A Right to Lie?

Okay, yeah, I should have been a little more clear with that statement. That statement is rather ends-justifies-means. Sorry guys. I should have said that Where God's revealed will (his great love for life, purity, etc.) is going to be profaned maliciously, and falsehood will prevent such blasphemous profanation, such falsehood cannot be sinful because it preserves God's ultimate truth.
The material truth of circumstances and physical details (location, etc.) is not as precious in God's sight as the truth that life is to be preserved, that purity is to be preserved. This exception is identical to the exception for killing to defend others. It is not murder to kill someone about to kill you or your family or other innocent people. Neither is it lying to deceive someone about to kill your family or other innocent people. Their twisted actions are not worthy of the truth or of life, therefore in these cases it is just if absolutely necessary to kill, preferably disable, or even more preferably deceive such evil men in such circumstances.

Sorry, wasn't debating you Nathan. Just got warmed up again. ;)

Thanks,

ka

I've never thought of it like that before; but you are so right! WOW!

All of these have been my thoughts exactly for some time. Thank you for organizing them so eloquently. x)

This is also precisely how I feel about the 5 ^th^ commandment. If we are commanded to do something against the glory of God, even if it is not directly commanded against in Scripture. It's not dishonoring one's parents to honor God with one's Biblical rights–because God has not given fathers the authority to be cruel (see Ephesians 6:4). Eg. Jonathan sabotaging his father's plan to kill David, this not honoring his father's wishes–even though he was not commanded to sin at any time. I know this is slightly off-topic, but I bring it up because it's another application and it's come up before.

The question might arise: does that mean that we can break any of God's commandment as long as it brings glory to God? The answer is: we can break any of God's commandment under any circumstances. We're not dealing with exceptions here. God has given appropriate circumstances for concealing the truth, and He has given fathers limited authority. We see these things in Scripture. So to answer the question, which, if you were thinking it, was innocently worded wrong–there is no circumstance under which making something more important to you God would not be idolatry, fornication would not be adultery, etc.

I hope this makes sense.

'The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' -Augustine of Hippo

'The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' -Augustine of Hippo

Two things.
1: When people talk about "defending the truth", they usually mean proving it to be the truth–debating in favor of it against falsehood. So I think this is probably the context of that quote. "Let it loose" probably means that we just have to preach the truth, and not be insecure that its truthfulness is going to be threatened by falsehood–and know that in many cases, people will be convicted by its truthfulness, not by us.
2: If it is in the context you suggest, then it's wrong. Information does not have power. The quote really makes no sense, honestly… in some cases, you have to preserve the truth or it will be helpless. You can't expect God to make the crops grow unless you plant them. If the truth is exposed, there's nothing more than can be done.

One question,
If telling a lie is right if it protects God's ultimate truth,
is being sexually immoral okay if it protects God's ultimate purity?
is having great hate okay if it somehow furthers God great love?

Pleas tell me if I am wrong, but this seems the next logical step.

Okay more than one question,
How can someone who is to be a vessel of God's ultimate truth, use a lie, to farther God's truth?
Lies come from Satan.
A House divided against itself cannot stand.
~Caleb

1. No; sexual immorality CANNOT protect God's ultimate purity.
2. Great hate for sin, Satan, etc.–yes. But not great hate for people.
3. It's not lying to conceal the truth for a God-honoring purpose in circumstances under which God's glory would be veiled if the truth were known. We should never hide God's ULTIMATE truth, which is the Word.
4. Just because Satan does something doesn't make it wrong. Satan speaks, right? Lying IS wrong–but, well, see my previous point.

on 4. It does not just say "Satan does this, or that" It says "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 NASB
Satan is the father of all lies, all lies come from Him.
Tit. 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
God cannot lie.

No matter which way you look at it, you are still saying that something is not wrong if it furthers right, the same lie would be wrong if it did not further truth. It is still justifying the means.
Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?

1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Leviticus 19:11
You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Proverbs 12:19
The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.

Answers in Genesis has something to say on the subject to.
https://answersingenesis.org/morality/a-righteous-lie/

Blessings, Caleb

Lying refers to dishonesty and cheating. I'll quote Karthmin:

"The material truth of circumstances and physical details (location, etc.) is not as precious in God's sight as the truth that life is to be preserved, that purity is to be preserved. This exception is identical to the exception for killing to defend others. It is not murder to kill someone about to kill you or your family or other innocent people. Neither is it lying to deceive someone about to kill your family or other innocent people. Their twisted actions are not worthy of the truth or of life, therefore in these cases it is just if absolutely necessary to kill, preferably disable, or even more preferably deceive such evil men in such circumstances."

In fact, I highly recommend all of Karthmin's comments on the issue. He said it all.

Okay,
So if you're a person in Germany, the gestapo knocks at your door, wondering if the "smiths" are hiding Jews, you happen to know they were but they have now been arrested. But you say, "I don't even know the Smiths". The gestapo then says that you look like you are related to the smiths and that you look like them, You then reply, (even though you are related) that you don't even know what they are talking about. After all since the smiths have already been arrested this misrepresentation of the truth is right.
Right?
Do you agree with this persons actions?

Okay, So if you're a person in Germany, the gestapo knocks at your door, wondering if the "smiths" are hiding Jews, you happen to know they were but they have now been arrested. But you say, "I don't even know the Smiths". The gestapo then says that you look like you are related to the smiths and that you look like them, You then reply, (even though you are related) that you don't even know what they are talking about. After all since the smiths have already been arrested this misrepresentation of the truth is right. Right? Do you agree with this persons actions?

Yes. Remember that to give them away could also be considered unloving, betrayal, or even negligent homicide. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with those views, but I could respect them if anyone had them.

What is the difference between this account and the previous one?

Mathew 26:69-75

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly

I believe doing it to a Brother in the Lord is equal to doing it to Jesus Himself. In as much as ye have done it unto them ye did it unto me…

To deny Christ is to be ashamed of the Savior. Big diffs.

Jumping in for a quick second here as a neutral party (I don't often get a lot of time to spend on this forum, although I would like to), one could argue that your example of Peter does not apply because Peter's motivation was self-preservation as opposed to seeking the greater good of human life and the ultimate glory of God. Peter being a coward and denying God Himself is different than lying to save human lives. As Nathan and Karthmin have said, one's reason for lying is integrally tied to the very narrow exception of a morally appropriate lie.

Again, this is not necessarily my view on this issue. Since I last posted on this thread, my view has somewhat altered, but I just wanted to post a quick thought that might help to flesh out y'all's positions.

Jumping in for a quick second here as a neutral party (I don't often get a lot of time to spend on this forum, although I would like to), one could argue that your example of Peter does not apply because Peter's motivation was _self_-preservation as opposed to seeking the greater good of human life and the ultimate glory of God. Peter being a coward and denying God Himself is different than lying to save human lives. As Nathan and Karthmin have said, one's _reason_ for lying is integrally tied to the _very_ narrow exception of a morally appropriate lie. Again, this is not necessarily my view on this issue. Since I last posted on this thread, my view has somewhat altered, but I just wanted to post a quick thought that might help to flesh out y'all's positions.

Well, I think that it's okay to preserve the truth to save yourself, just as much as it is to save others, for the greater glory of God–but ANYTHING that denies Christ is evil because it is being ashamed of Him.

I lie when I say "I do not need to write that down, I will remember" - thank God for memverse to help with memory.

Titus 2:7-8- in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.

Is "beyond reproach" telling the truth even when it hurts?

So it is okay to deny a brother in Christ but not Christ himself?

Thanks for your input, I wasn't sure if that was what they actually were saying or not. However, If it is only what your motive is, then if Peter would've had the right motive he would have been doing right, Right?

So it is okay to deny a brother in Christ but not Christ himself?

What reason could one have for denying Christ? Only selfish ones; if you know and believe in Jesus, you could not tell anyone that you do not, unless you are attempting to preserve your own life, reputation, etc. Jesus Himself said that anyone who does this will be denied by Him before the Father.

"Denying" a brother in Christ can easily be much different. In situations such as those mentioned above, telling someone that you do not know a certain Christian can be the best thing you could do for that Christian. You are not deceiving for selfish motives; on the contrary, you are attempting to save the life of your brother.

So when it comes down to it, it is as Jimmy said: what matters is the motive, not the action. Some actions are always wrong, because they are always associated with wrong motives. But deception can be carried out with right motives (in a very select few circumstances), and thus is in fact glorifying to God in those circumstances.

Thanks for your input, I wasn't sure if that was what they actually were saying or not. However, If it is only what your motive is, then if Peter would've had the right motive he would have been doing right, Right?

It would be impossible for Peter to have had the right motive for denying Christ. Can you think of a situation in which he could have a right motive for doing such a thing?

Well, Here could be some of Peter's reasoning…
"If they kill me, who will take care of my family, I would be neglecting my duty as a father.
If they kill me, they might come after my wife too, that would be like assisted murder.
If I say I know Jesus, they might ask if I know Andrew, or James, or John, then they will go and kill them too.
Therefore, it is right for me to say I don't know Jesus, since it is only a minor detail."

If you can distance your self in word only from a brother in Christ, why can't you distance your self in word only from Christ who made you brothers?

In Peters situation if you placed James in Jesus's place, would the sin of Peter be as bad?

"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."~ Matt. 25:45 It could be said that "staying by their side" is what they did not do.

Welcome to the forums, Tom! I have approved your first post; all future posts will be automatically approved.

So it is okay to deny a brother in Christ but not Christ himself?

Well, that could be being ashamed of Christianity…

Thanks for your input, I wasn't sure if that was what they actually were saying or not. However, If it is only what your motive is, then if Peter would've had the right motive he would have been doing right, Right?

Ends do not justify means.

Well, Here could be some of Peter's reasoning... "If they kill me, who will take care of my family, I would be neglecting my duty as a father. If they kill me, they might come after my wife too, that would be like assisted murder. If I say I know Jesus, they might ask if I know Andrew, or James, or John, then they will go and kill them too. Therefore, it is right for me to say I don't know Jesus, since it is only a minor detail." If you can distance your self in word only from a brother in Christ, why can't you distance your self in word only from Christ who made you brothers? In Peters situation if you placed James in Jesus's place, would the sin of Peter be as bad? "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."~ Matt. 25:45 It could be said that "staying by their side" is what they did not do.

1) No; you'd also neglect your duty as a father by being ashamed of the Gospel you teach to your kids.
2) They probably didn't even know he was married; if they did, it wouldn't be assisted murder unless he told them where she was.
3) It would have been good for him to represent the group of Christ's disciples–good example.
4) No; it's not a minor detail; it's what marks your whole life and eternal destiny.

This shows that any of those consequences wouldn't have been as bad as being ashamed of the innocent Son of God Who was now being taken away to pay for your sin.

How about this, Peter wasn't being ashamed at all, He knew God looks at the Heart, so on the outside he just tricked Christ's captors, so that God's truth would increase?

"The material truth of circumstances and physical details (location, etc.) is not as precious in God's sight as the truth that life is to be preserved, that purity is to be preserved. This exception is identical to the exception for killing to defend others. It is not murder to kill someone about to kill you or your family or other innocent people. Neither is it lying to deceive someone about to kill your family or other innocent people. Their twisted actions are not worthy of the truth or of life, therefore in these cases it is just if absolutely necessary to kill, preferably disable, or even more preferably deceive such evil men in such circumstances." ~Karthmin

"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."~ Matt. 25:45 It could be said that "staying by their side" is what they did not do.

What if we flip this idea on its head? What if "protecting them and potentially saving their life" is what they didn't do?

But how did they protect them and potentially save their life? by distancing themselves. Like Peter.

Jesus makes it clear that denying Christ is one truth that it is never okay to preserve.

So, if a mother gets pregnant and the baby is going to be seriously deformed, out love she decides to have an abortion.
Her motive was right but her action was wrong.
A father is stopped by a gang on his way home from work, they ask if he has money, he says no, (he does have some though)
His motive was right, but his action was wrong.

You are saying that if I were to deny I knew a brother in Christ, and my motive was wrong and I just didn't want to be caught, then it would be wrong. But if my motive was right, then what I did was right and loving. Is that what you are saying?
So why I kept asking the Peter situation is that no matter what his motive was, his action was still wrong.

In the verses below Paul talk about lying to advance God's truth, but then He says that He is still judged a sinner. How do you interprate this verse?
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." ~ Rom 3:7-8

Not all killing is murder; not all concealment of the truth is lying. You just gave an example of an unBiblical killing and a Biblical concealment of the truth.

I'm not sure about denying that you know a brother in Christ. My mind isn't made up about that.

That verse is talking about people who would say that any sin is okay because it shows how righteous God is compared to us. Totally different context.

Maybe this is where we differ, I believe all killing is wrong. If you believe that you can kill for a right cause, I can easily see how you can believe that you can lie for a right cause.

It is interesting to note that we don't have any examples of so called righteous lying in the New Testament.

Maybe this is where we differ, I believe all killing is wrong. If you believe that you can kill for a right cause, I can easily see how you can believe that you can lie for a right cause. It is interesting to note that we don't have any examples of so called righteous lying in the New Testament.

So you think capital punishment is wrong?!

well, refer to is it right to kill someone topic. :) But yes I think the Church should not be the one doing capital punishment, that is the government's job not the church's.

well, refer to is it right to kill someone topic. :) But yes I think the Church should not be the one doing capital punishment, that is the government's job not the church's.

But if someone is trying to kill you, it's okay for you to kill them in self-defense.

I would strongly disagree. https://www.memverse.com/forums/theology-discussions/topics/is-it-right-to-kill-someone?page=10

I think we need to love our enemies, I can't see how deliberately killing someone can be an act of love and blessing.
Matt. 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Back to is it right to lie, I think christian need to be the strongest pillars of integrity, let's say I'm a missionary in cannibal country, a cannibal comes up and ask me if I have any children in my hut, if I say yes, I know what will happen, but how can I deliberately lie, and then try to convince them of the truth?

I'm still confused at how if your motive is right it is no longer a lie. I would disagree with karthim's definition of lying and say that lying is deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

Back to is it right to lie, I think christian need to be the strongest pillars of integrity, let's say I'm a missionary in cannibal country, a cannibal comes up and ask me if I have any children in my hut, if I say yes, I know what will happen, but how can I deliberately lie, and then try to convince them of the truth? I'm still confused at how if your motive is right it is no longer a lie. I would disagree with karthim's definition of lying and say that lying is deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

It wouldn't be a bad example later, when you witness to the cannibal, when he sees that you did not assist him in his murder by betraying your family.

I would strongly disagree. https://www.memverse.com/forums/theology-discussions/topics/is-it-right-to-kill-someone?page=10 I think we need to love our enemies, I can't see how deliberately killing someone can be an act of love and blessing. Matt. 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

No! There's a difference between loving your enemies and negligent suicide.

So the government storms your house, are you going to kill them off, or go to the arena?

So the government storms your house, are you going to kill them off, or go to the arena?

I'm assuming that by "arena", you mean a coliseum–speaking in terms of the Roman Empire? Unless someone is immediately trying to kill you, I think it would be a better option not to kill in defense. If someone is raising an axe above your head and is about to swing it, fire away; but if they're just taking you away to be put on trial, there are still other means by which you could be rescued. And in some cases it would be a better example to submit. Also, if possible, give a warning.

So the government storms your house, are you going to kill them off, or go to the arena?

One question: Is this supposing I have others in the house, or just myself?

If it is only me, I would choose going to the arena (if we are talking about a gladiator type), since I could do that without killing anyone because I would get to play by my own rules in a sense. I think that killing should ALWAYS be the last resort, so since one option would not kill anyone (at least at this initial stage), I would have to choose that.
But if it came down to either my opponent dying, or myself dying, I would have to die since I believe that killing someone else in the arena would be wrong because they are innocent from all of what has taken place with me.

Yes that is what I was referring, sorry. what if you are a christian in the middle east right now, and ISIS comes pounding on your door, are you going to die for your faith, or mow them down with a gun?

Bodie Hodge from AIG makes mention of Stephen "Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1 who said: “Are these things so?”

At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

But this event triggered a persecution that sent the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19) and peaked with Paul (who consented to Stephen’s death) coming to Christ and taking the message to the Gentiles and writing several books of the New Testament. The Lord had a greater purpose for Stephen—even though it cost him his life. Keep in mind, however, that this, and other examples, are about the person in question—not another." https://answersingenesis.org/morality/a-righteous-lie/

Actually disregard the previous question about ISIS, and rather please answer this question,
How would your response change if,
A serial killer walked into your house and wanted to exert his occupation on your family?
A Muslim walked into your house and illegally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?
The government walked into you house and legally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?

For me, my response would be the same to all three situations.
If your response is different, please tell me why the motivation of the attacker changes things.

Meant to be in reply to Nathan, not Aj, since Aj already answered this question before in another topic

If it is only me, I would choose going to the arena (if we are talking about a gladiator type), since I could do that without killing anyone because I would get to play by my own rules in a sense. I think that killing should ALWAYS be the last resort, so since one option would not kill anyone (at least at this initial stage), I would have to choose that. But if it came down to either my opponent dying, or myself dying, I would have to die since I believe that killing someone else in the arena would be wrong because they are innocent from all of what has taken place with me.

In the arena, your opponent is going to try to kill you. It's still murder on his part. So I'd say you should only disable him if possible, but if it's clear that he has no regard for God's law and is trying to kill you and the only way to prevent him is to kill him, then do. But make sure you start out on defense, not offense. That way, if he's a Christian too, he'll do the same and it will be obvious to both of you that you won't even fight.

If Stephen had lied about taking a stand for Christ, it would have kind of been like denying Christ… I dunno; at least he would have destroyed his example.

Now. I think that if you're being persecuted for your faith by the government, the better option is not to kill–simply because it would just make things more messy, which would be more likely to bring God less glory. But it would not be sinful to kill.

"[What would you do if] a serial killer walked into your house and wanted to exert his occupation on your family?" Tell him that I'll shoot to disable if he tries to run and shoot to kill if he tries to kill. If he stays still, I'll call the police in the meantime and they'll come for him. If he doesn't, I'll keep my word.

"[What would you do if] a Muslim walked into your house and illegally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?" The same thing I would do with the serial killer.

"[What would you do if] the government walked into you house and legally wanted to kill you and your family because you were Christians?" ^Well, it wouldn't be legal because God has not given them that authority, but that's beside the point.^ See, if I kill these guys, more guys are just gonna come after me, because the government has that kind of power. So I wouldn't kill in this case, because that could make things worse. I'd just trust God.

In light of the third answer, it is not distrusting God to kill in the other circumstances; it is just using what tools He has given you–which is no less trusting Him. But it would not be wise to use those tools in the third example you gave, because the government has extraordinary power (neither that we fear the government more than God).</blockquote>

As far as Stephen goes, that is might point. Any lying a christian does will destroy their example.

#1, And what scripture do you back this up with in the New Testament? How can you kill him in love, prayer and blessing?

#3, I would completely disagree with you, how do you know God hasn't given the government authority to persecute you? God gave Pilate authority to kill Jesus. John 19:11 "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

So again I ask you, how do you reconcile you beliefs with New Testament teaching?
On lying Matt. 5:37 "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
On Killing Matt. 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

As far as Stephen goes, that is might point. Any lying a christian does will destroy their example. *No! In the case of Stephen, he would have lost his example because he would have been denying that he took a stand for Christ!* #1, And what scripture do you back this up with in the New Testament? How can you kill him in love, prayer and blessing? *You're sparing the life of someone else by killing the man who is trying to take that life. If I saw my brother being murdered and had to kill the murderer to save my brother, I would do so--because it would be wrong of me to just stand there and let my brother die! It would be negligent homicide! But in God's eyes, I am just as valuable as my brother, so not to defend myself, unless I had a very special reason, would be no different.* #3, I would completely disagree with you, how do you know God hasn't given the government authority to persecute you? God gave Pilate authority to kill Jesus. John 19:11 "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." *He's not saying that Pilate was allowed to do any shoot he wanted to do; He's saying that God put Pilate in a position that allowed him to do such things and get away with it on earth. No authority has the authority to kill someone for being a Christian. God says not to do that, so no one has that authority. But God has given people authority that will allow them to do that and get away with it on earth. Jesus was saying that Pilate was in such a position as not to be successfully fought against on earth.* So again I ask you, how do you reconcile you beliefs with New Testament teaching? On lying Matt. 5:37 "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." *Read the context of that verse.* On Killing Matt. 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" *I could argue that capital punishment is unloving, then, and that the Bible contradicts itself. If you have to kill your enemy to save yourself or another, you should be sad about that. You should find no pleasure in it; you should pity him. I'm not saying it has to be done hatefully.*