Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207933 | ||
Bowler, “Both had their actions approved by God and that included lying, although the scriptures do not say that God condoned that particular part. But since there was never going to be plan B, then God ordained that they would lie, whether that was a sin or not, to save some lives that were central to God's plan…” Really?! You seek to justify lying but your reasoning falls short. Why? Because it contradicts God’s laws! God ordained that we not lie! How could you possibly even think that a holy God would ordain the very thing His law prohibits? I am amazed at such a statement! Surely there is a great need for us to be mindful of who He is. Are you really advocating that God’s plan was dependent on a lie? Wow! You said “I am not saying God condones sin”. Well, you did this very thing when you say He ordained it. You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? You ask the question, “why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying?” Because the biblical principles are those of God. They are His laws not mankind’s to rank and to implement as he sees fit to suit his own needs and understanding. Now, let me ask you why would you assume God would accept and/or condone the disobeying of His laws to fulfill the requirements of another? Does this question help you see the fallacy in your argument? In your comments about Anne Frank, what lie of omission are you talking about? You said “Question; why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying? Which one is worse lying, or being complicit in murder? That reminds me of a certain group of people that believed you could not do anything on the Sabbath because it was one of the Ten Commandment sins, as is lying, but Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" to paraphrase that is the jist of what He meant. I think that says it all right there. I think we should be willing to consider that there are higher goods and acts than law keeping and preservation of somebody elses life might be one of them.” I do not assume God would be pleased that I stood on biblical principles and refused to lie as if that were a better good then saving a life. The assumption is with you not me! What needs to be understood is that both are sinful, God does not expect nor condone we do either one nor does he present us with the option of choosing one over the other. It is the fallacy in fallen men to think he has to lie to save the life. It is the fallacy in the hearts and minds of fallen men who also misunderstand and misrepresent God’s laws. Case in point, the paraphrase you gave is not what the scripture teaches so let’s be careful how we approach the word to bolster our position. Matthew 12:11-12 (NASB) 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Note the Lord says in verse 12, it is LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath. You on the other hand present it as the breaking of the law which in fact is the same thing those who set out to trap the Lord was doing. Can you see the error? He did not break one law for what you would call a better good. There is no “better good” in breaking any law! Steve |
||||||
2 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207973 | ||
Steve You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? Yes I am thinking my way through this before answering, please see the link Doc gave me to try to understand that the reasoning is not that God "condones sin", but that allowing it is all part of His plan, and whatever is in His plan He ordains, or it does not happen. The link says some very interesting and illuminating things about why the fall was ever allowed, why sin itself was ever allowed - they are part of God's plan. Before I studied what Doc tried to explain to me, I had trouble with this whole concept myself. But this is about what He pointed out to me - If we say that anything were able to happpen which God has not ordained than He is no longer a Sovereign God with sovereign power over all things, - it would be like saying something has more power than God to affect, or effect something to be able to happen - if that indeed can be true then God is not any longer God, but less than God. Think about that one for a while if you please while you try that link down there. I finaly hunted down for you what I keep referring to that Doc laid on me about Secondary Causes which serves to explain some of what I have been talking about - http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/god_evil.html I can see from your post you are still stuck on that you think, mistakenly that I am condoning lying as right, as that "doing good" is breaking the Law. Do you really believe that since "How much more valuable then is man than sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath"? Please tell me how saving someone's life is any different than this example that Jesus gave? I am not interested so very much in the technical terms of whatever gets done to save a life as "breaking the law" as opposed to "doing what is lawful". What I keep trying to say is that saving a life is right and worrying about how your righteousness meter is measuring up because you keep all the laws is not in the face of saving that life. If it is a fallacy for man to think that he had to lie to save a life then how come no one, including God never confronted David or Rahab or Johanthon for lying to do so? How come Rahab was not condemned for doing so? How come none of them were? Parting thought; if there was only plan A which God ordained, and if that plan included sin, then how is it that God did not ordain sin in some sense or another to be able to happen? Or else there would be a plan B, which there is not and never shall be. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Morant61 | 207984 | ||
Greetings Bowler! I checked out your recommended link. Two immediate points jumped off of the page. The author claims that God is the first cause of everything, but He is not the author of sin. This statement doesn't even make logical sense, let alone Scriptural sense. :-) How can someone be the first cause of 'everything', but at the same time, not be responsible for 'something'? Secondly, the author claims that the ten commandments are binding upon man, but not God. So, it is wrong for us to sin, but it is okay for God to sin. He writes: "Standing on the "rock foundation" of the Word of God as our axiomatic starting point (Matthew 7:24-25), we have an answer to the problem of evil. God, who is altogether holy and can do no wrong, sovereignly decrees evil things to take place for his own good purposes (Isaiah 45:7). Just because He has decreed it, his action is right." For a better discussion of sovereignty, check out A. W. Tozer's, 'The Pursuit of God'. The second chapter deals with God's sovereignty in a much more logical and Biblical fashion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208015 | ||
Tim Moran I wish I could find, and I keep on trying to find some of Doc's older posts on this issue, but I lost the sticky. You said the following - The author claims that God is the first cause of everything, but He is not the author of sin. This statement doesn't even make logical sense, let alone Scriptural sense. :-) How can someone be the first cause of 'everything', but at the same time, not be responsible for 'something'? Here is how this works as it was explained to me that I cannot now find the post number to - God is the first cause of everything, He created everything. Sin is not something that was ever created by God or any one else, sin is the absence of God's righteousness in created beings, much in the way that the absence of health is sickness. God never caused sin, He allowed it. Whatever God allows He has ordained, although He may not have created sin, or evil, He allows them as part of plan A. God is not the author of sin, God never sins, He is holy, but He allows others to sin. God allowed Adam to sin, but why? If Adam had been allowed to be righteous by his own abiblity to be righteous, that would have been salvation by works. Adam being made righteous by works, would have resulted in Adam having salvation apart from the gift of the grace of God. Allowing Adam salvation apart from God results in idol worship, resulting again in the fall with no recourse for repentance to the faith of the grace of salvation if salvation is only by works. God had to allow Adam to sin and fall in order to be able to give Adam's race the free gift of the grace of salvation so that salvation would not rest in works. Therefore God allowing sin is God ordained to outwork God's total plan for humanity although God never does sin. This is the concept that God does the primary Causes and that man does the secondary Causes and that God is not the author of secondary Causes but that He does ordain them and use them to further and complete His plan. This explains David and Bathsheba as adulterers having Solomon as God's plan A, it explains David and Jonathon lying to Saul with a plot to save David's life as God's plan A, it explains Rahab lying to save the spies and Israel as God's plan A, it explains the Hebrew mid-wives lying to protect the babies and Moses from Pharaoh as God's plan A, it explains David killing whole towns to save the lives of his troup and lying about it as God's plan A. How can the Ten Commandments be binding on God as the Law is given to those who sin? The do not apply to God becuase He will never ever break them. I agree however that the premise as described by the author in that link regarding Isaiah is faulty becuase the text does not say that God causes evil, it says He causes "calamity", which is like saying He causes Typhoons or earthquakes, or plagues - but all those things do take place to fulfill His purposes although many are killed by them. I wil attempt to check out your book there as I am always willing to remain open to further examination of things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||