Sometimes when people go to other people for counseling unfortunately they just want someone to agree with them.
I see lying in any form very evil and plus who arewe to say anything to the potter? We are clay and will never truly understand all GODS ways,
HIS ways and thoughts higher always having a purpose for HIS own.
Someday when we stand before HIM it will be worth the suffering we
have had to endure.
The TRUTH shall set us free!
Pls stand for truth even if it costs you ALL in this life.
what a witness truth is for all who are observing
A Question for Damon
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
-
_achsteven
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Telling holy lies?
After looking at the previous posts, here are a few thoughts.
The first is with respect to the biblical endorsement of Rahab's deed in hiding the spies. Admittedly, I'd pondered why the scriptures would grant approval to her manifestly deceitful actions - more than once. Though, after taking a closer look at the passages that commend her - the accounts never lend any support to the fact that she had lied. Following are the only three verses, that I'm aware of, from which someone might presume that the text is supporting Rahab's dishonest action:
Joshua 6:25 "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."
Hebrews 11:31 "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."
James 2:25 "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"
In the first verse (Joshua 6:25), Joshua saved her, her father's household (family), and her stuff - "because she hid the messengers".
The second verse (Hebrews 11:31) mentions why she did not perish, evidently she faithfully "had received the spies with peace".
Finally, the third verse (James 2:25) commends her works of faith in again pointing out that "she had received the messengers" - as the previous verse in Hebrews - only adding the fact that she "had sent them out another way".
The deceitful actions that followed these events were never commended in the text, thus I don't think Rahab's honorable mention in the scriptures warrants lying in any form.
Still in response to Michelle's post, I think you mentioned the holocaust victims. This is a difficult scenereo for me to realistically consider, though historically there may be something to work with in the life of Corrie Ten Boom (if I misspelled her name, it's not due to lack of respect). If not mistaken - her testimony disclosed that, within her house in Harlaam (Nederlands), she had been secretly lodging jews during ww2. If you're not already familiar with the story - nazi's showed up at the house, evidently making enquiry as to whether there were any jews concealed inside. Whether it were her or her sister, I don't recall, though one of them (likely crying out in desparate, silent prayers for wisdom) responded in a fit of laughter - probably overwhelmed by the situation. In answer to the question - she then pointed to a table, and said something resembling "Yes, they're (the jews are) hiding under the kitchen table." As the storyline goes, the nazi's left. Though the jews were hidden under the time, the nazi soldiers may have reasoned that she was being sarcastic, and figured it wasn't worth the time. Either way, it appears to me that the Almighty probably engineered that one...I don't see why He wouldn't do something similar for someone else, at another time - amidst other circumstances.
The response to the underground church seems easier, inthat the church ought not to be intimidated by threats. Heb 2:14-15 points out that Jesus has destroyed death - suggesting that as Christians - it's not something that we should continue to fear. As the just live by faith, the church may yield it's most staggering witness to the world by remaining stedfast in the faith under the agony of torture. The scriptures suggest to me that our pilgrimage on this earth ends in a glorious awakening to recognize our King and the country He's given us - more fully - should we be granted the honor to die for our faith (simply dying in the faith will do) - as dying is gain. This is what we've been waiting for. It helps for me to take a faithful gaze at Rev 21:1-7. Though sadly, continuing on through verse 8 guarantees a different future promise for "the fearful, and unbelieving" - "and all liars".
The church (aka 'the pillar and ground of the truth') loses it's credibility, thus it's testimony if it lies. In response to "LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? - Psalm 15 mentions (among other things) "He that"..."speaketh the truth in his heart", and "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." I am encouraged by the fact that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to imagine Jesus Christ lying.
Matthew 26 says that "the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
*** Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."
Jesus answered the question, without obfuscating or confusing the facts about who He is - fully aware of the consequences following as a result of telling the truth. He demonstrated obedience, to the high priest's authority in doing so. He was obedient unto death. It makes sense that we should follow His example and do the same, rather than occupy ourselves with clever excuses for anything less (namely lying).
Not sure why the fellow Damon would wonder about my interpretation of 1 Kings 22, considering that the subject I'd addressed was whether it were right for a Christian to lie or not. Rather than speculate about the passage mentioning the lying spirit, I'll just admit that the sometimes 'strange' work of God's Sovereignty is often 'too high for me'.
The question posed would strike me with much more relevancy to the progression of thought (in this string of posts) - if he (Damon) were somehow implying that for a Christian to lie would suggest that a lying spirit had been speaking through him or her. Though, I'm fairly confident that this was not his intention...
Again, "no lie is of the truth".
"The desire of a man is His kindness, and a poor man is better than a liar."
-sd
p.s. Guest: Amen.
The first is with respect to the biblical endorsement of Rahab's deed in hiding the spies. Admittedly, I'd pondered why the scriptures would grant approval to her manifestly deceitful actions - more than once. Though, after taking a closer look at the passages that commend her - the accounts never lend any support to the fact that she had lied. Following are the only three verses, that I'm aware of, from which someone might presume that the text is supporting Rahab's dishonest action:
Joshua 6:25 "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."
Hebrews 11:31 "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."
James 2:25 "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"
In the first verse (Joshua 6:25), Joshua saved her, her father's household (family), and her stuff - "because she hid the messengers".
The second verse (Hebrews 11:31) mentions why she did not perish, evidently she faithfully "had received the spies with peace".
Finally, the third verse (James 2:25) commends her works of faith in again pointing out that "she had received the messengers" - as the previous verse in Hebrews - only adding the fact that she "had sent them out another way".
The deceitful actions that followed these events were never commended in the text, thus I don't think Rahab's honorable mention in the scriptures warrants lying in any form.
Still in response to Michelle's post, I think you mentioned the holocaust victims. This is a difficult scenereo for me to realistically consider, though historically there may be something to work with in the life of Corrie Ten Boom (if I misspelled her name, it's not due to lack of respect). If not mistaken - her testimony disclosed that, within her house in Harlaam (Nederlands), she had been secretly lodging jews during ww2. If you're not already familiar with the story - nazi's showed up at the house, evidently making enquiry as to whether there were any jews concealed inside. Whether it were her or her sister, I don't recall, though one of them (likely crying out in desparate, silent prayers for wisdom) responded in a fit of laughter - probably overwhelmed by the situation. In answer to the question - she then pointed to a table, and said something resembling "Yes, they're (the jews are) hiding under the kitchen table." As the storyline goes, the nazi's left. Though the jews were hidden under the time, the nazi soldiers may have reasoned that she was being sarcastic, and figured it wasn't worth the time. Either way, it appears to me that the Almighty probably engineered that one...I don't see why He wouldn't do something similar for someone else, at another time - amidst other circumstances.
The response to the underground church seems easier, inthat the church ought not to be intimidated by threats. Heb 2:14-15 points out that Jesus has destroyed death - suggesting that as Christians - it's not something that we should continue to fear. As the just live by faith, the church may yield it's most staggering witness to the world by remaining stedfast in the faith under the agony of torture. The scriptures suggest to me that our pilgrimage on this earth ends in a glorious awakening to recognize our King and the country He's given us - more fully - should we be granted the honor to die for our faith (simply dying in the faith will do) - as dying is gain. This is what we've been waiting for. It helps for me to take a faithful gaze at Rev 21:1-7. Though sadly, continuing on through verse 8 guarantees a different future promise for "the fearful, and unbelieving" - "and all liars".
The church (aka 'the pillar and ground of the truth') loses it's credibility, thus it's testimony if it lies. In response to "LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? - Psalm 15 mentions (among other things) "He that"..."speaketh the truth in his heart", and "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." I am encouraged by the fact that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to imagine Jesus Christ lying.
Matthew 26 says that "the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
*** Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."
Jesus answered the question, without obfuscating or confusing the facts about who He is - fully aware of the consequences following as a result of telling the truth. He demonstrated obedience, to the high priest's authority in doing so. He was obedient unto death. It makes sense that we should follow His example and do the same, rather than occupy ourselves with clever excuses for anything less (namely lying).
Not sure why the fellow Damon would wonder about my interpretation of 1 Kings 22, considering that the subject I'd addressed was whether it were right for a Christian to lie or not. Rather than speculate about the passage mentioning the lying spirit, I'll just admit that the sometimes 'strange' work of God's Sovereignty is often 'too high for me'.
The question posed would strike me with much more relevancy to the progression of thought (in this string of posts) - if he (Damon) were somehow implying that for a Christian to lie would suggest that a lying spirit had been speaking through him or her. Though, I'm fairly confident that this was not his intention...
Again, "no lie is of the truth".
"The desire of a man is His kindness, and a poor man is better than a liar."
-sd
p.s. Guest: Amen.
Last edited by Heritrix [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Achsteven.
I'd like you to consider a parallel to what I was suggesting to Michelle. See, if she vouched for her hypothetical friend whom she knew had a problem, although he was trying to overcome it, she would be putting her own reputation on the line. Right?
Consider that Jesus does the exact same thing before the Father. He vouches for us, that we are worthy of eternal life, even though we drag His Holy Name through the mud every time we sin.
Are we washed through His blood? Yes we are. The concept is that our sins have caused Him to suffer, rather than us. He took the blame for our sins, and He endured the punishment - death. That would be analagous to Michelle taking the blame for her hypothetical friend if he were to relapse and start drinking again.
So I still disagree with you. You've answered, concerning 1 Kings 22, that "sometimes God's work is too high for you" to understand, because it doesn't fit your belief pattern. But it fits mine, so I remain unconvinced that I'm in the wrong here.
Damon
I'd like you to consider a parallel to what I was suggesting to Michelle. See, if she vouched for her hypothetical friend whom she knew had a problem, although he was trying to overcome it, she would be putting her own reputation on the line. Right?
Consider that Jesus does the exact same thing before the Father. He vouches for us, that we are worthy of eternal life, even though we drag His Holy Name through the mud every time we sin.
Are we washed through His blood? Yes we are. The concept is that our sins have caused Him to suffer, rather than us. He took the blame for our sins, and He endured the punishment - death. That would be analagous to Michelle taking the blame for her hypothetical friend if he were to relapse and start drinking again.
So I still disagree with you. You've answered, concerning 1 Kings 22, that "sometimes God's work is too high for you" to understand, because it doesn't fit your belief pattern. But it fits mine, so I remain unconvinced that I'm in the wrong here.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Brothers & Sisters,
It is good to see a topic of practical interest!
I am a hierarchicalist. If you a unfamiliar with this term, hierarchicalism posits that there are norms of behavior that rank higher in value than others and that the higher must take precedence over the lower. Our duty to obey God supercedes our duty to man: "we must obey God rather than man". Sometimes there is a real conflict in moral duty. The moral absolutist would say you must choose the lesser of two evils, but in either case you sin. I reject this view.
Rahab is a well known example because she is listed as a hero of the faith. It is pointless to say her lie isn't mentioned when her actions in hiding the spies involved deceit. And what of the Hebrew midwives in the Old Testament who disobeyed the king and lied to save innocent lives and God blessed them for it? Daniel and his friends disobeyed the law and were preserved and blessed by God. And what of Abraham who was told to slay his son? His duty to obey the infinite God trumped his duty to love his son.
Also consider David. He and his men ate the showbread, an inexcusable sin EXCEPT Jesus excused him for it. Why? Love for starving people!
Consider the Ten Commandments. Even there conflict can arise. God is No. 1. What if your parents demand that you not love God (this is not an uncommon thing)? You determine not to "honor your parents". You disobey them and love God. Do you sin? How absurd!
Many cases occur in everyday life. Suppose you know of a family with a violent husband, known for abusing his family. One night you hear a knock at your door and opening it you find the the mother, beaten and bloody, pleading for shelter, with two small children. You escort them in and take them to a back room to attend to her wounds. Then a loud knock at the door. You open it to find an angry husband and notice a gun protruding from the waist of his pants! He angrily demands to know if you have seen his wife and kids. You quickly say no, they are not here, and he leaves. Did you sin? I think not! The law of love for your neighbor trumps the law of truth telling in this case. No exception is made to the norm of truth telling: it is not made void but there is an exemption in order to fulfill the higer obligation to save the lives of the mother and children.
Love to God and our neighbor is above all other laws. That said, we must use the greatest caution. It is hardly appropriate to lie to save ourselves or others from some inconvenience or embarrassment.
It is good to see a topic of practical interest!
I am a hierarchicalist. If you a unfamiliar with this term, hierarchicalism posits that there are norms of behavior that rank higher in value than others and that the higher must take precedence over the lower. Our duty to obey God supercedes our duty to man: "we must obey God rather than man". Sometimes there is a real conflict in moral duty. The moral absolutist would say you must choose the lesser of two evils, but in either case you sin. I reject this view.
Rahab is a well known example because she is listed as a hero of the faith. It is pointless to say her lie isn't mentioned when her actions in hiding the spies involved deceit. And what of the Hebrew midwives in the Old Testament who disobeyed the king and lied to save innocent lives and God blessed them for it? Daniel and his friends disobeyed the law and were preserved and blessed by God. And what of Abraham who was told to slay his son? His duty to obey the infinite God trumped his duty to love his son.
Also consider David. He and his men ate the showbread, an inexcusable sin EXCEPT Jesus excused him for it. Why? Love for starving people!
Consider the Ten Commandments. Even there conflict can arise. God is No. 1. What if your parents demand that you not love God (this is not an uncommon thing)? You determine not to "honor your parents". You disobey them and love God. Do you sin? How absurd!
Many cases occur in everyday life. Suppose you know of a family with a violent husband, known for abusing his family. One night you hear a knock at your door and opening it you find the the mother, beaten and bloody, pleading for shelter, with two small children. You escort them in and take them to a back room to attend to her wounds. Then a loud knock at the door. You open it to find an angry husband and notice a gun protruding from the waist of his pants! He angrily demands to know if you have seen his wife and kids. You quickly say no, they are not here, and he leaves. Did you sin? I think not! The law of love for your neighbor trumps the law of truth telling in this case. No exception is made to the norm of truth telling: it is not made void but there is an exemption in order to fulfill the higer obligation to save the lives of the mother and children.
Love to God and our neighbor is above all other laws. That said, we must use the greatest caution. It is hardly appropriate to lie to save ourselves or others from some inconvenience or embarrassment.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Thanks, Homer. It's heartening to see that there are people like you who really understand the way it is. ^_^
We don't live in an ideal world (yet), folks! If we did, there wouldn't be any need to lie, ever.
Damon
We don't live in an ideal world (yet), folks! If we did, there wouldn't be any need to lie, ever.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Thanks for your insight Homer. You echoed my thoughts exactly...I was even thinking about posting something along the lines of your story about the abuser with a gun. I also agree with you that I wouldn't lie to save myself, but maybe I would to save others. I'm not too sure how often this comes up in a lifetime, however.
Once I ran across a discussion where someone asked, "what would you do if you were taken hostage and asked to renounce Christ in order to live?" Most, if not all, of the participants said that they would renounce Him and ask for forgiveness later. I somehow don't think it works that way. I think I would choose death; it would be an honor to die that way, to tell the truth. (ha!, sorry)
What if you thought that God lied. Would you trust Him? I don't think I would - how would you know that he was telling the truth when He said that everything worked together for good?
Once I ran across a discussion where someone asked, "what would you do if you were taken hostage and asked to renounce Christ in order to live?" Most, if not all, of the participants said that they would renounce Him and ask for forgiveness later. I somehow don't think it works that way. I think I would choose death; it would be an honor to die that way, to tell the truth. (ha!, sorry)
What if you thought that God lied. Would you trust Him? I don't think I would - how would you know that he was telling the truth when He said that everything worked together for good?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
-
_achsteven
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Pragmatism vs. the gospel of the Kingdom...
Homer may have suggested that it was 'good to see a topic of practical interest' - I concur with that sentiment. Hypothetical situations are often convenient imaginary tools, but reality is the field in which Christians labor.
Damon, not sure if I see the picture you've painted - are you suggesting that the Son is lying to the Father by granting pardon to the faithful?
Homer, you've presented a compelling case from biblical history. That is, -if- we overlook God's 'higher strategy' in preserving a people, through whom, to make His Name great among the nations. Scripture bears witness that this is what He has been doing - and indeed has done (and will continue to do), specifically through the one Seed (Jesus Christ) in sowing the Kingdom of God among all nations of the world.
The point is that all of the examples that you had mentioned were prior to the ratifying of the new covenant - through which the testimony of Christ is evidenced as what is now inside works itself out though every believer. Though the Almighty may have 'winked at' the examples cited from the Old Testament - I find no valid reason, as a citizen under the current adminstration of the Kingdom of God, to presently expect the same treatment.
In 2 Corinthians 4:2 Paul states that we "have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
It's interesting how parallels surface between the use of physical violence by Christians, and the use of a little deceit. Either the use of deceit or forceful violence are often times presented as standard protocol or the charitible way of handling a potentially violent setting. Though there is nowhere, that I'm privy to, in the New Testament that we have been given any instruction (or example) permitting us to exercise either one, yet we have within it a bulk of teaching to train us otherwise.
For clarity sake, it seems important to acknowledge the obvious fact that the faithful of the Old Testament were not free to arbitrarily exercise truth as a utility whenever it might serve a convenient end. Rather, it's pretty much a given that God's people are to be honest at whatever point on history's timeline they may fall. I do not believe those (before 'the fulness of time'=BC) had tasted of the powers of the spiritual birth from above the way that Christians have. For 'the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' - or 'the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Thus, there ought to be an evidence among us that proves itself out by our actions, though if we consent to using deceit in conducting our affairs - I'm not sure that the evidence will amount to much...
Peacefully,
-sd
Damon, not sure if I see the picture you've painted - are you suggesting that the Son is lying to the Father by granting pardon to the faithful?
Homer, you've presented a compelling case from biblical history. That is, -if- we overlook God's 'higher strategy' in preserving a people, through whom, to make His Name great among the nations. Scripture bears witness that this is what He has been doing - and indeed has done (and will continue to do), specifically through the one Seed (Jesus Christ) in sowing the Kingdom of God among all nations of the world.
The point is that all of the examples that you had mentioned were prior to the ratifying of the new covenant - through which the testimony of Christ is evidenced as what is now inside works itself out though every believer. Though the Almighty may have 'winked at' the examples cited from the Old Testament - I find no valid reason, as a citizen under the current adminstration of the Kingdom of God, to presently expect the same treatment.
In 2 Corinthians 4:2 Paul states that we "have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
It's interesting how parallels surface between the use of physical violence by Christians, and the use of a little deceit. Either the use of deceit or forceful violence are often times presented as standard protocol or the charitible way of handling a potentially violent setting. Though there is nowhere, that I'm privy to, in the New Testament that we have been given any instruction (or example) permitting us to exercise either one, yet we have within it a bulk of teaching to train us otherwise.
For clarity sake, it seems important to acknowledge the obvious fact that the faithful of the Old Testament were not free to arbitrarily exercise truth as a utility whenever it might serve a convenient end. Rather, it's pretty much a given that God's people are to be honest at whatever point on history's timeline they may fall. I do not believe those (before 'the fulness of time'=BC) had tasted of the powers of the spiritual birth from above the way that Christians have. For 'the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' - or 'the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Thus, there ought to be an evidence among us that proves itself out by our actions, though if we consent to using deceit in conducting our affairs - I'm not sure that the evidence will amount to much...
Peacefully,
-sd
Last edited by Heritrix [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Again!
During the present age, under the New Covenant, children are commanded to obey their parents. It is not at all unusual for parents to forbid their children to become Christians. Which command do they obey?
We are also commanded to love our parents but Jesus said we are to love Him more.
Over 30 years ago the North Koreans captured the USS Pueblo in international waters and took the crew and ship into captivity. The North Koreans lied, saying the ship was in their waters. They demanded that the ship's captain, Lloyd Bucher, sign a document admitting his ship was in their waters, a lie. If he did not sign the document, his crew would be put to death. Captain Bucher signed the false document and he and is crew were set free. Was his lie a sin? Was he not obliged to love his crewmen and was this not a higher duty?
I realize it can be argued that Bucher could have refused to lie and left it in God's hands. Sounds like "putting God to the test" to me.
How often these conflicts happen I can not say but they obviously do. I have to believe Jesus faced them too; He was tempted in every way we are. What did He do? We know what He did when walking through the grain field with His disciples. He excused their behavior and he did not claim their havesting grain was a "de minimus" violation but compared it to David's eating the showbread, clearly a violation of the Law.
Yours in Christ, Homer
During the present age, under the New Covenant, children are commanded to obey their parents. It is not at all unusual for parents to forbid their children to become Christians. Which command do they obey?
We are also commanded to love our parents but Jesus said we are to love Him more.
Over 30 years ago the North Koreans captured the USS Pueblo in international waters and took the crew and ship into captivity. The North Koreans lied, saying the ship was in their waters. They demanded that the ship's captain, Lloyd Bucher, sign a document admitting his ship was in their waters, a lie. If he did not sign the document, his crew would be put to death. Captain Bucher signed the false document and he and is crew were set free. Was his lie a sin? Was he not obliged to love his crewmen and was this not a higher duty?
I realize it can be argued that Bucher could have refused to lie and left it in God's hands. Sounds like "putting God to the test" to me.
How often these conflicts happen I can not say but they obviously do. I have to believe Jesus faced them too; He was tempted in every way we are. What did He do? We know what He did when walking through the grain field with His disciples. He excused their behavior and he did not claim their havesting grain was a "de minimus" violation but compared it to David's eating the showbread, clearly a violation of the Law.
Yours in Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_achsteven
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Buy the truth, and sell it not...
Hello again Homer-
You'd cited a question contrasting a childs obedience to earthy parents vs. obedience to God. Following the question, you'd presented what I consider to be a biblically informed answer.
The next paragraph introduced the trying dilemma of a navy captain from the 60's. Indeed, I recognize this as a trial far more complicated than any other that I've personally been faced with (naturally speaking). Yet, I suspect that there are components that are not so simple to catalog from a human point of view - that are known full well to God.
One such detail would be the fact that this man had sworn an oath to give his loyalty to the US military. I believe there to be a fitting parallel found within your previous comment respecting a child's obedience to parents - while submission to parents necessarily conflicted with obedience to God. Loyalty to Jesus as one's master is not consistent with pledging ones identity away to the US military. The matter is evident enough to me from scripture that there most likely will be a conflict in loyalties there - as the military tends not to bear the fruits of the Spirit of Christ. Yea or nay?
As the case at hand requires such a complete paradigm shift from that of being a Kingdom-minded person, the setting is hardly a realistic one for a Christian to entertain. As Jesus said "according to your faith, be it done unto you" - it is not out of reach to expect that the foreknowledge and Sovereignty of God may cooperate so well (in governing circumstances) as to prevent those who believe from ever being siezed by such uncommon a temptation as would not permit for a biblically sound (faithful) escape route.
If one were serving a different master=namely anyone/thing but Christ, it seems plausable that they may encounter unsavory elements as would be in keeping with whatever yoke they may have stumbled into - be it the US military, drug addiction, adultery, or whatever. In other words, taking the oath to write-off one's life to become military property might have something to do with setting the stage. Though, if one were willing to covenant with the world by making a military vow - literally pledging that you would take human lives as service to a worldly nation, I don't know that making one deceitful statement on a piece of paper would mean much? (not intending to indict the late captain)
Part of my concern about what appears to trivialize or grant license to equivocate the truth (based on circumstances) is the tremendous bias we all have toward believing our sensory data that would diminish or even subvert living life by faith. Combine that with zero biblical guidelines as to when it's appropriate to use deceit (aware that this is the point of dispute in the discussion), and it's a no brainer for me. I see no sound reference point as to when to stop - when I'm hungry, do I steal? A Christian's time could be better used preaching the gospel, shall we find more expedient ways to generate income by dishonest means? If the reference point is human life - who said so? Must we live?
Another thought - If satan is the father of lies, does using deceit suggest partnering with him as a mother in the birthing process?
If the message didn't come clear by implication - the scriptures suggest to me that if trials are not customized by design, the effect of faithfully enduring them certainly is (James 1, 1 Peter 1). This being the case, apart from the promises of God, the best we can do to calculate their outcome is offer speculation from the natural realm as to what the results will look like. This seems to me to be a very wrong-headed, disbelieving way to think.
You had mentioned David eating the bread with the connection Jesus pointed out as the disciples had been gleaning on the sabbath. The Mark 2 rendering has the words of Jesus - "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" suggesting to me that the sabbath was not designed to impede what a man ought to be doing, a man's livelihood is evidently more important than the formalities of sabbath observance. If Jesus were responding to a challenge toward David's actions of eating the bread - my guess is he may have said something similar - Food/bread "was made for man, and not man for" bread. Though, when I try that with the word truth - Truth "was made for man, and not man for" truth - it doesn't work for me, the truth is not a perishable item, nor is it expendable - buy the truth and sell it not...
Finally, we are in agreement that Jesus faced similar conflicts - the records are plain enough that, as had been stated in an earlier post, "He was obedient unto death"...
Gratefully,
-sd
You'd cited a question contrasting a childs obedience to earthy parents vs. obedience to God. Following the question, you'd presented what I consider to be a biblically informed answer.
The next paragraph introduced the trying dilemma of a navy captain from the 60's. Indeed, I recognize this as a trial far more complicated than any other that I've personally been faced with (naturally speaking). Yet, I suspect that there are components that are not so simple to catalog from a human point of view - that are known full well to God.
One such detail would be the fact that this man had sworn an oath to give his loyalty to the US military. I believe there to be a fitting parallel found within your previous comment respecting a child's obedience to parents - while submission to parents necessarily conflicted with obedience to God. Loyalty to Jesus as one's master is not consistent with pledging ones identity away to the US military. The matter is evident enough to me from scripture that there most likely will be a conflict in loyalties there - as the military tends not to bear the fruits of the Spirit of Christ. Yea or nay?
As the case at hand requires such a complete paradigm shift from that of being a Kingdom-minded person, the setting is hardly a realistic one for a Christian to entertain. As Jesus said "according to your faith, be it done unto you" - it is not out of reach to expect that the foreknowledge and Sovereignty of God may cooperate so well (in governing circumstances) as to prevent those who believe from ever being siezed by such uncommon a temptation as would not permit for a biblically sound (faithful) escape route.
If one were serving a different master=namely anyone/thing but Christ, it seems plausable that they may encounter unsavory elements as would be in keeping with whatever yoke they may have stumbled into - be it the US military, drug addiction, adultery, or whatever. In other words, taking the oath to write-off one's life to become military property might have something to do with setting the stage. Though, if one were willing to covenant with the world by making a military vow - literally pledging that you would take human lives as service to a worldly nation, I don't know that making one deceitful statement on a piece of paper would mean much? (not intending to indict the late captain)
Part of my concern about what appears to trivialize or grant license to equivocate the truth (based on circumstances) is the tremendous bias we all have toward believing our sensory data that would diminish or even subvert living life by faith. Combine that with zero biblical guidelines as to when it's appropriate to use deceit (aware that this is the point of dispute in the discussion), and it's a no brainer for me. I see no sound reference point as to when to stop - when I'm hungry, do I steal? A Christian's time could be better used preaching the gospel, shall we find more expedient ways to generate income by dishonest means? If the reference point is human life - who said so? Must we live?
Another thought - If satan is the father of lies, does using deceit suggest partnering with him as a mother in the birthing process?
If the message didn't come clear by implication - the scriptures suggest to me that if trials are not customized by design, the effect of faithfully enduring them certainly is (James 1, 1 Peter 1). This being the case, apart from the promises of God, the best we can do to calculate their outcome is offer speculation from the natural realm as to what the results will look like. This seems to me to be a very wrong-headed, disbelieving way to think.
You had mentioned David eating the bread with the connection Jesus pointed out as the disciples had been gleaning on the sabbath. The Mark 2 rendering has the words of Jesus - "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" suggesting to me that the sabbath was not designed to impede what a man ought to be doing, a man's livelihood is evidently more important than the formalities of sabbath observance. If Jesus were responding to a challenge toward David's actions of eating the bread - my guess is he may have said something similar - Food/bread "was made for man, and not man for" bread. Though, when I try that with the word truth - Truth "was made for man, and not man for" truth - it doesn't work for me, the truth is not a perishable item, nor is it expendable - buy the truth and sell it not...
Finally, we are in agreement that Jesus faced similar conflicts - the records are plain enough that, as had been stated in an earlier post, "He was obedient unto death"...
Gratefully,
-sd
Last edited by Heritrix [Crawler] on Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: