Compromise

Is it ever right/Scriptural to compromise? If so, when? What are some historical/Scriptural examples that back up your viewpoint?

I guess it depends on what kind of compromise. I do know of at least one instance where it seems to be compromised. On the issue of lying. It would seem in the scripture that when lying to save a life it is not breaking the 9th commandment.
For instance Rahab is praised for hiding Joshua's spies. I realize there is some disagreement here though about whether she was praised for saving them. As in praised for lying or praised for taking them in and lying was not right. However there is also a much stronger passage where Samuel is going to anoint Jessie's house to anoint a new king. Samuel says if Saul finds out he'll kill me. God tells Samuel to take a cow and say he's going to sacrifice.

Anyone have further thoughts on this? I expect to see Stonewall have a strong opinion against this but we'll what he says.

Maybe you mean something other than what you are asking. Compromising is totally Scriptural.

Example:

I want the last piece of cake. My brother also wants the last piece of cake. We compromise and each eat half of the piece.

If your question is something other than that please restate it for me.

I think Legolas understood my question. I was referring to compromising ethical standards or integrity in order to accomplish something beneficial.

To provoke further discussion, take the compromises made in Congress back before the Civil War. The politicians were trying to avert war by appeasing both the slave and free parties. They would admin one state as a slave state, upon the condition that another state could enter the Union as a free state. Was this right, or should they have just hashed the whole problem out and come to a conclusion that settled the question?

You bet your sweet bippy I STRONGLY DISAGREE!!

For starters the Samuel example is totally irrelevant, because God told him to do it, therefore is was not sin.

As for the the basic concept, I am shocked by your position considering the rabid nature with which you argued for the strict application of the law.

Now you say there are loopholes? What gives?

You sound very inconsistant to me.

There seems to me to be a enough material to make an argument either way. That lying is always sin and so wrong. Or that in some cases lying is not sin.

That's what I'm saying. I haven't formed a strong opinion of my own yet. Because I haven't heard enough arguments for or against it.

BTW I'm still advocating a strict application of the law. I was speaking about when the Bible seems to support lying. If lying is good in certain circumstances than in those circumstances lying is not sin. My point about the 9th commandment was that breaking a commandment is always sin. The question is whether or not lying in such a case is a breaking of the commandments.

P.S. You didn't disappoint me YOUNGSTONEWALL.

In a situation where one might tell a lie to save a life, I see no reason to answer at all.

To break one law to keep another does not make breaking the one any less of a sin.

YoungStonewall wrote:To break one law to keep another does not make breaking the one any less of a sin.

Exactly. I completely agree.

If a woman put a gun to your head and said "Have sex with me or I'll blow your head off!" do you break the 7th commandment to keep the 6th?

I personally? or "you" as in one.
I can't exactly say what I would do in that situation till I've been in it. Hopefully I would have the courage to say no. That would not be breaking the 6th commandment.
The catechism says it forbid the UNLAWFUL endangering of our own lives. Would you say that if someone points a gun to your head and says denounce Christ or die. When they don't are the still breaking the 6th commandment? Are they just committing a lesser of 2 evils?
I would say no.

By the way....If they were both sin as you suggested I would break the 7th commandment because it's not quite as bad so to speak. Since in one sense the commandments are in order from bad to worse. This is not deny that any sin no matter how small is deserving of punishment in hell for all eternity.

....If they were both sin as you suggested I would break the 7th commandment because it's not quite as bad so to speak.

I am so stunned at this statement, I have no response.

I would humbly submit that you need to re-examine your Bible.

There are many reasons we may/should compromise. Compromise on a smaller issue in politics to focus on something like abolishing abortion or getting laws passed to ban homosexuality. As far as the debate between Legolas and Stonewall, I'll just at my two quid in to the mess. It begins with a few facts you have to understand.

Fact one: It is always wrong to break any of the commandments. Always.
Fact two: Many people believe that it is not wrong to lie in all circumstances. Those circumstances are to prohibit a greater sin, or as other cases may be. In those instances, it's not breaking the commandments. So if it is ever okay to "sin," i.e. something that's usually considered a sin, then those deeds would not fall under one of the commandments.

I'll give an example I heard from someone, advocating not lying if at all possible.
He spoke of the Germans at the start of WWII who hid many Jews. A family would tell the Jews in their attic to move around, not staying in the same place. When a German soldier entered and asked the German family to say whether they knew the whereabouts of any Jews, they would say "No." Why? Because it's not lying, because you don't know the exact position of them.

If you ask me, and no offence to anyone, but that's ridiculous. It's the same as lying, ease your conscience or no. So what if you don't know the exact square foot they are standing on? You know where they are, therefore in order to prevent you from lying, you are obligated to tell them where they are. After which, they would be hounded out, taken to prison camps and killed or tortured.

I ask you this, Stonewall, would you speak and tell them where the Jews were? To remain silent when someone asks a question is with holding the truth. Many would consider that a sin just as heinous as lying. Now, besides being considered by many as a lie, it would immediately rouse suspicions with the Germans and they would go about searching your house, in which case the same would happen as if you told them.

The question is, do you believe the WSC? In one of the answers to the questions, it states, "Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others." Therefore, do you honour God by helping others stay alive, while you risk breaking the 9th commandment? Or do you decide not to break one commandment, in which case you could be called accountable for breaking another by keeping silent and getting someone tortured, maimed or killed. If by speaking you can save a life, why not? Would you want their death on your hands?

I apologize if this is taking this off topic, couldn't help but speak up.

EDIT: I see Stonewall has posted while I wrote my own post. Let me just say that a sentence like that, however much you disagree with, can be something written hastily and not using the absolute best word choices. Before you condemn anyone, give them a chance. You have, in numerous occasions, shown that you place implicit faith and trust in the Westminster Standards. In which case, you would agree that the commandments are not of all the same evil, as stated above. Therefore, you do, in part, agree with the statement. If you pick and choose which parts of the WS you agree with, it is no longer valid if you quote them, because you don't agree with what they say.

I ask you this, Stonewall, would you speak and tell them where the Jews were?

Absolutely not, but it would still be a lie and therefore a sin.

I am not saying that I wouldn't lie to preserve life, just that it is no less of a sin, and would have to be confessed and repented of later.

Sooo, you would willfully sin in order to preserve life? Horses for courses.

Only if no other course of action was open to me i.e. keeping my mouth shut etc. which is a very rare and odd hypothetical.

But it would still be a sin and be 100% wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Wow. Look what I started!

It's ok, these moral issues must be hashed through sometime, it might as well be now.

Legolas:

Please explain the thought process that makes a lie not a lie (i.e. sin) based simply upon the circumstances or motives of the teller. I expect scriptural support, not opinion.

however much you disagree with, can be something written hastily and not using the absolute best word choices. Before you condemn anyone, give them a chance.

Perhaps those who fire off responses hastily should be more careful and thoughtful. Haste is no excuse, think before you speak or write.

I said I have not been convinced of this or heard extensive arguments on this. So I am largely speaking of ignorance.....if someone knows more on this topic in put in welcome.

However my understanding is that when life is threatened and can be preserved by deception it is not wrong. For instance Rahab hid the spies and lied by not telling the officials who asked where the spies were. She is commended for having done that. The argument I believe is that she would not have been commended for sinning. So I believe it is argued that therefore lying to preserve life is not a breaking of the 9th commandment.....and so not a sin.

Referring to the previous post keeping your mouth shut can still be lying. For instance if you are asked by your parent if you did something and you refuse to speak that is still a breaking of the 9th commandment.

P.S. I'm not sure what post you're replying to about hasty responses.

However my understanding is that when life is threatened and can be preserved by deception it is not wrong. For instance Rahab hid the spies and lied by not telling the officials who asked where the spies were. She is commended for having done that. The argument I believe is that she would not have been commended for sinning. So I believe it is argued that therefore lying to preserve life is not a breaking of the 9th commandment.....and so not a sin.

If this is true then I can commit ANY sin, and as long as it is to preserve life. then it is not a sin.

I'm sorry but this idea is not only ludicrus, it is a damning heresy.

YoungStonewall wrote:
If this is true then I can commit ANY sin, and as long as it is to preserve life. then it is not a sin.

I'm sorry but this idea is not only ludicrus, it is a damning heresy.

So...... what do you think about the Hebrew midwives, Rahab, and Samuel? Were they sinning but commended for the end result.

I don't think you make that jump "If this is true I can commit ANY sin, and as long as it is to preserve life it is not a sin." We're talking about specific Biblical passages that seem to commend lying in certain circumstances. We're NOT talking about a principle that applies to all sins.

So if I believed that lying in a situation to preserve life..... I would be bound for Hell? That's what the phrase damning heresy means. I hope you are not throwing it around lightly.

The only sciptural evidence I have seen is that they were commended for what they accomplished, not for how they accomplished it.

The bible is filled with examples of God praising someone for their deeds but we should not think He is praising their methods.

To say what you are saying, if you follow the reasoning to where it leads, then you are denying the true nature of sin and making a mockery of the work of Christ. If that's not a damning heresy then I don't know what is.

As I already stated, the example of Samuel is totally irrelevant, because God told him exactly what to do, therefore it was not sin.

Stonewall,

Do you think John Murray went to Hell?

What other "heresies" do you consider hell-damning? Catholics, I've no doubt. Probably Anglicans. Lutherans, maybe. Methodist? Baptist? Independant? Charismatic? I think you are either misrepresenting yourself or in danger of saying that a great many good, godly men are going to hell for believing something other than what you think is right.

YoungStonewall wrote:The only sciptural evidence I have seen is that they were commended for what they accomplished, not for how they accomplished it.

That's fine if you view it that way. I was raising some people's interpretation of those passages.

YoungStonewall wrote:The bible is filled with examples of God praising someone for their deeds but we should not think He is praising their methods.

Can you list a few?

YoungStonewall wrote:To say what you are saying, if you follow the reasoning to where it leads, then you are denying the true nature of sin and making a mockery of the work of Christ. If that's not a damning heresy then I don't know what is.

Would you please explain how the reasoning leads there?

YoungStonewall wrote:As I already stated, the example of Samuel is totally irrelevant, because God told him exactly what to do, therefore it was not sin.

Fine we'll leave Samuel out then.

After further research, I am willing to concede that in times of war or other actions of the civil magistrate (law enforcement, spying, battlefield misdirection etc) that are there are such things as justifiable deceptions.

This is just like in the case of justifiable murder.

Beyond that, I can find no scriptural support of breaking one commandment to keep another.

As Calvin puts it so well, "...as to the falsehood (Rahab's Lie), we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God...It can never be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God...On the whole, it was the will of God that the spies should be delivered, but he did not approve of saving their life by falsehood."