definitions become the measuring rod, instead of the simple definition. The example I was trying to express in the above, is about two different set of believers, with two different interpretations and two different understandings of what is permissible within the realm of deception. And how conflicting understandings of permissible deception can lead to such acts, as one group thinking taking over a church is Gods service, and the other thinking it is wrong.
This then leaves the question, who is right?
[automerge]1748967210[/automerge]
I have mainly been trying to address the OP's question in regard to the deception of Rebecca and Jacob as it correlates permissibility in the furtherance of Gods will. Also, simply questioning if they are godly men to begin with is taking the easy route (as it is weighed by your definition of such.) The bigger question as it relates to permissible deception, is how someone, who was not only voted in multiple times by his denomination as being fit to lead them, but has otherwise been above reproach, can view such acts as a church takeover as either permissible deception, or not deception at all; when others so easily see it as deception? Is this due to ambiguity once redefining or layering the definition occurs, or not? Or possibly, did he think his deception (if he thought it such) was a higher form of church business, that the plebeians wouldn't understand, or/nor should they be privy to?
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Oh that was easy. Rebekah and Jacob sinned.
I thought that was long ago established.
Logan said (taking Gen. 27 as an open-shut case) "The more interesting case is Rahab" and @Contra_Mundum slammed the Gen. 27 case shut when he said:
which is why I was so confused at why you thought we all were saying the ends justifies the means, when no one factually was.
Now, everyone did take up the whole "is every lie necessarily a sin?" thread, but no one claims that Rebekah and Jacob are not sinning in Genesis 27.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
@davejonescue
I have no idea if this fits your SBC example; only you can discern. I have not opened the video nor intend to.
But in this case, we know Jacob is loved and Esau hated (we only know it after the fact per Romans 9). Rebekah and Jacob do not know it. They are afraid and want to "secure" God's favor in their own means by their own flesh. So add to the fact that it is ok to deceive an enemy in war, now you have it is not ok to further God's will by YOUR means rather than be faithful and wait for him to do what he wills and how he wills in the time he wills.
I have no idea if this fits your SBC example; only you can discern. I have not opened the video nor intend to.
But in this case, we know Jacob is loved and Esau hated (we only know it after the fact per Romans 9). Rebekah and Jacob do not know it. They are afraid and want to "secure" God's favor in their own means by their own flesh. So add to the fact that it is ok to deceive an enemy in war, now you have it is not ok to further God's will by YOUR means rather than be faithful and wait for him to do what he wills and how he wills in the time he wills.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
I do know one thing, which is that whatever it is to be true, God is maximally so. He is Truth itself. I am called to "be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect," to imitate Jesus Christ, and to in this way have restored via the Holy Spirit the image of God in me.
In other words, I agree with Augustine. To my mind, it is a failure of faith and imagination to choose to "lie" for the sake of a greater good or greater cause. I will, in my mind, consider it always and in every circumstance wrong to tell a lie--so I don't assume to be more arrogant than God, who has bound my conscience to represent creation truly, and Himself truly, and in the instance I misrepresent creation I misrepresent the Creator, and so on. To lie about any one proposition is to tell a lie about God, the one who has demanded that proposition be true, that orders it to be true, upholds it to be true, and so on.
The moment we compromise for the sake of some other good, sacrificing in that process the known good to be done, we've become playthings of the demons. But yeah. Don't take my word for it. Go read the literature on Kant and lies and Augustine and lies and the millions of words written to parse it out.
In other words, I agree with Augustine. To my mind, it is a failure of faith and imagination to choose to "lie" for the sake of a greater good or greater cause. I will, in my mind, consider it always and in every circumstance wrong to tell a lie--so I don't assume to be more arrogant than God, who has bound my conscience to represent creation truly, and Himself truly, and in the instance I misrepresent creation I misrepresent the Creator, and so on. To lie about any one proposition is to tell a lie about God, the one who has demanded that proposition be true, that orders it to be true, upholds it to be true, and so on.
The moment we compromise for the sake of some other good, sacrificing in that process the known good to be done, we've become playthings of the demons. But yeah. Don't take my word for it. Go read the literature on Kant and lies and Augustine and lies and the millions of words written to parse it out.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I think this would depend on if politicking is considered a kind of warfare (which seems to be the consensus that deception is permissible within) or is it simply trying to gain Gods favor or do evil that good should come? If we use the example of say David, either becoming King or winning wars, were not both for the benefit of Israel? If so, how easy is it to justify our deception by echoing its good for Israel as well? Not on the basis of personal gain, but in the war of good vs evil. If I am not mistaken, isn't this the methodology the Jesuits are known for?
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
But this was actual warfare. When Rahab and both spies deceived the soldiers of Jericho, it was factually a lie. She said they are not here and they actually were. They were actually in the house and they willingly and knowingly allowed the soldiers to believe what was not true. And it is for the good of Israel in the context of war.
In-house politicking is not war with enemies (even if there may or may not be enemies in the midst). And so thereby, if certain details are withheld for wisdom in the face of possible enemies out there that may not be known in order to protect the integrity of the body of Christ "for the good of Israel", there is no dilemma here.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
So why in Psalm 56 is David not confessing his sin of deceiving the Philistines but is instead praising God for delivering him via that deception? I'm afraid I put the words of the one called a man after God's own heart before those of Augustine (and certainly Kant).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Gestapo at the door: Do you have any Jews?
Christian: I am not going to tell a lie and I am not going to answer you.
Gestapo: Take him to ze camps and search ze house. They here somewhere.
(20 minutes later)
Gestapo 2: Found the, boss.
Christian: I am not going to tell a lie and I am not going to answer you.
Gestapo: Take him to ze camps and search ze house. They here somewhere.
(20 minutes later)
Gestapo 2: Found the, boss.
There are rules of engagement. The same goes for the scenario on war. It is baked into the context. It doesn't set a precedent for general behaviour where both parties are expecting each other to be straight-up. In general, Let your yes be yes and your no no.
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think it is useful to think about how some of the commandments of God, or at least their applications are relative to circumstances.
So for example the fourth commandment is to kept, except in circumstances of mercy and necessity contra the 1st commandment which has no legitimate exceptions.
You shall not kill/murder does not preclude self-defence, just warfare etc.
The commandment to honour father and mother also surely has some exceptions, just as the extrapolation of that the commadment applies to all authorities over us. This is reiterated in the NT - we are to submit Paul says in Rom 13, and "Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser'" Jesus teaches us. And yet the disciples without any qualms refused to comply with authorities when commanded not to speak in Jesus name! There are exceptions to that commandment. We would probably say we should always obey and submit, apart from the fact we have instances in Scripture where godly men and woman refuse to! Why did they do so - because a higher authority said otherwise to the lower authority.
And so the question may be asked, are there circumstances which demand that we set aside the plain normal meaning of the commandment not to bear false witness? Are there circumstances specifically when the authorities are no longer due the full disclosure of truth? In such cases are we to take the examples, many of which have been mentioned to form the extrapolated principle just as we would in the case above? The command to preserve life has a higher precedence than obeying the Nazi's. Does loving my neighbour has higher precedence that loving enemy? although preventing him from heaping up more iniquity on his own head is a form of love too!
So for example the fourth commandment is to kept, except in circumstances of mercy and necessity contra the 1st commandment which has no legitimate exceptions.
You shall not kill/murder does not preclude self-defence, just warfare etc.
The commandment to honour father and mother also surely has some exceptions, just as the extrapolation of that the commadment applies to all authorities over us. This is reiterated in the NT - we are to submit Paul says in Rom 13, and "Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser'" Jesus teaches us. And yet the disciples without any qualms refused to comply with authorities when commanded not to speak in Jesus name! There are exceptions to that commandment. We would probably say we should always obey and submit, apart from the fact we have instances in Scripture where godly men and woman refuse to! Why did they do so - because a higher authority said otherwise to the lower authority.
And so the question may be asked, are there circumstances which demand that we set aside the plain normal meaning of the commandment not to bear false witness? Are there circumstances specifically when the authorities are no longer due the full disclosure of truth? In such cases are we to take the examples, many of which have been mentioned to form the extrapolated principle just as we would in the case above? The command to preserve life has a higher precedence than obeying the Nazi's. Does loving my neighbour has higher precedence that loving enemy? although preventing him from heaping up more iniquity on his own head is a form of love too!
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, for some of us running would be a miracle.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's true but that's not the issue under discussion. Granted that Samuel wasn't wicked, he appears, with God's blessing, to have deceived Saul.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
But shouldn't we use caution here in using this as an encompassing example of permissible deception when God was the one audibly directing Samuel through every step of Davids anointing? How many people will God audibly direct these days? We know that God cannot lie, so, whatever God was doing with Samuel was not a lie. Furthermore, since God is within a higher realm and understanding than man, what is decreed and directed of him is of a higher understanding than mans finite perception. For example, some may say "I would not be in error if I were to lie to protect ethnic Jews from the Nazi's" yet, would we be in error if we were ancient Jews lying to protect Canaanites, when God commanded the total destruction of them? Not to mention, many currently consider ethnic Jews equally Gods enemy for their refusal to recognize Jesus as Messiah. I am not saying the Nazi's were justified, not at all. I am only saying that God has made it plain that lying lips, dishonest scales, etc. are bad, and that should be the rule followed, not the exceptions of what we may perceive as deceptions.
Last edited:
How was Saul deceived? The directive was only in case Saul heard about it. Samuel's dealing was with the elders of the city. So far as they were concerned he came to sacrifice, which he did. There was no deception in this case. Because it is "revelation" given to us we see the backstory which provides for historical contingencies.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Poet
I am following this thread closely, as our Wednesday eveing Bible study was precisely on this matter: truth-telling and lying or deception (and we will be continiung it next week as well).
As regards Samuel, as MW & others have noted, he was in no way required or obliged to share information or direction given him by the LORD. In this particular case there was no deception, nor would keeping private that information be considered such.
As regards Samuel, as MW & others have noted, he was in no way required or obliged to share information or direction given him by the LORD. In this particular case there was no deception, nor would keeping private that information be considered such.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I am utterly lost how Samuel was not in the act of deception by lying by omission. No one claimed Samuel lied outright, rather he hid the full truth.
It almost seems as if @MW is arguing since it was only in case Saul asked, and if we have no record of Saul asking, then there is no deception. This seems fallacious reasoning to me.
I agree we are not told whether Saul asked or not. But that doesn't mean he did not. Also, we are not told whether a soldier loyal to Saul asked him his business like at a checkpoint.
For as much as the intentions of the heart matter just as much - or more - than the actions of a man, then is not the intent or plan to deceive essentially an act of deception even if no one asks such that the intent is never actualized?
I felt the need to add here that I fully agree with the post above that Samuel's deception was an act of righteous defiance to a fallen authority - one in whom God himself has declared an enemy - much like the righteous defiance of the Apostles against the command to stop preaching in the name of Jesus.
It almost seems as if @MW is arguing since it was only in case Saul asked, and if we have no record of Saul asking, then there is no deception. This seems fallacious reasoning to me.
I agree we are not told whether Saul asked or not. But that doesn't mean he did not. Also, we are not told whether a soldier loyal to Saul asked him his business like at a checkpoint.
For as much as the intentions of the heart matter just as much - or more - than the actions of a man, then is not the intent or plan to deceive essentially an act of deception even if no one asks such that the intent is never actualized?
I felt the need to add here that I fully agree with the post above that Samuel's deception was an act of righteous defiance to a fallen authority - one in whom God himself has declared an enemy - much like the righteous defiance of the Apostles against the command to stop preaching in the name of Jesus.
Last edited:
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
Not so, I think. It is not a question if the apostles fulfilling the apostolic mandate to preach is wrong or right. It is a question whether it is ever right to lie or deceive; in every case, it is proper for an apostle, as apostle, to preach. In no case, I think, is it ever proper to misrepresent the truth of a matter, whether about God or man.
Consider this:
1. It is always wrong to misrepresent God. (unobjectionable; not even if my life were on the line, or my father's, or my wife, might I deny the Lordship of Christ)
2. God created and sustains all things. (unobjectionable)
3. The things God created and sustains must be represented truthfully to rightly represent God (unobjectionable, if God is omnipotent, since a fact about any one thing implies a proposition that ultimately connects to God, who in his power maintains that thing is a thing, so misrepresenting one proposition is effectively denying God)
4. Therefore, it is always wrong to misrepresent anything, God or whatever isn't God.
Put another way, God decreed all things to pass. To misrepresent any thing which has come to pass is to tell a lie about what God has decreed. To tell a lie about what God has decreed is to tell a lie about God. But it is always wrong to tell a lie about God. Therefore, it is never permitted a moral agent to lie.
In the same way, it is to misrepresent Michael Phelps to claim Michael Phelps never won an olympic gold. One is speaking a lie about Phelps. So, when we tell a lie about a fact of history, we tell a lie about God. But it is always wrong to misrepresent God.
So our exegesis is mistaken, and the weight the Bible places on truth speaking lips and truth telling hearts and truth declaring preachers must override poor exegesis that attributes God as a deceiver, when only Satan demands that descriptor.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I would be curious then to know how any (or all) explain/interpret Psalm 56 in light of I Samuel 21.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Please stay focused. It is not misrepresentation for Samuel to say he is going to sacrifice but it is a lie of omission to withhold the info about his meeting Jesse and anointing the next king (regardless of whether anyone actually asked or not, the intention is there).
All that stuff about Phelps and God being a deceiver is agreed upon by all here.
Is it right for an apostle to hide his intentions to go to Antioch when Saul is persecuting? Sure, for the authorities are at war with God and by extension his people. That is why I said the righteous defiance is similar.
In each case, the ruling body is at war with God and defiance is righteous - whether outright refusal to cease from preaching or not self-disclosing one is a disciple of Christ while on the run from Jerusalem to Samaria. Or not disclosing to Saul that I have a Christian in my guest bedroom while he is looking to imprison them. Even by outright lying to Saul's face! He is an enemy of God. Wouldn't Paul be grateful later that there would be one fewer persecuted on his conscience? If I told the truth, am I not violating the 6th Commandment in a foolish attempt to uphold the 9th?
Last edited:
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Then why is Peter usually chided for his denial of Christ in the face of persecution instead of it being the blueprint on what a Christian should do in the face of it?
I.
1 Samuel 21:13 — And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.
No lies are necessary to act weird and scrab doors. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that all withholding of information and all unreported and unexplained actions are lies or immoral.
[automerge]1749134074[/automerge]
II. Clear passages have already been cited in the thread. The only question ought to be if there are exceptions, and of what nature those would be. The burden of proof is on the one that argues for an exemption.
Leviticus 19:11b
Ye shall not deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Colossians 3:9
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I actually have evidence that a couple here have inferred such by their lines of reasoning.
[automerge]1749134198[/automerge]
Because denying Christ is a sin? He said if we deny him before men, then he will deny us before the Father?
III. Emotional appeal. Let's also open a thread about aborting products of rape?
But let's assume there is not an exemption for this (and if evidence to the contrary is presented I am willing to accept that there is one). What about this?
Gestapo at the door: Do you have any Jews?
Christian: Why would I have Jews?
And etc.
Is the risk higher? Yes. But we may not do evil that good may come.
[automerge]1749134355[/automerge]
Who? In which post?
They'd have to answer for themselves.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
You are missing the point entirely. @RamistThomist factually made no emotional appeal. He was employing a reductio ad absurdum which your suggested fix does not in fact resolve; it merely rewords but the same principle applies: To ask why to a yes-or-no question is to say the same thing as "I will not lie but I will not say if I do or don't". The whole point is that it is possible that telling the truth does more evil than not.
It is possible to break the 6th Commandment in order to foolishly uphold the 9th.
- Status
Similar threads
