Dee Dee,
For someone who is going to answer my earlier post, you sure seem to be answering only my latest one.
Anyway...
I think that you manipulated Romans 8:28 in this situation for it cuts you both ways. Of course God works everything for good, so He would work the denial for good as well. You are correct, if a person "denies" Christ, He will deny them... but you are assuming "denial" simply means mouthing certain words in one certain situation. It does not. For you are forgetting (and this goes back to our original point) such a denial would be a LIE. No one is truly denying Christ which is why this was worded in an emotionally manipulative way. The question should be worded more accurately, is it ever morally permissible to LIE AND SAY YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN?? It is a lie. The question then becomes the motivations and the circumstances as predicated upon the hierarchy of Biblical morals.
The "hierarchy of biblical morals" is something you live by, it is importing your theology into the argument, and thus negates your point. Also, I am not sure what you mean by all this.
So, let me give you a hypothetical... I know these are not alwasy exactly fair, but they do draw out how willing you are willing to go for consistency. You are the only Christian, there is one mad gunman, and one hundred pagans. The gunman will kill all the pagans one by one if you do not deny you are Christian, but you get to live. Do you let the pagans die, and most likely go to hell?? Or do you lie?
LOL, the "most likely go to hell" part is a total fabrication. I am not even going to bother answering such a slanted and emotionally biased question. [example]Obviously if you do not hold to my position you must be damned for all eternity. So do you hold to my position or not?[/example] What a load of garbage. Honestly, Dee Dee, I expect better from you.
As Knight has correctly stated we do not owe the truth to evil to further evil. Can God use it for good, sure. But so can He use our lie than for good. We must choose the greater good as we weigh our ethical dilemnas, and the scale is an absolute one... despite your and Hank's misdefintion of relativism.
Is it for evil's sake we speak the truth or is it for God's sake we speak the truth? I do not know why you and Knight live your lives according to the worlds reaction instead of God's, I can only point out that my motivation stems from the person of Christ. Who or what I am talking to is immaterial in that respect. The question is not one of greater good, it is of "lesser evil," as it were, and I am saying chose no evil at all. Do not lie, do not say anything.
Why is it that you guys can only seemingly argue from bizarre circumstances that will never happen? Are you missing the point of theology?
Hard cases make bad theology, that is something taught in any intro theology course. You guys are all about the hard cases and very little based on the real world. The reason we struggle with hard cases is because they are hard cases, but I want to live my life according to biblical principles spelled out, not because something might happen that might slightly effect something in some way sdo as to negate my theological stance for an extremely limited time.
You both claim I am inconsistent, but all you do is claim that sometimes it is right to lie and other times it is not. Why? Are there absolutes or not? Is truth an absolute or not?
)