|
Post by canuck211 on Oct 7, 2009 6:22:20 GMT -5
I saw this teaching from Dan Corner at eomin.org and I was wondering what everyone here thought of this teaching.
1 John 5:16-17 reads:
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
The sins onto death and the sins not unto death are not explained in detail here but we do know that both of these exist. Dan Corner says that the death here is a spiritual death and not a physical death.
Sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4) but isn't anything that doesn't come from faith sin (Rom. 14:23). Paul tells us in Phil. 4:6 to not be anxious about anything so wouldn't doubt be a sin for a Christian?
Dan Corner believes that the sins unto spiritual death would be the sins listed by Jesus and Paul in these passages: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:5-6, Rev. 21:8, etc. He believes the sins not unto death would be sins that are never stated anywhere as sending one to hell. Sins such as worry (Phil. 4:6) and unthankfulness (Col. 2:7) would be sins not unto death.
On the flip side, usually Eternal Security proponents hold that the sin unto death is a physical death in which God is so angered by unrepentant sin in a Christian's life that he kills that Christian and takes him to heaven. I believe that belief is a license to sin. To think that we can live in unrepentant rebellion to God and to be rewarded by getting taken out of this life and taken to heaven.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -5
I believe that all sin is punishable and all sin must be repented of.
If some sins lead to hell, but not all sins lead to hell, then we do not need to repent of all sins. We only need to repent of some sins. But the Bible only teaches total repentance, not partial repentance. If we do not repent of all sin, we do not repent of sin at all.
Some sins cost people their lives. We are not supposed to pray for the dead. But we are supposed to pray for those who are still alive, who are still sinning, but who's sins have not yet cost them their lives and souls.
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Oct 7, 2009 15:32:03 GMT -5
I think that sins that lead to the death penalty are spelled out in the Law, or Torah of God. There are some sins that do not have the death penalty attached to them. To say that all sin is the same is not true. Some sins are "greater" than others.
Jesse is right in the sense that we should be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, so we should repent of all sin!
Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by canuck211 on Oct 7, 2009 19:05:32 GMT -5
I believe that all sin is punishable and all sin must be repented of. If some sins lead to hell, but not all sins lead to hell, then we do not need to repent of all sins. We only need to repent of some sins. But the Bible only teaches total repentance, not partial repentance. If we do not repent of all sin, we do not repent of sin at all. Some sins cost people their lives. We are not supposed to pray for the dead. But we are supposed to pray for those who are still alive, who are still sinning, but who's sins have not yet cost them their lives and souls. Hmm, well physical death could make sense then but I don't believe one who dies in their sin would go to heaven. I know you would agree with this also. Jesse, do you believe worry or unthankfulness would be sins? Do you believe these sins would cause someone to have raging fire await them (Heb. 10:26-27) like adultery or murder would? Also why did Paul and Jesus give specific lists of certain people who will not inherit eternal life? Many of these sins are repeated several times. (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Rev. 21:8, Eph. 5:5-7). Also I believe these to be given to Christians as well. Gal. 5:19-21 shows how Paul said he warned them as he did before that these types of sinners would not inherit eternal life. Paul and Jesus did not say any sin would cause one to not inherit the Kingdom of God but they listed very specific sins.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 8, 2009 17:51:04 GMT -5
I saw this teaching from Dan Corner at eomin.org and I was wondering what everyone here thought of this teaching. 1 John 5:16-17 reads: 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. The sins onto death and the sins not unto death are not explained in detail here but we do know that both of these exist. Dan Corner says that the death here is a spiritual death and not a physical death. Sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4) but isn't anything that doesn't come from faith sin (Rom. 14:23). Paul tells us in Phil. 4:6 to not be anxious about anything so wouldn't doubt be a sin for a Christian? Dan Corner believes that the sins unto spiritual death would be the sins listed by Jesus and Paul in these passages: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:5-6, Rev. 21:8, etc. He believes the sins not unto death would be sins that are never stated anywhere as sending one to hell. Sins such as worry (Phil. 4:6) and unthankfulness (Col. 2:7) would be sins not unto death. On the flip side, usually Eternal Security proponents hold that the sin unto death is a physical death in which God is so angered by unrepentant sin in a Christian's life that he kills that Christian and takes him to heaven. I believe that belief is a license to sin. To think that we can live in unrepentant rebellion to God and to be rewarded by getting taken out of this life and taken to heaven. What are your thoughts? The sins " not" unto death are those that the Christian doesn't realize he committed. These sins are not unto death in this particular Christians mind. However, all sin separates us from God and God is no respecter of persons. I don't believe this passage teaches that there exists a state of blissful ignorance for mentally capable individuals. There are other examples within the scriptures which use this same type of language. John 9:41 Jesus said " If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. But now ye say, We see. Therefore your sin remaineth." Jesus was not teaching that ignorance is bliss. If these men were blind then they would have seen what Christ taught. Hence, the blood of Jesus Christ would have washed away their sins when they obeyed from the heart his form of doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by canuck211 on Oct 15, 2009 5:38:07 GMT -5
I saw this teaching from Dan Corner at eomin.org and I was wondering what everyone here thought of this teaching. 1 John 5:16-17 reads: 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. The sins onto death and the sins not unto death are not explained in detail here but we do know that both of these exist. Dan Corner says that the death here is a spiritual death and not a physical death. Sin is trangression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4) but isn't anything that doesn't come from faith sin (Rom. 14:23). Paul tells us in Phil. 4:6 to not be anxious about anything so wouldn't doubt be a sin for a Christian? Dan Corner believes that the sins unto spiritual death would be the sins listed by Jesus and Paul in these passages: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:5-6, Rev. 21:8, etc. He believes the sins not unto death would be sins that are never stated anywhere as sending one to hell. Sins such as worry (Phil. 4:6) and unthankfulness (Col. 2:7) would be sins not unto death. On the flip side, usually Eternal Security proponents hold that the sin unto death is a physical death in which God is so angered by unrepentant sin in a Christian's life that he kills that Christian and takes him to heaven. I believe that belief is a license to sin. To think that we can live in unrepentant rebellion to God and to be rewarded by getting taken out of this life and taken to heaven. What are your thoughts? The sins " not" unto death are those that the Christian doesn't realize he committed. These sins are not unto death in this particular Christians mind. However, all sin separates us from God and God is no respecter of persons. I don't believe this passage teaches that there exists a state of blissful ignorance for mentally capable individuals. There are other examples within the scriptures which use this same type of language. John 9:41 Jesus said " If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. But now ye say, We see. Therefore your sin remaineth." Jesus was not teaching that ignorance is bliss. If these men were blind then they would have seen what Christ taught. Hence, the blood of Jesus Christ would have washed away their sins when they obeyed from the heart his form of doctrine. So the sin not unto death would be ignorant sins? But are you saying the person would still be accountable for those sins? If so, how could they not be unto death? Have you considered Dan Corner's interpretation that the sins not unto death would be sins such as worry, unthankfulness, or not being completely humble and gentle? What do you guys believe about sins of omission? Do you believe there are sins of omission? Do you believe Christians commit sins of omission? The only verse I have seen people use to prove this is James 4:17 where James says if anyone knows to do good and doesn't do it, sins. Would not preaching the gospel be a sin of omission? If so, I would think this would fall under the category of fruitlessness. After a time of not producing fruit and being lukewarm, a Christian is cut off or expelled from the body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 16, 2009 6:12:25 GMT -5
The sins " not" unto death are those that the Christian doesn't realize he committed. These sins are not unto death in this particular Christians mind. However, all sin separates us from God and God is no respecter of persons. I don't believe this passage teaches that there exists a state of blissful ignorance for mentally capable individuals. There are other examples within the scriptures which use this same type of language. John 9:41 Jesus said " If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. But now ye say, We see. Therefore your sin remaineth." Jesus was not teaching that ignorance is bliss. If these men were blind then they would have seen what Christ taught. Hence, the blood of Jesus Christ would have washed away their sins when they obeyed from the heart his form of doctrine. So the sin not unto death would be ignorant sins? But are you saying the person would still be accountable for those sins? If so, how could they not be unto death? Have you considered Dan Corner's interpretation that the sins not unto death would be sins such as worry, unthankfulness, or not being completely humble and gentle? What do you guys believe about sins of omission? Do you believe there are sins of omission? Do you believe Christians commit sins of omission? The only verse I have seen people use to prove this is James 4:17 where James says if anyone knows to do good and doesn't do it, sins. Would not preaching the gospel be a sin of omission? If so, I would think this would fall under the category of fruitlessness. After a time of not producing fruit and being lukewarm, a Christian is cut off or expelled from the body of Christ. Sorry about that, I haven't studied this passage in a while. After restudying this passage my mind has been refreshed. Thanks for refreshing my mind. However, the sins that are not unto death are those that have been repented of. This passage is teaching that "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." That is, if a brother commits a sin and it is not unto death. That is he confessess his sin (1 John 1:9). Then we are too pray with and for the individual just as James 5:16 says: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another..." Furthermore, the sin unto death is the sin that has not been repented of. To which, we are not to pray for a brother.
|
|
|
Post by canuck211 on Oct 17, 2009 13:00:02 GMT -5
So the sin not unto death would be ignorant sins? But are you saying the person would still be accountable for those sins? If so, how could they not be unto death? Have you considered Dan Corner's interpretation that the sins not unto death would be sins such as worry, unthankfulness, or not being completely humble and gentle? What do you guys believe about sins of omission? Do you believe there are sins of omission? Do you believe Christians commit sins of omission? The only verse I have seen people use to prove this is James 4:17 where James says if anyone knows to do good and doesn't do it, sins. Would not preaching the gospel be a sin of omission? If so, I would think this would fall under the category of fruitlessness. After a time of not producing fruit and being lukewarm, a Christian is cut off or expelled from the body of Christ. Sorry about that, I haven't studied this passage in a while. After restudying this passage my mind has been refreshed. Thanks for refreshing my mind. However, the sins that are not unto death are those that have been repented of. This passage is teaching that "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." That is, if a brother commits a sin and it is not unto death. That is he confessess his sin (1 John 1:9). Then we are too pray with and for the individual just as James 5:16 says: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another..." Furthermore, the sin unto death is the sin that has not been repented of. To which, we are not to pray for a brother. There are a wide variety of interpretations of this passage. Even in this very thread there have been very different beliefs. Jesse believes this is physical death and you would say this is spiritual. Thank you for that answer. I think it could possibly mean that. What do you think about sins of omission? What types of sins do you believe these would be? Can a Christian commit these sins without being in danger of hell? What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 17, 2009 20:47:04 GMT -5
Sorry about that, I haven't studied this passage in a while. After restudying this passage my mind has been refreshed. Thanks for refreshing my mind. However, the sins that are not unto death are those that have been repented of. This passage is teaching that "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." That is, if a brother commits a sin and it is not unto death. That is he confessess his sin (1 John 1:9). Then we are too pray with and for the individual just as James 5:16 says: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another..." Furthermore, the sin unto death is the sin that has not been repented of. To which, we are not to pray for a brother. There are a wide variety of interpretations of this passage. Even in this very thread there have been very different beliefs. Jesse believes this is physical death and you would say this is spiritual. Thank you for that answer. I think it could possibly mean that. What do you think about sins of omission? What types of sins do you believe these would be? Can a Christian commit these sins without being in danger of hell? What are your thoughts? To answer your question: "Do you believe in sins of omission?" Yes, Another passage that deals with this is the parable of the good Samaritan. Wherein the priest and the Levite chose not to do that which was right. Thus, resulting in doing that which is wrong. A Christian can, in fact, commit a sin of omission and not be in danger of hell fire. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins." Hebrews 10:26This verse would seem to imply that there remains remission of sin toward un-willful sin. Also, let us acknowledge the recipients of this message: " We." "We" refers to those who have received the knowledge of the truth. To say that those who have received the knowledge of the truth may not be saved is to say that the writer of this epistle also may have not been saved. If a Christian, one who has received the knowledge of the truth, commits an "omissible" sin the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all unrighteousness just so long as he is walking in the light. One who walks in the light continually confesses his sins of omission and commission.
|
|
|
Post by canuck211 on Oct 18, 2009 8:37:26 GMT -5
There are a wide variety of interpretations of this passage. Even in this very thread there have been very different beliefs. Jesse believes this is physical death and you would say this is spiritual. Thank you for that answer. I think it could possibly mean that. What do you think about sins of omission? What types of sins do you believe these would be? Can a Christian commit these sins without being in danger of hell? What are your thoughts? To answer your question: "Do you believe in sins of omission?" Yes, Another passage that deals with this is the parable of the good Samaritan. Wherein the priest and the Levite chose not to do that which was right. Thus, resulting in doing that which is wrong. A Christian can, in fact, commit a sin of omission and not be in danger of hell fire. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins." Hebrews 10:26This verse would seem to imply that there remains remission of sin toward un-willful sin. Also, let us acknowledge the recipients of this message: " We." "We" refers to those who have received the knowledge of the truth. To say that those who have received the knowledge of the truth may not be saved is to say that the writer of this epistle also may have not been saved. If a Christian, one who has received the knowledge of the truth, commits an "omissible" sin the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all unrighteousness just so long as he is walking in the light. One who walks in the light continually confesses his sins of omission and commission. I agree with this. Calvinists usually say that all sins are of the same degree. They will say that unthankfulness is the same as murder or adultery. I also know that when John wrote about a Christian not sinning, he only ever defined sin as transgression of the law. John never mentioned sins of omission. Hebrews 10:26 is definitely speaking about Christians. If you read verse 29 this is made very clear. It reads: How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him,So we see that verse 26 is speaking about a Christian who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by jmunro on Nov 13, 2009 14:21:38 GMT -5
the only sin that does not lead to death is the one that is repented of!!!
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 24, 2009 13:52:03 GMT -5
I think this thread is great to help define some of the real differences between those who think that we, as Christians, continue to sin after being saved and those who feel that we can stop sinning completley.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Nov 24, 2009 21:00:23 GMT -5
The wages of sin is death! I believe there are no sins that do not put someone in danger of hell fire.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 25, 2009 14:04:29 GMT -5
The wages of sin is death! I believe there are no sins that do not put someone in danger of hell fire. Sin is missing the mark. If one does not willfully, intentionally & purposefully miss the mark, but still do, they are not morally guilty and not deserving condemnation. If the heart is innocent, the man is.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Nov 25, 2009 17:47:28 GMT -5
The wages of sin is death! I believe there are no sins that do not put someone in danger of hell fire. Sin is missing the mark. If one does not willfully, intentionally & purposefully miss the mark, but still do, they are not morally guilty and not deserving condemnation. If the heart is innocent, the man is. Can you show me a few scriptures that support that idea, that you can sin and not be in danger of hell?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 25, 2009 18:09:22 GMT -5
Sin is missing the mark. If one does not willfully, intentionally & purposefully miss the mark, but still do, they are not morally guilty and not deserving condemnation. If the heart is innocent, the man is. Can you show me a few scriptures that support that idea, that you can sin and not be in danger of hell? Joshuah 2:4-6 My point was that if someone seems to have sinned objectively, they may not have sinned subjectively and actually. Some say that all lies are sinful. Rahab the Harlot lied and it saved her. She sinned objectively, but not subjectively and actually. Her sin of lying was not a true sin.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 27, 2009 18:15:49 GMT -5
Can you show me a few scriptures that support that idea, that you can sin and not be in danger of hell? Joshuah 2:4-6 My point was that if someone seems to have sinned objectively, they may not have sinned subjectively and actually. Some say that all lies are sinful. Rahab the Harlot lied and it saved her. She sinned objectively, but not subjectively and actually. Her sin of lying was not a true sin. No where does the text say that God was pleased with her lying. Nor does the bible teach that Rahab was rewarded for her lying. No where is she commended for lying.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 28, 2009 13:27:24 GMT -5
Joshuah 2:4-6 My point was that if someone seems to have sinned objectively, they may not have sinned subjectively and actually. Some say that all lies are sinful. Rahab the Harlot lied and it saved her. She sinned objectively, but not subjectively and actually. Her sin of lying was not a true sin. No where does the text say that God was pleased with her lying. Nor does the bible teach that Rahab was rewarded for her lying. No where is she commended for lying. Her faith was the cause of her lie.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 29, 2009 19:40:10 GMT -5
I agree.
1Cor7:19 providing accurate information is nothing, and providing misleading information is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information. How can you speak the truth if you are dead? The law is made for man and not man for the law.
Exodus 1:15-21 The midwives disobeyed and lied to Pharaoh because they feared God and so God was pleased with them.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 30, 2009 21:52:37 GMT -5
I agree. 1Cor7:19 providing accurate information is nothing, and providing misleading information is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information. How can you speak the truth if you are dead? The law is made for man and not man for the law. Exodus 1:15-21 The midwives disobeyed and lied to Pharaoh because they feared God and so God was pleased with them. 1 Corinthians 7:19 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the keeping of the commandments of God." ? I'm hoping that you'll further explain this. I'd hate to think that you're trying to deceive individuals. Furthermore, verses condemning lying are abundant and verses commending lying are absent. No one can show a single verse where God was pleased with lying. Yes, the midwives feared God and refused to murder the young boys. When faced by the king himself, they lied to him. This passage does not say that God was pleased with their lies. God was pleased with these women because they refused to murder children. (Also, you must prove that the Hebrew women had not vigorously gave birth prior to their arrival) As for Rahab's faith causing her to lie: If you define "faith" as fear toward God then: Yes, her fear toward God caused her to lie. However, if you're referring to faith in the sense of Romans 10:14 "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." then perhaps a verse should be supplied wherein God commanded her to lie. Even if Rahab's fear toward God caused her to lie, the verse still must be supplied wherein God was said to have been pleased with her lie.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Dec 1, 2009 19:12:18 GMT -5
So lying is not a sin that will send us to hell?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2009 22:54:00 GMT -5
would you lie to save my life?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 2, 2009 10:44:43 GMT -5
would you lie to save my life? If I were temped to sin in order to save your life, I would let the word's of Christ dwell in me richly: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 2, 2009 10:49:11 GMT -5
So lying is not a sin that will send us to hell? Didn't Jesus lie? When He said, "I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." (John 7:8) Then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. (John 7:10)
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 2, 2009 11:10:14 GMT -5
So lying is not a sin that will send us to hell? Didn't Jesus lie? When He said, "I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." (John 7:8) Then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. (John 7:10) Verse 10 reflects on verse 4 wherein his brothers said: "For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret..." Jesus' response in verse 8 did not mean that he was to never step foot at the feast but instead that he should not proceed to the feast publicly as his brothers encouraged him to do at this moment. Jesus' point was that he did not want to go to the feast at this moment. He then waited until his brothers left and went up to the feast secretly (not publicly as Jesus explained). We don't know how long Jesus waited until he left. However, it could have been as late as 2-4 days. "Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught." Verse 14 Not only is it blasphemy to say that Jesus was a liar but illogical. "In hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie promised before the world began."Furthermore, even if Jesus changed his mind, that would still not make him a liar.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2009 19:08:41 GMT -5
I should say that I am open-minded about this. I don't think lying is always wrong but I could be mistaken. It just seems ridiculous to me to say that telling the truth is more important than someone's life. If someone was hunting my children and I had to lie to help protect them I can't imagine having to ask forgiveness for such an obvious thing to do. It sounds so much like the pharisees to make the accuracy of communicated information more valuable than a human being. It sounds like one of those doctrines for which Jesus would have publicly humiliated them.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Dec 4, 2009 20:41:45 GMT -5
would you lie to save my life? If you were on trial and I were a witness, and you were facing the death penalty, and I had to lie so you could live, I would not. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Rev 21:8
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Dec 4, 2009 21:20:41 GMT -5
So lying is not a sin that will send us to hell? Didn't Jesus lie? When He said, "I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." (John 7:8) Then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. (John 7:10) No Jesus did not lie, The modern Bibles omit part of that verse. If Jesus lied that Jesus sinned, and we know he did not sin. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2009 18:56:59 GMT -5
If it comes down to you being excluded from God's kingdom then I'd rather be unjustly executed. However if lying is justified in some circumstances then that verse wouldn't necessarily be expected to spell out the exception.
That's circular reasoning in response to 'logic's objection.
They also omit the story of Judith but why?
Which makes me wonder.. if lying is always wrong, then it would be wrong to use any form of deceit as a military tactic.
Is camouflage a sin? Would you consider it a dishonorable practice? Do all men who pretend to be vegetation have their part in the lake of fire?
What about stealth aircraft technology? Aren't they lying to the enemy radar operators by pretending to be empty airspace?
What about David when he pretended to be insane? Did he deserve hell for that?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 6, 2009 22:10:06 GMT -5
Which makes me wonder.. if lying is always wrong, then it would be wrong to use any form of deceit as a military tactic. Is camouflage a sin? Would you consider it a dishonorable practice? What about stealth aircraft technology? Aren't they lying to the enemy radar operators by pretending to be empty airspace? Spies, camouflage, and anything of the such are acceptable because we can find passages in the Bible which prove that the Lord accepted such. However, a lying tongue has never been accepted or commended by God. What about David when he pretended to be insane? Did he deserve hell for that? Regardless of what you believe, you cannot say that God was pleased with his actions because the passage does not say. Here's a video on Biblical authority. I hope this video will help you to understand what it means to do all in the name of the Lord (Col 3:17). www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZVAtU2O3UBen, if our ethics are to be governed by our situations, then why did Jesus rebuke Peter for cutting off Malchus' ear? Was this not a situation where ethics would have been subjective? After all, Peter was defending an innocent man! When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness to turn stones into bread he said "Man should not live by bread alone but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4) Surely one can see how this situation called for Jesus to feed himself with these stones. When we're faced with temptations, we need to respond in the same manner that Jesus did: "Man should... live... By every word of God." To which, you are challenged to show just one verse in the entire Bible that authorizes a lying tongue in any situation. JDW
|
|