Event 16

The issue of lying is getting rather boring. I almost want to second Ted's yawn (or rather, his :::YAWN!!!:::).

As I friend of Paul's, I am certainly in a position of wanting to defend him. But I think it is important to note that the members of Triablogue took no "Where do you stand on these issues" test before signing on. So the fact that certain members (the ones who have spoken on this issue, at least) are in agreement gives credit to the fact that we aren't merely giving some ad hoc defense of Paul's actions. While the issue of whether or not Paul's particular actions meet the criteria for the application of biblical teaching is a separate one, we at least have been clear on what Scripture teaches.

And few who have objected to Paul's behavior have actually addressed the surrounding Scriptural issues. John Loftus tells us that his critique is an "internal" one, but he has yet to address the foundations (from Scripture) that have been presented.

DagoodS has, at least, given us some interaction with what has been stated (and particularly with the Frame article). Because I don't want DagoodS to be lazy, I won't myself be lazy. So I write this post not because I think that this issue needs any more commentary. Rather, I simply what to respond to DagoodS' efforts.

Evan May,

I will confess. I WAS being lazy. You are quite correct I only brushed over the highlights of what could be a full-blown response to Frame’s article. I momentarily thought of writing a blog entry dissecting it, but after framing the outline within my mind, found it to be obvious. And boring.

Ok.

Start with Event 16. How does that fit within Frame’s proposal? It doesn’t.

By "Event 16," DagoodS is referring to this example from Frame's article:

16. Luke 24:28, Jesus acts as if he intends to go further.

Note that this is one of seventeen examples that Frame lists. So even if this particular one isn't a good example, it isn't as if Frame's entire article self-destructs or is not worthy of attention.

I think DagoodS also confuses Frame's purpose in writing his article (and, by consequence, his purpose in citing these examples) with Paul Manata's present situation. Even if this particular Scripture passage is not applicable to Paul Manata's actions, this does not mean that it is completely irrelevant to Frame's proposal.

But let's look at this passage:

(Luke 24:27-29) "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' So he went in to stay with them"

Jesus would often do things or say things in order to elicit a certain response from the crowd. So he tells the Canaanite woman, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Matt 15:26) in order to stir in her a response of faith, as she proclaims, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table" (Matt 15:27).

Here, Jesus desires to stir in these disciples a longing to commune with him. So he gives the impression as if he is leaving (though knowing that he intends to stay) in order to elicit their request for him to stay. Jesus uses a form of deception, and yet is without sin.

DagoodS' only reason for criticizing this example is because it is so obvious that Jesus didn't do anything wrong. But that is exactly the point. And all of these examples are merely for the purpose of supporting Frame's claim that "there are other passages in which people mislead other people without incurring biblical condemnation." Is this not the case here? How does this passage fail to meet this standard?

While Frame does give argumentation against other positions (briefly) what is the basis for his own?

Frame: But in the situation where someone is seeking to destroy innocent life, rather than to help and heal, does such a neighborly relation exist? I think not. At least, I doubt that those who misled others in the seventeen passages mentioned earlier were in a neighborly relation to their opponents. Certainly those who deceived in those passages didn’t think so. And I think Scripture concurs in their judgment.

“I think…”? “I doubt…”? “I think…”? Honestly, Evan May—would you ever accept such a position from an atheist as “argumentation”?

My guess is that DagoodS hasn't read much of John Frame. Consequently, he's ignorant about his writing style. Frame is a humble fellow. And his writing style reflects this. He is constantly aware of his own fallibility, and that his arguments can be improved upon.

But I don't think this means that he views his arguments as any less valid. And even if he did, so what? So what if Frame is not confident? That doesn't mean what he has to say is false.

Read that paragraph again. Read Event 16. Explain (if you would be so kind) how that fits.

No, Event 16 does not directly support that paragraph. But that wasn't the purpose of Event 16. Event 16 merely supports the conclusion that sometimes it is biblically permissible to use forms of deception. Other examples, however, are closer to supporting the above paragraph.

But DagoodS is holding Frame's article to standards he wouldn't want forced upon his own writings. He ignores the author's intent in his own statements. The seventeen examples support a general principle from which Frame argues more specific conclusions.

I hope you can see why, after viewing that, I considered a response unnecessary and boring.

Your response would be boring only because the topic at hand is boring--or is, at least, getting boring. And the topic is what it is because your apostate pals have chosen to bring it up and not let it go.