When Father Doesn't Know Best, Part 2
Republished, with permission, from Voice magazine, Sept./Oct 2011. Read Part 1.
Child discipline and the Bible
Once upon a time Father knew best, and once upon a time we allowed Him to teach us how to parent. In Deuteronomy 8:3, God acknowledges humbling Israel and allowing them even to go hungry (of course, only to a point), calling it parental discipline (Hebrew yaser, LXX Greek paideusai) in Deuteronomy 8:5. Solomon counsels his reader not to reject the Lord’s discipline (same Hebrew and Greek roots as in Deuteronomy 8) and reminds that the Lord reproves those He loves, “as a father the son in whom he delights” (Prov. 3:11-12). Solomon suggests. further, “reproofs for discipline are the way of life” (Prov. 6:23b), “whoever loves discipline loves knowledge” (Prov. 12:1), and “a wise son accepts his father’s discipline” (Prov. 13:1a).
Not only does Solomon communicate the importance of discipline, but he also relays an important method, saying, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently” (Prov. 13:24), and “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). He adds, “Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you beat [or smite] him, he will not die” (Prov. 23:13). From these contexts it is easy to see that Solomon is not advocating cruelty and physical damage. Rather, in no uncertain terms Solomon portrays physical discipline as an expression of love for the purpose of training and fostering growth—and according to Solomon, it has to hurt.
In addition to discussing purpose and method, Solomon also expresses the urgency of parental discipline: “Discipline your son while there is hope, and do not desire his death” (Prov. 19:27); “You shall beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from Sheol” (Prov. 23:14). Solomon contends that if a parent is not disciplining forcefully (causing pain) and intentionally (with love and for growth), that parent is sentencing his child to walk a path endangered by stupidity (Prov. 12:1b), poverty and shame (Prov. 13:18a), self loathing (Prov. 15:32a), straying from knowledge (Prov. 19:27), foolishness (Prov. 22:15), and even premature death (Prov. 19:18; 23:14).
Wow. Those are strong words, indeed. Surely, we can’t take Solomon seriously right? Jesus acknowledged the great wisdom of Solomon (Matthew 12:42), and the writer of Chronicles tells us from where this wisdom came, and consequently why we must take Solomon seriously:
God said to Solomon, “Because you had this in mind, and did not ask for riches, wealth or honor, or the life of those who hate you, nor have you even asked for long life, but you have asked for yourself wisdom and knowledge that you may rule My people over whom I have made you king, wisdom and knowledge have been granted to you. And I will give you riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the kings who were before you has possessed nor those who will come after you.” (2 Chron. 1:11)
Particularly notable to me, considering the occasion of this article, is that last phrase: “…nor those who will come after you.” While this is a specific reference to forthcoming kings of Israel, nonetheless, I wonder if Jose Longoria would consider his statement to have a greater weight of wisdom than Solomon’s teachings on discipline. I must strongly commend Judge Longoria for his desire to ensure that children are protected in accordance with the law. He is probably familiar with many cases in which children have been greatly harmed by parental irresponsibility and cruelty. For example, a Texas man was recently arrested for allegedly causing the death of his two year old daughter by a spanking episode (Fox News, viewed 10/3/2011). Still, I must consider Judge Longoria to be strongly mistaken in his consideration of how such protection should be accomplished: eliminating spanking altogether. His statement certainly is incompatible with the biblical concept of discipline.
Of course, the biblical data on parental discipline is not limited to the Hebrew Bible, but is also prominent in later Scripture as well. Paul exhorts fathers, “do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). In this passage Paul employs the same Greek term, translated discipline, as is translated by the LXX of Moses’ and Solomon’s admonitions. In this context we discover that discipline is part of a three-pronged parental approach that additionally includes instruction (the non-painful aspect of teaching) and an acute sensitivity on the part of the parent to avoid the potential provocation that can so easily accompany the instructive and disciplinary processes.
The writer of Hebrews further indicates that discipline is foundational to the relationship of parent and child, that the human parent-child relationship illustrates the relationship between God and His children, and that though discipline is sorrowful, its results are joyous. The words are poignant and worth repeating here:
It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. (Heb. 12:7-11)
Finally, Christ proclaims, “Those whom I love I reprove and discipline” (Rev. 3:19a). Ultimately, our discipline comes from Him and serves His purposes. We understand from these passages that discipline is a correction and pruning process that usually (if not always) requires at least some degree of pain, is always to be conducted in love, and is never intended to punish but always to instruct. We also understand that God as our Father models this discipline in our own lives and we are called to be receptive and teachable, even submissive to our Heavenly Father as the Creator who best knows how we should be trained and what best causes our growth.
How should we respond?
So, how should we respond when our society concludes that Father doesn’t know best? While of course I lament the continual erosion of religious freedom in this country, knowing from history the terrible oppression that is the inevitable result, it does not seem we are called presently to revolution, rebellion, or retreat. Perhaps two simple suggestions can help us to deal biblically with these challenges.
First, I suggest that we consider and appreciate that we do indeed have a place in the public square. And as such we can be influential in the shaping of society, and that we must keep in mind that this seat at the public discourse—be it a privilege or a right—should not be viewed as our primary role. We may, as individual members of the body of Christ, heavily influence public policy from time to time and we must be grateful to be part of a society in which an aspect of submission to government is in the shaping of that very government.
We must not take these things for granted, and we should not fear giving voice in the public square. Still, we must realize that Jesus didn’t die and rise again to save society. He died and rose again to save people. The means to revitalizing society is not broad political or humanly derived theocratic agendas. These have historically given rise to their own forms of oppression (as human solutions are always tarnished with sin and imperfection). But rather the means to revitalizing society involves the person-to-person sharing of the love of Christ and individual conduct in the manner He prescribes. If society is to be biblically moral in its ideas and conduct (and we know that it will never be fully so until God Himself ushers in eternity, making an end of sin), it will be so only by the grace of God and through the collective influence of Godly men, women, and children on people.
We must not forget that the disciples were called fishers of men, not fishers of societies and nations. God will deal with societies and nations. Ultimately they are accountable to Him. Ours is not to judge them or to hold them to an ethical standard under which they have never been placed. Remember, only believers are commanded to conduct themselves in godliness, while unbelievers are commanded to believe in Him for new life. Why would we expect unbelievers to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit whom they do not have? Still He calls us as His children to demonstrate His character to those around us. It seems that we should be socially active and responsible, but not obsessive. Our priorities must be in order.
Second, I suggest we consider the example of Daniel, who was above reproach (Dan. 6:5), and who had a habit of praying with windows opened and kneeling, facing Jerusalem (Dan. 6:10). When those trying to destroy him were successful in putting forth a law forbidding prayer to all but King Darius (Dan. 6:8-9), Daniel did not alter his course—he continued doing what he had done previously (Daniel 6:10). He did not incite revolution or conspire against the king nor against the officials who set out to harm Daniel. He did not rebel by becoming any more outspoken. Nor did he retreat by hiding or discontinuing his habitual prayer. Instead, he was steady in maintaining prayer and also in fulfilling his duties to the king inasmuch as was possible, in light of the king’s edict. When the two finally conflicted, Daniel unhesitatingly continued his service to God despite its freshly minted illegal status.
When consequences came, just as before, Daniel did not resort to revolution, rebellion or retreat. Instead he submitted to the king, accepting the consequence (death) for his actions (Dan. 6:7,12,17). When King Darius saw how righteously Daniel had behaved, and how God protected Daniel, Darius could do naught but glorify God and decree that men should treat Daniel’s God with requisite honor (Dan. 6:26-27).
Daniel’s goal was not to reform his society, but to obey God. Yet God used Daniel’s righteousness and obedience also in a way that had a remarkable impact on the society in which Daniel lived. When the law of the land decreed that Father didn’t know best, Daniel maintained his conviction to the contrary. Daniel had his priorities straight. What about us?
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 111 views
[skjnoble]I found the title to Kim’s post interesting. In psychology, Behavior Modification is achieved through externally imposed pain/rewards. Most Christians I know shy away from the idea of Behavior Modification when discussing parenting because it focuses on externals (though Aaron’s Rewards article yesterday did discuss the idea of it). There is the very real concern that children can/will become just BETTER AT HIDING THEIR SIN instead of showing it to us and thereby giving us the opportunity to help them address the sin in their lives. Disciplining through conversation, setting limits, making them comply with hand-over-hand help … all of these things do a much better job of showing us our children’s hearts and allowing us to guide and direct. This is the heart of “You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” It is teaching and leading by example in a constant, living-life manner.
Christopher, I enjoyed your article—thank you so much! Your number 3 point really speaks to me at a very foundational level. As a mother with young children, at certain times, I find myself shying away from spanking for whatever reason (tiredness, laziness, busyness, etc.) and often resort to a different form that appears to be just as effective, forgetting that my privilege as a parent is to influence the heart and not just the behavior. I’m reminded through this that only God-breathed Words from the Creator can authoritatively speak to what influences the heart; trusting, ultimately that God is the One ultimately effecting it however He pleases. The pragmatic side of me wants to only go so far as to what seems/appears to be working making experience the trump card vs. God’s Word. I Sam. 16:7 stuff.
Spanking encourages the child to sneak and lie IN ORDER TO AVOID PAIN. Spanking focuses on externals. Spanking does not have some mystical ability to make what happens to children’s bottoms affect their hearts. Yes, I know you will quote Proverbs to me here. The Proverbs are not talking about spanking as we use the term. The Proverbs are talking about using a LARGE STICK to beat THE BACK of a YOUNG MAN. If you quote Proverbs, do so honestly. If you aren’t comfortable using a large stick, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If you choose to beat your child’s bottom instead of his back, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If you stop using spankings for discipline at the age that the Proverbs say to beat your son, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If the answer is, “Everyone knows you aren’t supposed to hit them on the back or use a stick that will give them bruises or spank past the age of 12!” then you are adhering to cultural understanding of spanking, not Biblical application of the Proverbs.
One can choose to spank without a Biblical basis to do so. As a matter of fact, one SHOULD choose to spank without claiming the Bible MANDATES it. It does not.
Failure to spank is a failure to love and it communicates a relationship less than parent and full child. Who are those who aren’t spanked? Talk about opting for culture…
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.
Spanking encourages the child to sneak and lie IN ORDER TO AVOID PAIN. Spanking focuses on externals.1. ANY discipline could do this. Spanking doesn’t have some mystical ability to teach kids to sneak and lie.
2. Spanking only focuses on externals if it is not accompanied by verbal correction.
This last point might be what is causing so much confusion for you. You aren’t to just spank and not teach. Discipline involves both, not either/or. Spanking for what is wrong and teaching and encouragement to do what is right. This communicates to the child the proper method of dealing with sin. This is in fact exactly what God did in Christ and continues to do in us.
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.
[James K][Bolding mine]
This last point might be what is causing so much confusion for you. You aren’t to just spank and not teach. Discipline involves both, not either/or. Spanking for what is wrong and teaching and encouragement to do what is right. This communicates to the child the proper method of dealing with sin. This is in fact exactly what God did in Christ and continues to do in us.
But if I am able to teach without spanking (and I am), why are you insisting that I also spank? Why “must” discipline involve both?
Even in spanking families, discipline does not involve both every time; it is the very rare parent who spanks for every infraction. Why “must” spanking be involved sometimes for learning to take place?The idea that use of the rod is the worst case scenario is not apparent at all in the book of Proverbs, nor is it in Heb. 12.I don’t think I’ve ever said that spanking is for a “worst case scenario.” I’m saying, “I don’t have to use it to teach my children.” I have said that most families that use spanking seem to use it for SPECIFIC types of disobedience or sin. I do not know how they determine which sins are spank-worthy. I do not know if they would consider these sins more egregious than others, though certainly I hear language like “the punishment fitting the crime” which would lead one to believe that “bigger sins” result in “bigger punishments.”
Rather, we’re encouraged to see pain as pain and not be afraid to use it. Personally, I think the “rod” is likely intended as a metaphor for pain in general and that Proverbs sees and makes no distinction regarding physical or nonphysical.
Speaking from my own experience: I’d prefer physical pain to emotional in most cases if I had a choice. So I think the assumption that literal use of the rod is more drastic than other kinds of pain is … pretty questionable.
The behavior of most spanking parents leads me to believe that they consider spankings to be “more drastic than [non-physical] pain.” The spanking families I know will verbally correct a child who is using unacceptable language/tone. They do not spank them for the first infraction. They reserve spanking for continued disobedience or for infractions that are considered egregious based on the family’s values (lying, defiance after clear instruction, etc.).
If you think that spanking should NOT be “reserved” for some specific acts, you should take that up with spanking families. It is a point that does not apply to my family.And if two options appear to be equally suitable for instruction and correction, I do choose the one that hurts me less as the parent.I believe that this is because we are aware that:
But why do we (most of us—including me) feel instinctively more drawn to use of pain that is not physical?
1. Physical pain is something we as parents are IMPOSING and we are aware that our judgment is imperfect. Physical pain can also lead to abuse if we are not careful. Any action that can result in harm if care is not taken will naturally have its usage curbed rather than encouraged.
2. Emotional pain that comes from logical and natural consequences is much more productive for learning, otherwise we wouldn’t transition to these methods as children reach the teen years.
3. Hurting others physically (in non-medical contexts) is considered wrong, so it is unnatural to MAKE yourself hurt someone who is small and defenseless.
Let me just say that to totally disregard corporeal punishment as a viable disiplinary teaching tool, irrespective if one chooses to use it or not, is throwing out the baby with the bath water (as the old addage goes).
We also ought to remember, corporeal punishment is not foolproof neither is any form of discipline a automatic guarantee that you will obtain the desired results, that is, a child who grows up to love Christ.
For an overall observation on discipline, Aaron caught it best when he says that “there is no substitute for virtuous parents.”
But, more on all this later…hopefully.
But “worst case scenario” is far better than “no case scenario.”
To exclude spanking entirely, one has to make a case that the Bible excludes it. Anybody who wants to do that has a tough row to hoe and I don’t envy him.
A few quick and random points…
- The argument that we should not use physical pain because it trains kids to hide sin better fails because that also describes non-physical pain—indeed any kind of discipline. (Just realized James already made this pt.)
- Consequences: when it’s your policy in your home to handle certain kinds of offenses with spanking, the spanking is a consequence.
- If it is discipline in any meaningful sense, the non-physical kinds of pain are just as parent inflicted as physical pain. Unless we’re talking about parents sitting back and just allowing whatever consequence naturally happens, the pain is an intentional result of what a parent does.
- Hebrews 12 and all the rod passages of Prov. cannot really make sense unless there is intentional use of unpleasant consequences by parents.
Getting the actual Scripture in front of us can really help cut through the fog that sometimes descends in these kinds of discussions.
Heb 12:7–11 NKJV 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.It’s gotta be pretty hard to read that in a way that doesn’t see a “painful discipline is what loving parents do” line of reasoning there.
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.
I believe that parenting and discipline is the responsibility of each individual family and that we must apply the Scripture according to our firm persuasion in our minds, But the argument that spanking leads more quickly to abuse doesn’t sit right with me (maybe I am not getting it). As a pastor I have seen young adults whose lives are messed up because their parents abused them emotionally and mentally, but never laid a hand on them.
My personal anecdote, when I was a child I would have rather received a spanking than any other form of discipline. I felt a closeness to my Father when I saw the tears in his eyes as he spanked me. When he wept with me after the spanking while we hugged and how that after the spanking, it was over; I felt our relationship was restored. But sometimes he didn’t spank me and he glared at me, he gave me the silent treatment, he wouldn’t speak to me. (I admit that was very rare and I don’t regret how he raised me, no parent is perfect). The first with the physical pain had a beginning and an end and a restored relationship. The latter made him seem petty and angry at me. I interpreted anger more with emotional discipline than I did with physical discipline. Just my experience…maybe only useful to me.
Just a couple points: If anyone is really, honestly interested in thinking about something from various perspectives, you could skim through this webpage—it’s an overview of punitive (punishment-focused) parenting and permissive parenting.
http://joanneaz_2.tripod.com/positivedisciplineresourcecenter/id25.html
The issue of spanking itself is simply the Christian crux of the punitive paradigm. That is why it often becomes the central focus in these types of discussions. But really, it is reflective of a mindset.
Building a spanking theology and ritual from Proverbs and Heb 12 is simply very bad hermaneutics. Spanking as we are discussing it here is an a-biblical or extra-biblical topic. It is not a holy or God-sanctioned activity. The Bible does not directly address it. This is very hard for many in our circles to even consider because it is so ingrained in our theology and even our in our view of God.
I think, personally, Christian parents are free in the Lord to spank or not. The Bible does not say directly one way or the other. It should not be spiritualized. This is when it creates problems for families.
Putting the rotten tomato guard back up now …
I think this will be my final post in this discussion, just due to time restraints, but I want to make three quick mentions:
(1) Please recall that my article expressly describes discipline (including spanking) as non-punitive. That is critical. Until parents realize they are never to punish their children, but rather are to instruct and discipline, this issue will remain muddy.
(2) Thanx for your observations. Always good to see someone who is concerned with hermeneutic matters, as methodology in interpreting the text as absolutely foundational. I have written a hermeneutics textbook [Prolegomena: Introductory Notes on Bible Study and Theological Method] , that (among other things) stresses the importance of literal grammatical-historical hermeneutics and the study in the original languages. I apply those principles in deriving the assertions regarding physical discipline that I discuss here. But then again, of course, you shouldn’t take my word for it - you should hold me accountable to the text itself. I appreciate your attitude and courage in that, even if I disagree with your conclusions…
(3) Perhaps in the very near future I will write an article for this website (if the Editor is interested in such an article) on a Biblical Theology of Discipline, which will show the exegetical work (in Hebrew and Greek) leading to the conclusions that physical discipline is indeed mandated in the Bible, thus providing the simple answer to the question: “Why should I spank my kids?” I will propose the idea to the Editor, and if he has interest I will write the article. Then you can review it and consider whether or not it is an accurate handling of the text.
Thanx again, all for reading and commenting. I hope and pray the article was helpful, feel free to contact me anytime at ccone@tyndale.edu.
Thanx again, also, to the Editor for giving me the opportunity to fellowship with you all in this context…
cc
Tyndale Theological Seminary & Biblical Institute 800.886.1415 ccone@tyndale.edu www.tyndale.edu
I know Tedd Tripp does some gymnastics to redefine “punitive” and why spanking is not punitive, but his particular approach is not logical. He basically just says, because it’s Biblical, it can’t be punitive… .
I have foudn that this issue goes very deeply into the heart of major theological doctrines, like the depravity of man and stuff like that. I may elaborate later, but this is probably not the time.
Look forward to your article and further discussion. I’m pretty sure they will want to publish it.
Yes, Aaron. That, I believe, is the framework for a good booklet for young mothers. The right, biblical philosophy on how to teach and discipline their children. IMO, this is not only the Scriptural thought process, but also helps relieve some of the burden and guilt young mothers can feel, at times. Often times, we get mixed signals, many from well-meaning people. We’re told we’re supposed to be teaching and disciplining according to the bible’s guidelines in order to influence the heart, but are sometimes admonished for behavior modification along the way. That’s a tough pickle to be in. How does one live that out in daily life? Is it possible to influence the heart without behaviorally modifiying? Of course, none of us doing this perfectly, but having a correct biblical philosophy surely helps.
For our household, my husband and I see both in Scripture. As you said, Aaron, they are not set in conflict with one another, but work together. Isn’t that what a “new self” and “transformed life” and “bearing good fruit” etc. are all about, a supernaturally, behaviorally modified life? And isn’t that the real mark of genuine believe: a changed, sanctified(ying) life? So, while our children are unbelievers and we can’t actually change the heart, we believe that the tools and resources God has given to us (read: commands us to do) work in harmony to achieve both ends, all the while trusting in a sovereign Lord.
I think the pitfall is when behavior modification is an end: a well-trained, well-rounded individual which is the world’s goal for their greater good. But, of course, why would we think the world could speak to either?
Appreciate your thoughtful breakdown.
Blessings, Kim :)
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.
I hope my friend *tulipgirl* doesn’t mind me posting some of her thoughts, but she does such a good job at putting into words what people mean by “grace” parenting. http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/2011/10/on-the-pearls-and-parenting-… This post has some good insights.
Like, this is what I mean when I say it is a paradigm shift, not just about spanking:
Our children are part of the Covenant, and I believe Christ has already suffered the punishment for their sin on the Cross. I do not need to “punish” them when they do wrong. I do need to discipline them, disciple them, help them see their sin and repent, as well as help them learn the “rules” of living in polite society… . Nor do I see any command in the Bible for parents to punish children for their sin–I do see many commands to disciple, discipline, teach, love, train and chastise.I don’t get into a lot of covenant theology personally, but I do want to treat my kids in accordance to God’s grace to us.
I no longer punish my children. Christ has borne the punishment for their sins on the Cross. I do enforce boundaries and discipline my children.
Whether or not it [a particular parenting method] “works” is in large part determined by how you define “works.” My goal is to help my children become the people God has created them to be, with an emphasis on them relying upon God’s grace for their daily living. I want to help them learn to recognize their sin and turn to God in repentance. I want to model for them what it looks like to lean into God when we are struggling.Anyway, those are some of the deep theological shifts I have gone through in how I view childrearing, and there are many, many more changes. Like, for example, realizing that the days I read my bible, pray, don’t get mad at anyone, and cook a nice dinner, I’m just as much living by and dependent on God’s undeserved goodwill towards me as on the days when I dont read my Bible, yell at my kids, and don’t get dinner fixed… .
;)
Any form of discipline can become abusive when taken to extremes. Spanking can become a brutal beating. ‘Time outs’ can become a cruel banishment. Words can wound and even cripple. Even something as insidious as a withdrawal of affection violates Scripture and damages a child. Acting as if spanking is the only action that could ever lead to abuse is dishonest.
Certain terms and beliefs can affect how we teach/train/disciple unregenerate and regenerate children. Christ’s atonement doesn’t negate an eternity in Hell for youngsters old enough to understand the Gospel and reject Him, and we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently lead a child to believe they are saved, when in fact they have NOT received God’s grace through faith in Him. We should not allow children to think that God’s wrath and vengeance towards unrighteousness is negated by His grace, or vice/versa.
Wickedness is not an entity, or some misty floaty thing separated from humanity- by one man sin came into the world, and death, both physical and eternal, was the result of that sin for all mankind thereafter. I understand what we are trying to convey when we say that we ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’, but the two are spiritually intertwined until God performs a spiritual circumcision… also a God-ordained physically painful process perpetuated on babies in order to do nothing else but prove a point.
I agree with the author’s advice about how to respond in the public arena and keeping our priorities straight. There’s quite a bit said from some of today’s IFB pulpits about prayer and Bibles being taken out of public schools, media attacks on family and fatherhood- but that’s just a Godless society being Godless. Preaching and teaching should expound Scripture and address what is going on in the church, in the lives of the individuals in the pews- blasting society gets lots of response from the ‘Amen’ corner, but what does that do to equip the saints? IOW, if you are getting meat and potatoes from the pulpit, and chewing on it daily at home, you aren’t going to be so tempted to dumpster-dive the world’s Chicken McNuggets. The church’s appetite, generally speaking, is far too accustomed to and satisfied with junk food.
1. Children are NOT part of the covenant until they are saved.
2. Christ vicarious bore the wrath of God upon Himself. No Christian is under the threat of condemnation (Rom 8:1). This does not rule out God’s “mastigoo” (punish, scourging, flogging). God’s dealing with us in grace includes necessary correction of wrong, not simply encouragement to do what is right.
2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
All of these elements are necessary to equip to do what is right.
So the “grace” method you are advocating is actually not grace. It is a perversion at worst and misunderstanding at best.
If you wanted to deal with your children the way God would, then you will love your children enough to spank them. Your paradigm shift is obvious. Just let the scriptures inform you rather than culture or yet another person trying to be more clever than God.
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.
Discussion