Archived: The Simplicity of Biblical Parenting

Christian parenting experts often seem unable to see the forest for the trees. Whether it’s “grace based,” “gospel centered,” “heart focused,” or some other phrase du jour, many seem to begin with a lofty concept about what the Bible ought to teach about parenting then go to Scripture and—surprise!—find it there.

As a result, we have constantly clashing emphases—to the everlasting frustration of parents, who just want to know what God expects of them and how to perform those tasks more effectively.

My aim here is (1) to argue that all parents really need is a biblical theology of parenting, (2) to describe how we should go about building such a theology and (3) to identify several principles that must be foundational to it.

The sufficient Word

Does the whole idea of having a “theology of parenting” sound novel? It shouldn’t. Those who firmly believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for faith and practice should also believe that a matter as important as Christian parenting is sufficiently addressed in the Bible. The essentials are all there. Though human wisdom—Christian and secular—may offer some useful advice on the nuts-and-bolts level, all the major principles and purposes are in the Book. And, in the area of principles and purposes, those who do not embrace a biblical view of God and human nature can have nothing of value to say.

We need a sound theology, and a sound theology is pretty much all we need.

So how should we go about building a biblical theology of parenting?

The right texts

A biblically sound theology of parenting must derive its key ideas from Scripture passages that are actually about parenting and the family structure. But there are more foundational passages it must incorporate first: those that reveal the central human problem (which is also the central kid problem) and those that reveal what’s special about the nature of children.

First, let’s understand the central human problem. A good place to start is the beginning.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (NKJV, Gen. 3:1–6)

It appears that the original humans chose to pursue the ability to judge good and evil for themselves rather than accept God’s judgment. They chose rebellion against God’s authority.

The NT describes the event more simply. Sin entered the world through “disobedience” (Rom.5:19). Though Scripture does not use the word “rebellion” in reference to the original sin, “disobedience” is a word that presumes a legitimate authority who has issued a command. Consequently, whatever else may be included in the concept of “sinner,” its basic idea is “a person who disobeys,” a person who rejects God’s authority (1 Pet. 2:7, Rom.11:30-32).

What ailed the children of Israel?

The testimony of Scripture regarding Israel’s central problem also strongly emphasizes the phenomenon of rebellion.

At Kadesh-Barnea, Joshua and Caleb warned the people that they should not rebel against God’s instruction to take the land of Canaan (Num.14:9). But rebel they did. Moses characterized their choice as “rebellion” more than once (Deut.1:26, 43). Later he suggested that Israel’s rebellious nature was at the heart of all their bad choices.

Also at Taberah and Massah and Kibroth Hattaavah you provoked the Lord to wrath. Likewise, when the Lord sent you from Kadesh Barnea, saying, “Go up and possess the land which I have given you,” then you rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God, and you did not believe Him nor obey His voice. You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you. (Deut. 9:22–24)

God agreed with Moses’ assessment (Exod. 32:9). The pattern of rebellion continued through the nation’s history, with the result that God Himself frequently specified rebellion as the central malignancy of their hearts (Isa.1:2, 20; Ezek.2:3-4, Jer. 6:27-28; Hos. 4:16).

The depravity of sinners takes many forms, including twisted beliefs and affections. Pride, delusional independence, and many other ills live on, even within those who are being sanctified. Though other sin-related problems may be equally important, none surpass the problem of rebellion as a key to understanding the human condition.

So what’s wrong with kids?

As we move toward texts that focus more on the challenges of parenting, we find that rebellion also figures prominently. For example, the few texts that are directed specifically to children, share the same focus. Consider these examples:

Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. (Col. 3:20)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (Eph. 6:1)

My son, keep your father’s command, And do not forsake the law of your mother. (Prov. 6:20)

Other passages single out disobedience in lists of especially egregious sins.

backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents (Rom. 1:30)

For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy (2 Tim. 3:2)

As rebellion is at the core of what’s wrong with humans in general, it’s also at the core of what’s wrong with kids. A biblical theology of parenting must address the prominence of this problem in the hearts of children.

Wickedness and weakness

Scripture affirms that we’re all born wicked (Rom. 5:12, Psa. 51:5), but it also attributes special weaknesses to children.

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. (Prov. 22:15)

Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat [nakah, strike] him with a rod, he will not die. (Prov. 23:13)

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor. 13:11)

In Scripture, the nature of children is pretty simple: they are immature versions of everything adults are. Since they haven’t had time to learn much, they’re foolish. Since they have not formed many good habits yet, they need correction. They speak, understand and think childishly. In a word—and a politically incorrect one at that—kids are inferior. They lack adult strength, adult intelligence, adult judgment. Accordingly, they are not entitled to adult privileges or tasked with adult responsibilities.

So our theology of parenting must account for the fact that children are both wicked and weak. Since they are sinners, they need to be evangelized or discipled. Since they’re weak and small, they need the additional protection we owe to the vulnerable.

What should parents do?

Though children are simply immature humans we should protect, evangelize and disciple, Scripture reveals that parents have a unique relationship with their own children. With that special relationship, they also have unique opportunities and responsibilities.

How does a biblical theology of parenting identify these responsibilities? It begins with the understanding that the essence of what God expects of them is fully revealed in Scripture. From there, it looks for passages that speak directly on the subject of what parents exist to do in the lives of their children.

Here are several notable examples, in outline form.

1. Parents should teach the faith to their children (teaching includes modeling).

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. (Deut. 6:6–7)

My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; For they will be a graceful ornament on your head, And chains about your neck. (Prov. 1:8–9)

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (Eph. 6:4)

2. Parents should love and bless their children.

that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children (Titus 2:4. See also Matt. 7:11.)

3. Parents should exercise authority over (make binding decisions for) their children.

one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (1 Timothy 3:4. See also 1 Tim.3:12, Eph. 6:1.)

4. Parents should restrain their children by means of discipline that hurts. The “rod” in Proverbs is both literal and representative of a larger category. It’s literal in the sense that people of the day would have would not have been squeamish about using some kind of actual stick at times. But proverbs are compact expressions of patterns and principles. The main idea is that parental discipline requires pain—sometimes physical, sometimes more emotional, as when we remove privileges, etc.

Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat [nakah, strike] him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell [sheol, the grave or death]. (Prov. 23:13–14)

He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Prov. 13:24)

5. Parents should require respect from their children.

Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:3. See also Eph. 6:2.)

6. Parents should serve their children in all the ways believers are to serve one another.

Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing. (1 Thess. 5:11)

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2)

forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. (Col. 3:13)

(See also Heb. 10:24, James 5:16.)

Simple, but hard

Christian parenting is parenting according the Word of Christ, a Word which is sufficient for understanding what our Lord expects from us and, generally, how to be effective in it. So parenting in a biblical way involves building our understanding of the task from Scripture—from the ground up. When we do this, we discover that parenting is hard to do—but not hard to understand.


Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, GA and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

[becw]

Anyway a poster up a few used an example of a child crossing a street as a reason to spank instead of using natural consequence. I wanted to point out that I said Natural/LOGICAL consequences.
I didn’t sy that, but i didn’t finish my thought up there. What I was going to say is that sometimes we can allow natural/logical consequences, and sometimes we have to create them. The consequences that we create should endeavor to teach the child something in relation to the danger, whether physical or moral or spiritual, of what they did. It should serve as a lesson and a deterrent. Sometimes that consequence will be the rod, and sometimes it might be a restriction or loss of privileges…

I once taught my kids about leaving their stuff around the house by giving them each laundry basket, having them pick up everything in the house that was out of place and belonged to them, and then had them march around the house like it was Jericho. The neighbors came out to watch. It was a hoot. The kids laughed their butts off, but I very seldom remind them to pick up after themselves now.

Does the Bible allow for The Great Laundry Basket March of 2003? I felt I could do that because leaving their things around the house was a maturity issue, not a moral or ethical one. I wanted them to understand that just because there was one little thing here and another little thing there it adds up, it matters. The physical effort, the number of things all in one basket, and the unique nature of the discipline etched the lesson indelibly in their brains. And it was funny. Win-win.

I think we are boxing ourselves in to say that we can’t be creative in discipline and discipling- and let’s not forget they go hand in hand. I think it is ludicrous to say that because one isn’t commanded to ALWAYS spank that we 1) shouldn’t spank at all 2) should spank every time.
does the bible command me to spank my kids? I think that’s is one crux issue. if not, we can agree that it’s optional.
The Bible commands us to use the rod- it isn’t optional. It is simply up to the parent as to when it is necessary.

And that includes with which child it might be necessary. I agree with the poster who commented about having boys. I have three boys and a girl. We discipline them differently, because they respond differently to various consequences.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Yep- they’re wicked. You can put a thoroughly loved and cuddled, well-fed, dry baby down for a nap. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. You put them down. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. There’s nothing wrong with them, even though they are bawling like they’ve just been dipped in lighter fluid and set on fire.

They’re cute, precious, and lovable- but they are still liars.

[Greg Long] Actually, Anne, the other books the Tripps have written take exactly that perspective—that we are rebellious sinners who need redemption through the cross of Christ. Even after we trust Christ we still need the forgiveness that comes from turning from our sin to Christ and trusting that that sin was paid for at the cross. So they are exactly consistent whether they are talking about training children or counseling adults.

Do you believe children are rebellious sinners by nature?
well, let me clarify things a little. there is good stuff in tripp, and I dont understand how he reconciles his exacting practice of obedience (spanking for every incidence of what he defines as disobedience) with the truth that we can’t ever do it anyway, and when we’re doing it, it’s not really us anyways. He does make attempts at this by saying that you have to get your kids to depend on Christ for obedience, and I agree to some extent that we do point our kids to depend on christ to help us obey. but other portrayals of the gospel, i don’t know it seems like he’s saying, with the gospel you can obey (maybe perfectly, if you were raised according to his training, ha ha). really, even when we obey, we are but unworthy servants doing only what is expected of us, and it’s the Spirit that gets all the credit.

he talks about not making God’s laws easy, that they take grace for us to fulfill. But i think he errs on this point, too. He is making God’s law easy by saying we can do it. we really can’t. if we disobey one law, we have broken them all, they are all connected. So I dont know, how to say it? there’s some truth there about obeying, but it’s not all the way truth.

so i think his portrayal of this whole thing is confusing theologically.

also, that whole starting point of my kids being rebellious sinners… . they are probably not rebellious in the same way that the israelites were, for example. Their hearts do not seek God naturally. I dont really see that they are running to do evil on every hand … there is no salvation in themselves though; it’s only God’s grace upon them.

so, why would I want my main view of my kids on this idea that they are rebellious sinners? (definition/scope of rebellion questionable).

when I married Vitaliy, did he read a book about marriage that said: Your wife is a rebellious sinner. You need to teach her r.e.s.p.e.c.t. This it the only way she will ever be happy in Christ and it’s the crux of your relationship.

when I go to church, do I go with the primary mindset that all the members are rebellious sinners and they need to learn to submit to Christ? this is the main thing in your relationship to them.

My unsaved neighbors—do I mainly related to them as rebellious sinners and my task is to make them disciples? (maybe, if I can do that graciously).

my kids need Christ. Tripp and I agree on that. But the next part is a matter of emphasis: I’m not going to frame entire my relationship with them on the idea that I must use teaching obedience and punishing disobedience to teach them to obey me (then hoping that through that they will obey the God/the gospel). I think that my relationship to my kids (or my spouse or church members or unbelievers) doesnt need to be view through this little square in the whole window of our relationship. I think there are many other ways in our relationship besides compliance training that also to teach the gospel. And I dont want to teach it only in the way tripp talks about—you disobeyed, it’s sin, christ had to die for your sin. Those are some truths. But it’s not the whole.

I don’t know if I’m saying this normally or making sense. it’s already midnight …

[Susan R] Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Yep- they’re wicked. You can put a thoroughly loved and cuddled, well-fed, dry baby down for a nap. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. You put them down. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. There’s nothing wrong with them, even though they are bawling like they’ve just been dipped in lighter fluid and set on fire.

They’re cute, precious, and lovable- but they are still liars.
oh Susan, that is just normal baby who was made by God to want and be dependant on his mommy. it’s not a lie.

[Anne Sokol]
[Susan R] Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Yep- they’re wicked. You can put a thoroughly loved and cuddled, well-fed, dry baby down for a nap. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. You put them down. They cry. You pick them up. They stop. There’s nothing wrong with them, even though they are bawling like they’ve just been dipped in lighter fluid and set on fire.

They’re cute, precious, and lovable- but they are still liars.
oh Susan, that is just normal baby who was made my God to want and be dependant on his mommy. it’s not a lie.
Sure it’s a lie. Just because they don’t understand that it’s a lie doesn’t mean it isn’t a lie. I don’t hold to a romantic idealized view of children. They are wonderful and the joy of my life, but that doesn’t mean I can’t view them objectively as sinners whom I am responsible for guiding to salvation. If they reject God, they’ll go to Hell like everyone else who rejects God. And it starts in the womb, just as God said. No need to argue with me on that one. Tell the Psalmist he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[Louise Dan]…

That is NOT a lie. Sure, children lie — when they learn to TALK. But an infant only has one way to get someone’s attention about anything—crying. They are crying because they want you to pick them up. There is no lie in that. Their desire to be held by a parent is NOT SINFUL.

Good grief. This is absolutely horrible thinking.
So an infant isn’t able to express rage, selfishness, etc simply because they cannot yet talk? Now I wouldn’t advocate spanking an infant, but to think they can’t express their sin nature is just naive.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am trying to remember, this is a fundamentalist forum where people agree to think the Bible is the supreme authority right?

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

FWIW, I agree that an infant is not “sinning”/”lying” by expressing that he is not as comfortable alone in the bed as he is cuddled up to Mom. I don’t believe that the “wicked” mentioned in Psalm 58 is a reference to “all people,” either, since the psalmist is asking that God “break their teeth” and “let them melt away” and “pass away,” and have divine judgment wrought upon them, while the “righteous” rejoice.

I don’t have a romanticized/idealized view of children either, Susan, but I sure don’t understand where you’re coming from on this. I agree that people are born sinners…and I agree that as infants and children develop, they will begin to sin. It’s inevitable. But the particulars of this idea belong to a whole ‘nother discussion (“age of accountability,” culpability of infants, etc.) that has been tossed around a few times on SI, right?

[Don Johnson]
[Louise Dan]…

That is NOT a lie. Sure, children lie — when they learn to TALK. But an infant only has one way to get someone’s attention about anything—crying. They are crying because they want you to pick them up. There is no lie in that. Their desire to be held by a parent is NOT SINFUL.

Good grief. This is absolutely horrible thinking.
So an infant isn’t able to express rage, selfishness, etc simply because they cannot yet talk? Now I wouldn’t advocate spanking an infant, but to think they can’t express their sin nature is just naive.
Don, saying that it is possible for infants to “express their sin nature,” as you put it, is different than saying that infants (who cry when laid in the bed—I’m thinking 0-6 months here) actually lie, right? Lying requires knowledge, intuition, and motive that is not yet developed in babies who are merely responding to the stimuli in their environment.

Are we getting hung up on a minor point again? :) Such is the fate of most parenting discussions, it seems.

[Anne Sokol]
[Greg Long] Actually, Anne, the other books the Tripps have written take exactly that perspective—that we are rebellious sinners who need redemption through the cross of Christ. Even after we trust Christ we still need the forgiveness that comes from turning from our sin to Christ and trusting that that sin was paid for at the cross. So they are exactly consistent whether they are talking about training children or counseling adults.

Do you believe children are rebellious sinners by nature?
well, let me clarify things a little. there is good stuff in tripp, and I dont understand how he reconciles his exacting practice of obedience (spanking for every incidence of what he defines as disobedience) with the truth that we can’t ever do it anyway, and when we’re doing it, it’s not really us anyways. He does make attempts at this by saying that you have to get your kids to depend on Christ for obedience, and I agree to some extent that we do point our kids to depend on christ to help us obey. but other portrayals of the gospel, i don’t know it seems like he’s saying, with the gospel you can obey (maybe perfectly, if you were raised according to his training, ha ha). really, even when we obey, we are but unworthy servants doing only what is expected of us, and it’s the Spirit that gets all the credit.

he talks about not making God’s laws easy, that they take grace for us to fulfill. But i think he errs on this point, too. He is making God’s law easy by saying we can do it. we really can’t. if we disobey one law, we have broken them all, they are all connected. So I dont know, how to say it? there’s some truth there about obeying, but it’s not all the way truth.

so i think his portrayal of this whole thing is confusing theologically.
Honestly, Anne, I would urge you study this subject more thoroughly. In ourselves we are unable to fulfill God’s commands, but through the power of Christ and the Spirit living in us we can please God. But we are not to simply “let go and let God”; we are to “strive for holiness” and fulfill the many commands in the New Testament given to Christians. It’s a difficult balance. We aren’t to think we can do it all ourselves; neither should we think that it’s all God and we have no responsibility. I think the Tripps avoid both sides of the ditch quite well in their teachings. I think you do misunderstand them quite a bit.
[Anne] also, that whole starting point of my kids being rebellious sinners… . they are probably not rebellious in the same way that the israelites were, for example. Their hearts do not seek God naturally. I dont really see that they are running to do evil on every hand … there is no salvation in themselves though; it’s only God’s grace upon them.

so, why would I want my main view of my kids on this idea that they are rebellious sinners? (definition/scope of rebellion questionable).

when I married Vitaliy, did he read a book about marriage that said: Your wife is a rebellious sinner. You need to teach her r.e.s.p.e.c.t. This it the only way she will ever be happy in Christ and it’s the crux of your relationship.

when I go to church, do I go with the primary mindset that all the members are rebellious sinners and they need to learn to submit to Christ? this is the main thing in your relationship to them.

My unsaved neighbors—do I mainly related to them as rebellious sinners and my task is to make them disciples? (maybe, if I can do that graciously).
Anne, we MUST think of ourselves and of all mankind as rebellious sinners. Otherwise we have no need of the good news of the Gospel!
[Anne] my kids need Christ. Tripp and I agree on that. But the next part is a matter of emphasis: I’m not going to frame entire my relationship with them on the idea that I must use teaching obedience and punishing disobedience to teach them to obey me (then hoping that through that they will obey the God/the gospel).
Again, Anne, this is a completely inaccurate portrayal of their teachings. I wonder if we’ve read the same book? Remember that spanking is just a small part of the book’s content. Also, let me remind you that the fundamental command given to children is to obey their parents, and the fundamental command given to parents is to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. So wouldn’t it make sense that the fundamental and foundational teaching from the Lord that we are to instill is that they are to obey us?
[Anne] I think that my relationship to my kids (or my spouse or church members or unbelievers) doesnt need to be view through this little square in the whole window of our relationship. I think there are many other ways in our relationship besides compliance training that also to teach the gospel. And I dont want to teach it only in the way tripp talks about—you disobeyed, it’s sin, christ had to die for your sin. Those are some truths. But it’s not the whole.
What is the whole truth?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Aaron Blumer]
[Rachel L] My question is: If you believe that God wants is to use physical punishments that cause pain, why WOULDN’T you use it for every infraction?

In what other arenas do we say, “God commands this, but I should obviously limit its application?”
Fair question. But it misunderstand what I’m saying and probably what others are saying as well. The principle is that we need to use discipline that hurts, not that must always use discipline that hurts… also “hurts” is not limited to physical pain, in my view (or anyone I know of).

So there is no need to limit it’s application because the principle itself is not a “Use the nuclear option every time” principle.

The degree of “pain” in the discipline of course has to correspond to the offense in some way.

I believe there is room for mercy but even mercy is not possible unless you have an actual standard and require obedience to it. If obedience is optional, “mercy” has no meaning. So we have to be careful that we don’t, in the name of being merciful, basically take an “obedience is optional” approach.
Okay. So say a parent does require obedience, but simply never experiences an instance where he feels that inflicting intentional physical pain would help teach any better than a non-physical-pain consequence… I know families where this is the case. WHAT THEN? Has the parent sinned by not “resorting to” intentionally inflicting physical pain EVER? If they choose to spank one time (in order to be obey the scriptural command to spank), are they then off the hook and not sinning for the rest of their parenting years?

If God commands it, but leaves the application/frequency up to each parent… well, it seems to be the only instance where this is the case. This isn’t the way God normally expects us to obey his commands.

But some churches go long periods without needing to formally confront anything. I’ve been at my church for 14 years almost and we’ve had two cases where discipline has gone to the most severe extent. Some commands are obeyed “as needed” only.

Super busy day. Tomorrow not looking a lot better.

Some catch up…

We’ve got alot of asserting and reacting and so forth in the thread… which is fine, but not much interaction with the article.

I didn’t really talk about spanking at all, so that would be another essay for another day.

Rather, my focus here has been how to approach these questions in the first place. I took that tack because I firmly believe that many of the erroneous or just confused approaches to parenting today are solved by starting in the right place.

Unfortunately, even many of the Christian approaches out there today are beginning with assumptions that have become part of the spirit of the age. I think usually they don’t realize they’re doing this.

We will end up the wrong place without fail if we do not begin in the right place—with what Scripture says most directly to the questions involved, whether it’s parenting or anything else. (I’m trying to approach the poverty issue the same way).

A few responses…

[Quote=Anne] i don’t think you have to specifically instruct parents to inflict pain upon their children. in fact, that could be unwise. I think the pain part pretty much happens naturally to children as we discipline them, even when we are doing it gently.The Bible instructs parents to do this. What happens naturally is apparently not adequate. In this day and age we need more than ever to help parents understand the value of this because it is very much contrary to the prevailing wisdom.
[Anne] I think a more accurate portrayal of disciplinary pain (esp in Heb. 12) is like that of working hard, like running or an athletic workout— that is also painful. long-term physical training is painful.
The word in the passage there is “chastise.” It has nothing to do with a workout.

[Quote-Rachel L] Okay. So say a parent does require obedience, but simply never experiences an instance where he feels that inflicting intentional physical pain would help teach any better than a non-physical-pain consequence… I know families where this is the case. WHAT THEN? This is really not my question to answer. Scripture instructs parents to use discipline that hurts. The wisdom of the ages indicates that sometimes will need to be physical. I suppose it’s theoretically possible to have a child that is never stedfastly defiant even once. But I sure wouldn’t bet on it.

I’m not personally hung up on “physical.” It’s important not to proscribe what Scripture commends, but I’m certainly not among those who believe physical pain is the primary tool or always the most effective.

I have one child that has responded well to spanking and another that has not.
[Rachel L] If God commands it, but leaves the application/frequency up to each parent… well, it seems to be the only instance where this is the case. This isn’t the way God normally expects us to obey his commands.
This is not unusual at all. A few quick examples: Hebrews tells us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together but does not tell us how often we should meet. The Corinthian epistles tell us to give sacrifically and proportionately, but don’t tell us how much. Pray without ceasing, but we don’t know how often we should pray to do that. 1Cor. 7 tells husbands and wives they ought to have sex, but doesn’t say how often. I have to run but otherwise could probably list many more.

The Book is full of them.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Julie Herbster] Don, saying that it is possible for infants to “express their sin nature,” as you put it, is different than saying that infants (who cry when laid in the bed—I’m thinking 0-6 months here) actually lie, right? Lying requires knowledge, intuition, and motive that is not yet developed in babies who are merely responding to the stimuli in their environment.
Hi Julie

What I meant is that infants are certainly capable of displaying rage, manipulating, etc. Maybe my kids are more depraved than others (!), but I recall times when they cried not because they were uncomfortable or needed attention but had figured out that they could get us to come to them by crying. Would that be a lie? Well, maybe, but I don’t think one should hold an infant responsible in the same way that you would a toddler, but to suggest that you can’t see the sin nature from early on is just not so.

P.S. I’m not saying that you were the one suggesting that!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Greg Long] Honestly, Anne, I would urge you study this subject more thoroughly. In ourselves we are unable to fulfill God’s commands, but through the power of Christ and the Spirit living in us we can please God. But we are not to simply “let go and let God”; we are to “strive for holiness” and fulfill the many commands in the New Testament given to Christians. It’s a difficult balance. We aren’t to think we can do it all ourselves; neither should we think that it’s all God and we have no responsibility. I think the Tripps avoid both sides of the ditch quite well in their teachings. I think you do misunderstand them quite a bit.
I think that what I am saying is the more *orthodox* teaching (this is Spurgeon’s version of the 1689 Bapt. Conf of Faith—his is easier to read):
Their ability to do these good works does not in any way come from themselves, but comes wholly from the Spirit of Christ. To enable them to do good works, alongside the graces which they have already received, it is necessary for there to be a further real influence of the same Holy Spirit to cause them to will and to do of His good pleasure. But believers are not, on these grounds, to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless given a special motion by the Spirit, but they must be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

Those who attain the greatest height which is possible in this life in their obedience to God, are still so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, that they fall short of much which they are bound to do in their duty to God.

We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life from the hand of God because of the great disproportion between our best works and the glory to come, and because of the infinite distance which is between us and God. With our works we cannot profit or satisfy God concerning the debt we owe on account of our sins. When we have done all we can, we have only done our duty, and are still unprofitable servants. And in any case, in so far as our works are good they originate from the work of the Holy Spirit. Even then, the good works are so defiled by us, and so mixed with weakness and imperfection, that they could not survive the severity of God’s judgement.
So yes, obedience is so important, and I never want to teach obedience-only-if-Spirit’s-impulse, but even when I’ve “obeyed,” … praise you, God, anything good in there is yours.
[Greg Long] Anne, we MUST think of ourselves and of all mankind as rebellious sinners. Otherwise we have no need of the good news of the Gospel!
It’s true, it’s not true. Do you look at your relationship with your wife based on the fact that she is a rebellious sinner? … I really don’t look at my husband that way (though if we could both remember this when we’re arguing, it might help!) I look at him as part of my flesh and someone I love. So what I’m saying is: yes, my children are in need of Christ and dead in their sins. I want them to come to God. It’s my prayer and heart’s desire … but I’m not going to blare the “rebellious sinner” part more than I naturally would for any other human relationship.
[Greg Long] Again, Anne, this is a completely inaccurate portrayal of their teachings. I wonder if we’ve read the same book? Remember that spanking is just a small part of the book’s content. Also, let me remind you that the fundamental command given to children is to obey their parents, and the fundamental command given to parents is to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. So wouldn’t it make sense that the fundamental and foundational teaching from the Lord that we are to instill is that they are to obey us?
It’s one command. there are so many other commands/instructions in the Bible that I want them to know and obey, too. Love one another; don’t lie; etc.
[Greg Long] What is the whole truth?
Dear child:

You should obey Mommy and Daddy because God commands and desires it of you. Christ has already completed your obedience—He lived a perfect life that is now accounted to you, and He died to be punished for the sins (of disobedience, etc) that you do.

This is vital for you to believe—that in Christ, God is perfectly satisfied with you. You are free now to serve God with joy and love, not out of any fear.

Being in Christ means that you are now a servant, like Christ was for you. And this is the main way God has asked you to serve right now—by obeying your parents.

And this obedience takes work, but God has put His Spirit in you to help you and give you power. You won’t ever be perfect, but God will forgive you when you fail, and the more you understand your faith in Christ, the more God’s power will be in you to obey.

Love,

Mom