ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

There is such a thing as genre. It is not an untruth to act when you TELL people you are acting, just as it is not an untruth to make a hypothetical argument. Acting would be much the same way.

By the way, Jesus lived in black and white morality, either for God or against Him. A shame you miss that point.

Gray is just another way of saying "compromise," which Paul lets us know is unethical.

Also, the issue you keep saying I have not addressed, which I have, has its answer woven in and out of the context of the majority of my answers to you. It is the character of God that is presupposed in my answers. Thus, I am able to answer why some untruths are immoral and some are not.

Does that mean you are refusing to answer? I am not stupid enough to say "Dee Dee must believe this because her post says that," for as soon as I do you will rightly claim that you never said that. What a nice way to totally dodge my argument.

As for consistency being unbiblical, tell that to the church of the last 2000 years which held to consistency as being biblical.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus... sigh. Should I give you time to come up with something better before I respond?? And you did not even bother to thank me for toning it down.

 

[Jaltus]

Thanks for toning it down.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

... see I do have some warmth in this cold, cold heart.

 

[bill betzler]

Funny enough.. I don't agree it was any kind of deception. But I didn't think the point worth arguing since I wanted to see where you two would end up. So the question then Bill, taking your conclusion as true for the sake of argument (though I don't agree with it actually) were Paul and James immoral for that alleged deception?

Dee Dee, where's the humor? I wanted to argue against Jerry's point, but in the end I thought I was kicking against the pricks. Why should I defend the indefensible? James found deception a viable alternative to the truth. He should just have let Paul explain to the Jews the new Truth. But like many pastors of today James thought it more important to have unity at any cost rather than tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you for the prima facie, though it be so temporary. Yes that deception was a lie and needed to be repented of.

Fortunately we have a savior who would forgive them.

bill

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well then you answered my question... and I did not have to chase you for it, and considering how I have had to chase people lately (I am not referrng to this thread), it is much appreciated. You see it as deception and as immoral. Thus James and Paul sinned in that account. Okay, if that is what you think.

 

[bill betzler]

Okay, if that is what you think.

Since you read the posts between Jerry and me you should know that is not what I wanted to think. I just admitted to myself that what Paul was teaching (from Christ) wasn't "nothing" but surely something. It was a difficult call for me. I would be happy if you argued against my conclusion and God said you were right and me wrong. But He will not answer us will He?

Dee Dee the straigtht and narrow path is narrow. In our generousity we want to make it wide for everyone. And since we cannot make it wide, feelings of sorrow, are part of our lot in life. I wish life could be all fun and games but it just isn't.

It is no doubt in my mind that Paul and James are much greater people in the eyes of God than I am and their reward in heaven will be greater. But not for that reason or any other should we condone the sins that God has condemned.

bill

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee the straigtht and narrow path is narrow. In our generousity we want to make it wide for everyone. And since we cannot make it wide, feelings of sorrow, are part of our lot in life. I wish life could be all fun and games but it just isn't.

That has nothing to do with this argument Bill. If you have read anything that I have written elsewhere, I can harldy be accused of having a desire to carve a wide road, nor having any guilty feelings about that.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

Could you explain why you do not think that the actions of Paul were "deceptive" at Acts21?

Surely you have enough understanding to know that at the time of Acts21 Paul was no longer keeping the law,don´t you?

And if that is true,then how else could you describe his action but as "decpetive" when he took part in an ordinance under the law in order to demostrate that he still kept the law (Acts21:24)?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jerry:

I disagree with your assessment in your post at this point. But in all honesty, this is a passage I am taking a look at in great detail as part of a larger study in various flavors of dispensational thought. Perhaps I will change my mind. In either event, I don't find it here nor there in the arguments that I have presented on this thread. I would then ask you, to bring it back to the topic at hand, okay, so you think Paul and James were being deceptive (which I will grant merely for the sake of argument).. where they sinning?

 

[bill betzler]

Dee Dee,

Humble apologies for wrongly intimating.

bill

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

No prob Bill... such things happen often in impersonal formats like this.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

Although you say that you disagree with me,will you not at least give me a "reason" why you do not think that Paul was being deceptive?

And perhaps "spiritual" things can over-ride things of a "moral" nature.Was Paul "sinning" when he deceived the Jews at Jerusalem?

Well,if we look at his reason perhaps we will not be so quick to label his actions as a "sin":

"To the Jews I became like a Jew,to win the Jews.To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law),so as to win those under the law"(1Cor.9:20;NIV).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jerry:

Although you say that you disagree with me,will you not at least give me a "reason" why you do not think that Paul was being deceptive?

No, because it is not an issue for me in the point that I am advocating in this thread. In case you have missed it because you came in late in the game.. I do not believe that all deception is immoral or sinful. You seem to (gasp!) agree with me. Your scenario is not necessary to my point, and I don't want to get diverted. I also told you I am still studying the passage which then in all fairness should make you understand that I do not wish to be dogmatic. At this point in my studies, I disagree with you, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

And perhaps "spiritual" things can over-ride things of a "moral" nature.Was Paul "sinning" when he deceived the Jews at Jerusalem?

That is the question I am asking you. I am not arguing the point, but merely clarifying it. You believe that Paul was being deceptive... fine. Do you believe that such deception was immoral, amoral, or moral?

Well,if we look at his reason perhaps we will not be so quick to label his actions as a "sin":

Who are you talking to?? I never did any such thing, but perhaps you are directing that comment to Bill.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

If you do not want to give a reason why you do not believe that Paul was being deceptive,that is your business.But the facts of what happened in Jerusalem as described at Acts 21 leaves no room for any other conclusion than the idea that Paul was in fact deceiving the Jews there.

And my remarks were not directed to you,but instead I was speaking in a general manner.And by the way,I did in fact read ALL of the posts on this thread before I made any comments.

And I would hesitate to describe what Paul did as a "sin".Instead,I would perfer to say that "spiritual" things over-ride "moral" things.

And if we look at the "big" picture,we would see that if Paul would have listened to the Holy Spirit he would not have gone to Jerusalem in the first place (Acts21:4).Therefore,he would not have found himself in a position where he was forced to "deceive" the Jews who remained "zealous of the law".

And that begs the question.Why do you think that Paul did not just say,"Hey,we are no longer under the law,so I will not participate in any ordinances that are prescribed by the law"?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Let me see if I can cull out all the fluff and find the answer to my question.. you do believe that Paul and James were being deceptive but you feel it was not sinful deception, is that correct? Is so you are then advocating a view that not all deception is sinful.. and guess what?? I agree with that view, I just would not use the route you used to get there.

 

[bill betzler]

And I would hesitate to describe what Paul did as a "sin".Instead,I would perfer to say that "spiritual" things over-ride "moral" things.

Jerry, would you like to clarify that a little. Use Paul and James as your example.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bill,

As I said before,I believe that things of the spiritual nature overrule things of a moral nature.

And I think that this applies in the case of the deception that was practiced by Paul at Acts21.

During the Acts period there were two different messages being proclaimd.One message to the Jews,and another to the Gentiles--the "gospel of the circumcision" and the gospel which Paul said that he preached among the Gentiles (Gal.2:7,2).

And part of the message that Paul preached among the Gentiles--that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone that believeth"(Ro.10:4)--was not to go to the Jews at that time.

Therefore,instead of telling the Jewish believers at Jerusalem that the law had been abolished,he took part in a small deception.But in the end the main objective was to bring salvation to all men:

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew,that I might gain the Jews;to them who are under the law,as under the law (not being myself under the law),that I might gain them who are under the law"(1Cor.9:20).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

in other words, the deception was justified and not immoral?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I would say that the deception was "justified" but I do not know whether or not one could say that it was not "immoral".