Lying in Extraordinary Circumstances: Some Biblical Considerations

Here are some thoughts on the morality of lying, particularly in extraordinary circumstances. Lying, as classically defined by St. Augustine, "consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving" (CCC 2482, quoting St. Augustine). And, according to Augustine, lying is intrinsically wrong, i.e., it is never permissible in any circumstances: “It seems to me, however, that every lie is a sin, albeit there is a great difference depending on the intention and the topic of the lie” (Enchiridion, Ch. VI, par. 18). The classic problem case for this conception of lying is the Nazis-at-the-door scenario. You are living in Germany during the Jewish Holocaust. You are hiding Jews in your attic to protect them. Some Nazis knock at your door and ask you if you are hiding Jews in your house. What to do? On the one hand, you might think that lying is intrinsically wrong, and lying consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. So, you reason that you cannot licitly lie to the Nazis (i.e., you cannot licitly speak a falsehood to the Nazis with the intention of deceiving them). So, telling the Nazis that you do not have Jews in your house seems like it’s off the table. On the other hand, if you tell the Nazis the truth, they will arrest the Jews and send them off to a concentration camp. Needless to say, this would be very bad. So, we seemingly have a serious moral dilemma. One possibility to explore is to scrutinize the Augustinian conception of lying. There are substantive philosophical arguments both for and against the Augustinian view, but for this post I will restrict myself to some biblical considerations.

Some Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that holds that Sacred Scripture, i.e., the Bible, is the sole infallible theological authority for Christians. Consequently, a Christian is not bound to assent to a doctrine that is not deducible from Sacred Scripture alone. According to Lutheran theology, for instance:

[T]he Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine...to which everything should be subjected (Formula of Concord, "Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm", par. 10).

Similarly, according to traditional Reformed theology (as expressed in the Westminster Confession):

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Westminster Confession I.X).

Thus, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible, and the Church is consequently not capable of giving an infallible interpretation of Scripture. Rather, as the Westminster Confession declares:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (ibid., I.IX).

What follows are a few arguments against the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Justified by Faith Apart from Works of the Law

Romans 3:28 is perhaps the most commonly proffered prooftext of the Protestant doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone). The argument is that the verse teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works. Consequently, justification is by faith alone. Galatians 2:15-16 teaches similarly. Good works, therefore, play no role in justification. Martin Luther explained this as follows:

All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f. Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ (Smalcald Articles, II, I, 3-4).

Sola Gratia and Solo Christo

Using traditional Protestant terminology, the Catholic understanding of justification and salvation affirms sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (through Christ alone) but rejects sola fide (by faith alone). We are saved by grace alone (cf. John 10:27-28; 15:5, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24; 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7) through Christ alone (cf. John 10:9-16; 14:6, Acts 4:12), and we are justified not by faith only but also by our good works wrought by grace (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6-8; 2:13, Galatians 5:6, Philippians 2:12-13, James 2:24). This is well explained in a paper by Richard A. White, a Calvinist convert to Catholicism:

Calvin, Total Depravity, and Pagan Virtue

It seems obvious that there are unbelievers (and thus those who have not been regenerated by grace) who do good and who have genuine virtue. This basic fact of experience seems to falsify the doctrine of total depravity. John Calvin, however, did not think this to be a successful objection. In response, Calvin wrote as follows:

Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Objections and Replies

Consider the following argument, rooted in Scripture, for the conclusion that good works are necessary for salvation.

1. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26).
2. Dead faith cannot save (James 2:14, 19).
3. Faith that is not dead is necessary for salvation (2).
4. If faith is not dead, then it has works (1).
5. So, having works is necessary for salvation (3, 4).

Furthermore, St. James teaches us that our good works are not merely the necessary products of justification, but they also make a contribution to our justification: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This is the only place in Scripture where the phrase “by faith alone” (from the Greek, ek pisteos monon) is found, and it is rejected as false teaching. The teaching that good works make a contribution to justification needs to be qualified; such qualification will be done in the course of responding to objections.

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "All or Nothing" Objection

Objection: Paul teaches, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them’” (Galatians 3:10). Paul is here referencing Deuteronomy: “’Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (Deuteronomy 27:26). The referent of “law” in this passage is the entire Law of Moses as laid out in Deuteronomy, which includes the Ten Commandments (cf. Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Thus, the moral law and not just the ceremonial law is in view. Consequently, Paul is excluding not just ceremonial works but also (morally) good works from justification, and this is because whoever would be justified by such works would have to perfectly keep the entire law, including the moral law, and this is manifestly impossible. In a similar vein, James teaches that, “[W]hoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (James 2:10). And James cites two of the Ten Commandments in the very next verse, which clearly indicates that the moral law is what James has in mind. What is being taught is that in order for works, good works included, to justify, one would have to keep the entire law perfectly. But it is evident that no one is capable of doing this. Hence, for both Paul and James, works, good works in particular, cannot play any role in justification. As John Calvin taught:

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Calvin's "Impurity and Dirt" Objection

A common Calvinist objection to the Catholic doctrine of merit is that our good works are always finite and human. They cannot possibly have supernatural merit in God’s eyes. They simply cannot be meritorious with respect to the infinite value of eternal life. Something of finite value cannot merit something of infinite value. Furthermore, according to Sacred Scripture, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:6). Now, that which is polluted does not have merit in God’s eyes; hence, our good works have no merit. As John Calvin taught,

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Meriting Unmerited Favor?

A common objection to the Catholic doctrine of merit is that it amounts to the contradiction of asserting that we can merit unmerited favor. The Catholic Church teaches that Christians can merit an increase of grace and even eternal life:

If anyone shall say, that the good works of a man that is justified are in such wise the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace, and, moreover, an increase of glory; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon XXXII).

Contra Calvin on Paul's "Works of the Law"

In Romans and Galatians, St. Paul speaks against "works of the law" with respect to justification. Paul's meaning of "works of the law" has been a contentious issue in Christian theology. Traditional Protestantism, as represented by Luther and Calvin, understands "works of the law" to be equivalent to, or at least to include, morally good works. It is on the basis of this understanding that Luther interpreted Romans 3:28 as teaching justification by faith alone and that good works have no role whatsoever to play in justification. By contrast, the traditional and predominant Catholic understanding is that Paul's phrase "works of the law" refers to the ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses such as, for example, circumcision and dietary regulations. On this interpretation, Paul means to exclude not good works but Jewish cultic observances from Christian justification. In contemporary Pauline scholarship, this interpretation is typically referred to as the "new perspective," whereas the traditional Protestant interpretation is referred to as the "old perspective." The interested reader can read my defense of the new perspective understanding of "works of the law" HERE. In this post, I want to respond to an objection to this interpretation raised by John Calvin.

An Argument Against the Possibility of Multiple Omnipotent Beings and Some Implications for the Trinity and Incarnation

Argument: Suppose there are two omnipotent beings G1 and G2. Now, suppose that G1 wills that Earth gets created and that G2 wills that Earth does not get created. Who “wins”? On the one hand, Earth should get created since G1 wills it, G1 is omnipotent, and the creation of Earth is logically possible. On the other hand, Earth should not get created since G2 wills it, G2 is omnipotent, and Earth not being created is logically possible. The answer therefore seems to be that Earth gets created and Earth does not get created, a flat contradiction. Such a state of affairs, therefore, is impossible. And yet, such a state of affairs seems like it would be possible if there really were two omnipotent beings (since it seems possible that the two beings could will such mutually contradictory states of affairs). Hence, it must not be the case that there are two omnipotent beings. Even more strongly, it must not be possible for there to be two omnipotent beings. And more generally, it must not be possible for there to be any number of omnipotent beings greater than one, since the same paradox can be derived no matter how many more omnipotent beings we keep adding beyond two. The argument can be formalized as follows: