Great Chesterton Quote
You said:
“In times like ours, when deliberate efforts are underway to erode or otherwise destroy our national and civic identity, it is not unlawful for Christians to defend their people. The secular globalists want to swallow up our families, tribes, and nations, intending to homogenize all of humanity. They want all of humanity to come out as a light brown puree.
We must fight them, but we must do it in the name of Christ, and with His mark upon us. That mark is baptism, and water is thicker than blood. When our ethnic identities are defeated by or surrendered to the Church of Humanity, they are simply digested, like so many dainty morsels. When they are surrendered to Christ, as Christ requires, they are crucified, and raised to life again.” — The Surpassing Worth of Knowing Christ
GKC said:
“That nursery tale from nowhere about St. George and the Dragon really expresses best the relation between the West and the East. There were many other differences, calculated to arrest even the superficial eye, between a saint and a dragon. But the essential difference was simply this: that the Dragon did want to eat St. George; whereas St. George would have felt a strong distaste for eating the Dragon. In most of the stories he killed the Dragon. In many of the stories he not only spared, but baptised it. But in neither case did the Christian have any appetite for cold dragon. The Dragon, however, really has an appetite for cold Christian—and especially for cold Christianity. This blind intention to absorb, to change the shape of everything and digest it in the darkness of a dragon’s stomach; this is what is really meant by the Pantheism and Cosmic Unity of the East. The Cosmos as such is cannibal; as old Time ate his children. The Eastern saints were saints because they wanted to be swallowed up. The Western saint, like St. George, was sainted by the Western Church precisely because he refused to be swallowed. The same process of thought that has prevented nationalities disappearing in Christendom has prevented the complete appearance of Pantheism. All Christian men instinctively resist the idea of being absorbed into an Empire; an Austrian, a Spanish, a British, or a Turkish Empire. But there is one empire, much larger and much more tyrannical, which free men will resist with even stronger passion. The free man violently resists being absorbed into the empire which is called the Universe. He demands Home Rule for his nationality, but still more Home Rule for his home. Most of all he demands Home Rule for himself.”—G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men
God bless,Todd
Todd, thanks. Great quote.
The Fundamental Question
Thank you for your ministry! I came to Christ ~6 years ago and have been greatly influenced (especially when it comes to epistemology) by presuppositional thinkers such as yourself, Bahnsen, Van Til, etc. There is one question that I can’t seem to find a good answer to though: how can a person know that the Bible is the word of God? Even leaving aside specific questions about textual criticism and the formation of the canon, I don’t see a way to prove that the Bible is God’s word. I personally believe that it’s true (based on lots of evidence), but my personal belief isn’t a sound epistemological foundation and doesn’t justify a statement like “this is certainly God’s word”.
I feel like a seeking agnostic in this area, and I’m curious if you have any thoughts or resources you’d recommend.Jared
Jared, try Bahnsen’s book Always Ready, and the chapter on the impossibility of the contrary. The way I would respond to this would be by saying that I don’t prove the Bible with any authority from outside the Bible (because then, why do I trust that authority?), but rather I accept the Bible as God’s Word by faith, knowing that if I don’t I will be unable to prove anything, including the fact that proofs are impossible.
Notes from My Talk at Reformcon25
So incredibly good.
Thank you.
May the current crop of professing freedom fighters, who are on the side of truth, see and recognize those who have been doing it as per the Lord’s way for decades—and come under them
And may those who are not on the side of truth, quickly expose themselves in such a manner that all can see.Murk
Murk, thank you.
A Discipline Tangle
Thank you for your ministry; your wisdom and wit are unmatched. I’m a member of a rather small PCA church (fewer than 50 attendees per week). There is a female member in her late 40’s who has a serious problem with drug addiction and displays all the typical behaviors of a person dealing with addiction—habitually lying and manipulating others at the forefront. This lady, sadly, also has a history of severe abuse from childhood at the hands of her father. Our pastor and the elders have bent over backwards to get her the help she desperately needs but also, aside from one elder, relentlessly make excuses for her every time she relapses, claiming, “She’s repentant.” This is literally at least once a month, and the attention she receives has taken away from needs of other members.
As a side note, at one point the pastor drove this lady to a detox facility two hours away from our small town to [the] big city alone, which I felt to be highly inappropriate. Also, he shuns any advice from members who have actually dealt with addiction or have close family members who thus far have conquered addiction. So there’s that. In the interest of brevity, I will conclude here. I fear there is more going on than meets the eye, but that is simply speculation. At what point do you feel 70 x 7 should turn into, “Hey we need to censure this lady and stop feeding into the situation?” Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks much for your time,J
J, thanks. There are parts of this that I would have no right to speak to, e.g. how she got to the detox facility, not knowing all the circumstances. But in situations like this, the issue is not repentance, but professed repentance. Repeated relapses are not grounds for church discipline (e.g. from the Table) provided the person accepts the reproof, and commits to fly straight. This would be the case even if you don’t believe her (Luke 17: 3-4). But there are other forms of social discipline that should be brought to bear, things that would fall under the heading of “enabling”—paying her rent, getting her wheels, and so forth. There should be no help apart from getting her to church, or getting her checked into a detox facility.
Second Thoughts?
Amidst the cacophony of responses and information related to the actions of the Trump administration when it comes to immigration, the judicial system, spending cuts, etc., it is hard at least for me to discern whether we might be approaching the line where a thoughtful Christian might believe that Trump has stepped over the line. Not the line where we might say, “Trump was right here but wrong here,” but the line where we say, “Trump is now doing exactly what his opponents were doing to him and to us. This has got to stop.” I don’t think we are approaching it right now, but I want to keep a liberty vigil on the administration while being appreciative of many of the things that Trump has done to secure our liberty. A major part of the problem of working through this, of course, is that many of the traditional sources and institutions we might turn to for clarity are a mess. The legal system, for instance, has so butchered the constitutional and biblical perspectives on this that we more often than not can’t rightly use the courts as the standard to judge Trump. Sadly, the National Review crowd and even several libertarian thinkers that I’ve respected are often defaulting to the “courts (and everything else) good, Trump bad” argument; I can’t buy into the concept of judicial supremacy and that duly elected constitutional office holders must comply with whatever the courts say. Yet we Christians need some help in working our way through and understanding from a biblical and constitutional perspective some of these technical legal arguments stemming from rather complex laws relating to immigration, spending, etc. And we need protection from jumping up and down with glee when our opponents are defeated by means the administration should not be using. Some of my trusted non-Reformed sources like Mark Steyn, Margot Cleveland, and Julie Kelly are not sounding an alarm. And I haven’t heard you, Rich Lusk, or Uri Brito do so either. So that’s good. But I would love to hear your thoughts on what we Christians might work our way through all this. Maybe a forthcoming column on this topic?Bill
Bill, you are right that there is such a line. I don’t think we are there, but I don’t rule out the possibility of getting there. You are also right that we cannot trust the left to inform us about it because they lie, and then lie some more. But to make up an example, if the Trump DOJ were to do to a group of commie protesters what was done to the J6 prisoners, we should be loud in opposition. But I don’t see that happening. And deporting aliens isn’t that.
Covenant of Works?
I’ve heard you mention in several of your books that the original covenant God established with man was grace, not law. This makes a lot of sense to me. It seems to fly in the faces of the WCF. How do you reconcile this?
Thanks for all you do.Michael
Michael, I believe in the covenant of works, but I don’t like that name. The Westminster elsewhere calls it a covenant of life, which I much prefer. I believe that Adam was in a probationary state, given to him by grace, and keeping the covenant was a matter of obedience driven by faith alone, and not works driven by autonomous works. Put it this way. I believe that had Adam obeyed, keeping covenant, his only appropriate response would be to thank God for it because the garden, the test in the garden, and the faithful obedience that resulted in passing the test would have all been the gift of a sovereign God.
Toolbox for Aging
I read your article about aging and was gonna reply but by the time I had gotten this far I forgot what it was I was gonna say.
Thnx. Pretty sure that was probably itGuy
Guy, yeah, that was probably it.
I unfortunately do not personally know any older Christians to ask, so I’m curious: as someone in the last stretch of his race, how do you feel about the prospect of entering heaven soon? How have those feelings evolved since you were younger?
God bless you brother, and as always please keep doing what you’re doing!Tony
Tony, I don’t believe I think about it all that differently, but I believe it would be fair to say that I think about it more.
What a timely post about aging. I recently realized that I am nearly the age my mother was when I got married.
You approached this with your paragraphs about “finishing well,” but I would like to hear more about assurance—for the aging, and for their loved ones. Several threads here.
A friend’s husband has terminal cancer and is talking about wanting to be baptized “again.” He was baptized as a young adult, but doesn’t remember it.
I recently finished Ellen Vaughn’s 2-volume biography of Elisabeth Elliot. It was very disturbing to watch her second husband, as he was dying of cancer, apparently lose all his Christian character: become angry with God, angry with her, even say things like the concept of Christ as a shelter “is no use to me now.” I don’t believe that he repudiated his faith, but is it really so easy to get people to say things that sound as if they are denying Christ? Just put them through a few months of pain and sickness?
Finally, I know of some dear older relatives who seemed to show the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, but never left behind a clear statement of personal faith. I very much wish they had. I would encourage everyone who is a Christian to write out a clear personal testimony and leave it for your loved ones, so they know that you died trusting in the Jesus of the Apostles’ Creed.
Thank you,Jen
Jen, yes, clarity in testimony is a real blessing to those who are following after. And yes, there are true Christians whose frailties are exposed in the weaknesses that accompany dying. I think of Mr. Feeble-mind in Bunyan. But I would put such frailties in a different category than denial of the faith, or defiance of God.
After reading your last piece on growing older, I started to wonder what your view is on Isa 65:20.
“No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.”
Do you take this literally? Will there be a time prior to Christ’s return where the age spans of people are possibly similar to that of people you read about in the early generations of Genesis from Adam to Shem? (I’ve always wondered why the life spans became so much shorter after the flood.)
And if so, do you think this will be a downstream result of widespread revival? Or maybe a possible medical breakthrough in our understanding of aging? Or maybe both?
Thanks,JC
JC, yes. I believe that in the age foreseen by Isaiah, our lifespans will be considerably longer. In response to your last set of questions, I believe it will be both. As the result of the growth and spread of the Christian faith, there will be great breakthroughs when it comes to aging.
Two questions:
1- I’m approaching 50, and given my current situation, it is likely that I will end up with no family or offspring. How would your advice change for those who already are or likely to be “elder orphans”?
2- I grew up with these general principles in your article as a goal of mine from a young age. And yet, I have failed to attain to them. How would you mold this advice to young people so as to steer them toward successful aging later in life?
Thank you.grh
grh, with regard to your first question, I would encourage you to make yourself useful in the church. Even if it is a lowly task, like picking up bulletins after the service. If you are in your forties, you still have the ability to give, and so I would give what you can. Don’t think of yourself as an elder orphan (although that might happen at some point) because thinking of yourself that way is likely to be counterproductive, where people don’t want to let you into the orphanage. With regard to the second question, it is a matter of discipleship, teaching young people to remember their Creator in the days of their youth.
Incrementalism
I had a thought/question in regard to abolition vs incrementalism. This thought was prompted by some reading in Calvin’s commentary. These are his thoughts on Matthew 5:31, Jesus talking about divorce . . .
“Whosoever shall put away his wife. As a more suitable occasion for discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur, (Matthew 19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that “a bill of divorcement” should be given to the wives who were put away, (Deuteronomy 24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time acknowledged, that he did not send her away on account of any crime, but because she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were observed.
But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It contains a perfect and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God. That man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her a bill of divorcement, shelters himself under the pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is added, except on account of fornication: for the woman, who has basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at liberty.”
In your debates with abolitionist, if I recall correctly, they argue that any law that does not 100% reflect the perfect will of God is a perversion and evil. So, a heartbeat bill is evil.
But, I wondered if the laws about certificates of divorce can show that, as Calvin said, national laws are accommodated to the manners of men. There appears to be the concept that a national law may allow something that does not absolutely reflect God’s perfect will.
Moses instructed them about giving a certificate of divorce. But this was not because God’s perfect will for mankind includes divorce. Jesus said in Matthew 19 that it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that Moses allowed divorce, but that from the beginning it was not so. Calvin seems to be saying that this certificate of divorce was required to protect women whose husbands were divorcing them for not pleasing them, not because of something like adultery. It was a testimony to the fact that the divorce was not for some heinous crime, to protect women from becoming damaged goods.
So in the same way, could we argue that while a heartbeat bill does not 100% reflect God’s perfect will (because some babies will still die), that doesn’t make it an evil law. Of course we can lament the fact that we even have to make laws preventing people from murdering their babies. But . . . it is because of the hardness of men’s hearts that we have to make such laws . . . laws that accommodate to the manners of men. We know that God hates divorce and it was not a part of his original plan for marriage . . . but because of men’s hard hearts, an imperfect law about divorce had to be made, to protect the victims of divorce (women). In the same way, abortion is of course not a part of God’s plan…but because of mens’ hearts, an imperfect law about abortion can be made, to protect some of the victims (babies with a heartbeat). Can we conclude from all of this the concept that something can be allowed in a national law that is not a perfect reflection of God’s perfect and righteous character? We can lament that God never intended divorce or abortion . . . of course He didn’t. But Moses had to deal with men divorcing their wives for unfounded reasons. He had to deal with it in a way that accommodated the sinfulness of men’s hearts.
So can we promote a heartbeat bill (because the hardness of men’s hearts will not allow an abolition bill at this time) . . . while also gladly and wholeheartedly saying “but from the beginning it was not so” ?
I was curious on your thoughts about this line of reasoning, or if you think it falls apart at some point.
To be clear, the point isn’t really to say that abortion and divorce should be dealt with in the same way. It’s more just a question of whether this concept from Calvin can be applied to laws like heartbeat laws: “Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God.”Stephanie
Stephanie, I can go with you part way. The murder of a baby is a much more heinous crime than failing at marriage. Consequently, I believe that we can foresee a time when abortion is against the law period, while I think there will be unfortunate divorces right up to the time Jesus returns. I believe that laws allowing divorce for hardness of heart can be righteous laws, while laws allowing murders are unrighteous. But the heartbeat law is on the righteous side of an unrighteous law. At the same time, I think your argument from this law does illustrate the need to resist an all-or-nothing perfectionism.
A Wayward Son
I was once asked how a professing yet unrepentant son should be handled by their Christian family. Details were scarce, but from what I gleaned, we’re talking about an ambiguous situation where an active homosexual son of college age is in that transition from being in the father’s home to being on his own. So the question is: In this transitionary state, should the family provide food, but refuse to eat with him? Should they be as normal with him as possible, except they refuse to take him to the church which ought to have nothing to do with him? Does any of this change once he finally leaves his father’s house completely? And what is the basis for a decision here?
I lean towards thinking that the family (and its obligations) remain in place even for an unrepentant son, so he would be welcome as any other member in family interactions. Obviously taking him to a church that is or ought to be excluding him would be off the table. But once he leaves the home, and the obligation to discipline and provide for him is gone, things become less clear to me. Though perhaps I’m way off base on the whole thing. I’ve not found commentary on this exact issue elsewhere, so thought I’d probe your thoughts here.Brandon
Brandon, I believe that a son who is in open defiance of God’s standards should come under some form of family discipline. If the church has disciplined him, they should honor that, refusing any table fellowship that treats him as a fellow believer. He could be welcome to Thanksgiving dinner in his role as a family member, but he shouldn’t be asked to say grace, for example, which would treat him as a believer. If he is living an active homosexual lifestyle, then his parents should not be putting him through college, for example. No financial support. And this would obviously have implications with regard to inheritance.
What It Takes to Join
In my church there’s been a newcomer for the past month who has consistently expressed interest in joining and being baptized, My pastor has said he’s been talking to this person, asking them questions about their understanding of Scripture and commitment to the Lord, and to make sure they’re aware of what this entails. From personally talking with this person, they sound genuine, they understand the gospel and importance of being apart of the church, etc. My question is: should the church membership process be this drawn out to make sure it’s genuine? Is this expecting too much out of newcomers to Christianity? But I also understand church membership is a serious commitment. Would like to know a wise way to balance this issue. Thanks!CO
CO, I believe that joining a church should be relatively frictionless. There should be a meeting to determine someone’s faith and testimony, and to answer questions they might have about what is expected of members. But unless there is a glaring basis for concern (which your pastor might know about), I think joining a church should be pretty straightforward.
Good Wednesday?
What is your take on the view of Jesus dying on Wednesday of 31 A.D., rather than Friday of 33 A.D., with the High “annual” Sabbath based on the lunar calendar falling on Thursday, which would account for the gospel references to the day of Preparation and Sabbath?
This seems to help not only with the debatable literalism of Jesus’s prophecy about the sign of Jonah in Matthew but also with the variance of the women buying the spices between Mark and Luke, which would otherwise be an inaccurate detail in one of the accounts. It also can account for John’s call out of the High Sabbath need to remove the crucified as it would be mid-week.
Thanks!Stephen
Stephen, my take is that I agree that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday. I have not yet worked out the year though.
Appropriate Discipline
I am a young father with two children. My son is almost two years old and my daughter is almost a year. We have been working on disciplining my son and having good results. We had an incident where he would not give in and his will wouldn’t break. I stayed calm and administered 3 sets of spankings with a fairly long time out in between to let him calm down. Once he saw there was no other option he calmed down and obeyed. While my wife was getting him ready for bed she let me know that he had some bruising from the spanks. I understand it was an accident but my confidence is shaken. I don’t want to break his spirit. This is the first time this has happened and I was wondering if you have any advice for spanking in the future.
What is a good way to gauge how hard is too hard of a spank?
How do I know if I am exasperating my child and not loving him?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,Colin
Colin, you are right to want to avoid bruising. It sounds like you had good results spiritually from the incident, and so you just have to gauge by experience. You want to get those same spiritual results while backing off a bit physically. Start thinking about spankings as swats that should “sting,” as opposed to blows that hit.
Bill,
If Joe Biden arrested a Wisconsin judge enforcing due process, would he have crossed a line?
If Joe Biden had imprisoned American citizens without due process, would he have crossed a line?
Wait, who am I kidding? He actually did that.
Not a judge enforcing due process of individuals going through the system so not a direct comparison. Still curious which American citizens he had imprisoned without due process.
Fortunately, no one arrested a judge for “enforcing due process”, so your comment is moot.
Jake Lang is the name you’re looking for. Among others. We don’t need a hypothetical to know Biden crossed a line.
Lolol, looks like that guy is guilty as sin. Keep crying about it.
And you’ll keep crying, screaming, and throwing fits about due process, even though we all know you’re a phony — you don’t actually care about due process, which you just admitted here.
Here’s a proposal: if your precious gang-banging illegal somehow makes it back to America, he can stay at your house, while all your weapons are confiscated. Deal?
Keep crying then baby 👶 leave the important discussions to the adults.
Of course he would have. But I don’t see the point of the question, since the justice department arrested a judge for obstructing justice (not enforcing due process).
According to the DOJ. Not sure how much a highly politicized branch of the government that has already harassed law firms can be trusted. We will see it shake out in the courts, but it comes across a little fashy. Not to mention deporting people without a trial or due process.
So is any attempt by federal immigration enforcement to enforce immigration now “deporting people with trial or due process”?
Is it your contention that any judge anywhere in the country is now entitled/obligated to interfere with federal warrants because you, personally, don’t trust the DOJ?
Also, did this pertain for the last (at least) eight years during which the DOJ was also “highly politicized”?
Yes it does. The last two admins did not harass law firms out of the gate, and did not deport without due process, or for saying anything negative about Israel. And the judge was doing her job. Again, let’s see how this shakes out, but this admin is crashing out hard and fast which is very entertaining.
Judge doing her job? She helped a man get out the back door, a man she knew the feds wanted to arrest. (National Review has articles against her and, if not for, at least saying her legal defense is not hopeless.)
That right wing rag? Please.
The National Review has been rather critical of Trump lately. They’re not Newsmax, thank goodness!
On Russia/Ukraine and his executive nominations, they gave him a “D”.
On trade, an “F”:
She was NOT doing her job. She adjourned a trial early, thus delaying the prosecution of someone up on charges, which is both unconstitutional and a denial of due process to the alleged victims. She obstructed the execution of a warrant she was informed of. Just because you think that for some reason the current administration shouldn’t be allowed to enforce *any* immigration laws whatsoever, does not mean that when a judge does what she did, she was “just doing her job.”
Lol, and Trump is doing his job imprisoning green card holders for committing the crime of speaking against Israel without trial, right?
What about this judge you silly billy, lololol.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-opens-door-alien-enemies-act-targets-suing-trump-admin
What does that have to do with arresting judges?
You do realize that it’s possible that Trump is doing things wrong, but arresting judges for “doing their jobs” is not among them, right? Or do you think you can just keep changing the subject and somehow that will make your first comment correct?
Jane, “Hmmm” doesn’t actually care about what you or anyone else has to say. Not knocking your arguments, but you’re throwing your pearls before…. well, this clown would be an insult to swine.
I’m sorry your arguments are slop, not fit for piggies 🐷🐽🐖
All I said is let the courts shake it out. And you are on the blog of a slavery apologist.
grh,
We had an older man in our church who had never married. He decided he would become grandfather to the kids in the church, especially the children of our grad students who were far away from their own families. He never lacked for company, and died with people from the church constantly at his bedside.
“Appropriate Discipline” seems extremely inappropriate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, spanking is never needed or necessary as a form of discipline. Men, do you spank your wives? Would you be OK if your pastor or elders to spank you, or one step further, would it be ok for your wife to spank you (as a form of discipline)? If you can discipline children this way, then why not adults, too?
It’s because it’s wrong…for both children and adults. And if you’re leaving bruises, you should be reported for child abuse at a minimum.
> “Men, do you spank your wives? Would you be OK if your pastor or elders to spank you” This is your test of what’s appropriate for your children? So, for example, if it’s not appropriate for your elders to tell you that you’re grounded on Saturday nights for the next month, then you can’t say that to your kids either? If your elders can’t tell you to stay in your room until the next meal, or if that’d be grossly inappropriate way to relate to your wife, then you can’t say that to your kids either? I don’t think… Read more »
I have…there is no need for physical punishment. Grounding and spanking are two different things. I didn’t say you couldn’t discipline, just that spanking is never needed or appropriate. Would you hit your wife?!? Would you be shocked if your pastor hit you when you were out of line? So why is it OK to hit your kid(s)? Seems like you haven’t thought this through.
How do you get around the fact that spanking kids is biblical?
How do you get around the fact that massacres are biblical? Or incest? Or keeping the sabbath holy? Or not lying? How did Jesus treat the kids? Not with a rod, that’s for sure. I’ll take my cues from Him. Who do you take yours from?
Presumably from Jesus, who said he didn’t come to destroy the law and the prophets and regularly quoted them. Also, some of your accusations are bizarre. I can’t answer for Kristina, but I think we should keep the Sabbath, I think lying is wrong and anyone who says otherwise is flat out being stupid. Also Leviticus 18 explicitly prohibits incest. If you’re referring to Cain’s wife, that was prior to any significant population and I don’t have a problem with him marrying his sister. After the world had a sufficient population, God clearly forbade incest. How did Jesus treat the… Read more »
I’m saying there are contradictions we need to grapple with. Jesus did feed the children…go read the Bible:)
Fair enough, I guess it’s implied in the feeding of the five thousand. Either way, I’m sure there are lots of things we do to our children that Jesus didn’t explicitly do, primarily because Jesus didn’t have children, and it’s really only the parent’s role to spank them.
Is buying kids as slaves biblical too?
Leviticus 25:45
Exactly…I really would love to know…
Several practices were permitted under OT law due to the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. There’s an obvious distinction between God permitting something wrong for specified reasons in a particular concrete historical circumstance (e.g., divorce, some forms of slavery, etc.) and positively commanding a particular practice. Spankings are positively commanded, or at least encouraged, in Proverbs. It follows that they aren’t wrong, because God does not command evil even if he sometimes permits it. Are spankings still required in the NT era? If you read Proverbs’ reasoning behind the command, it’s largely prudential, and these considerations would in no way… Read more »
Is there an obvious distinction? You say there is but I don’t see it. Plus you are on a slavery apologists blog.
A civil law permitting drunkenness is different than a civil law commanding it?
Plus I’m not. Have you actually read Doug Wilson on the subject of southern slavery (he’s explicitly condemned it over and over again), or only random quotes pulled from his work out of context?
Condemning Southern slavery for not being biblical enough is still a slavery apologist. In addition to minimizing the victims and cursing the Union for doing what needed to be done to end such a barbarous practice.
And why does God permit it? Sounds more like a demon that a savior.
It’s not natural law to hit people, and they are not commanded. Do you think someone is not a Christian if they don’t spank? Interpretations and perspectives…
Granted, grounding and spanking are two different things. In saying so you’ve tacitly admitted that something can be appropriate for children that is inappropriate for adults. “But,” you say, “this does not apply to spanking.” That is a mere assertion, simply repeated from the comment above. An argument is needed to show why it doesn’t apply to spanking.
They are two different things. One is a tool of power and authority (hitting), and one is a method of discipline and training. You “people” are all about discipline, so I assume you’d know the difference…
I can see you are trying, but how is the trainer and discipliner not acting from some measure of power and authority? I would challenge the assumption that physical discipline is always simply to satisfy a “power trip” of one in charge. When the coach says, “Give me ten laps,” for leaving trash in the gym, it’s a punishment, but not necessarily evidence of a desire to show power.
We’re talking about physical abuse, so that is definitely a power dynamic. Sports are a totally different realm…physical discipline, aka hitting, should not occur…ever…which is my point.
Physical abuse? Unproven assumption.
Breaking bones–abuse.
Drawing blood on purpose–abuse. (OK in flogging.)
Bruises on purpose–abuse.
Spanking for pain to punish–hmmmmm.
Smack to get their attention–fine. Right?
We don’t need to cause our kids pain to teach/train/discipline…I wouldn’t smack my wife, or a friend, so I also would not smack a kid.
I think you missed David’s point. Earlier, you’d argued that spanking your kids was inappropriate on the grounds that you shouldn’t do so to your wife. The problem, as David points out, is that the same argument would mean that because you shouldn’t “ground” your wife, or make her take a time out, or whatever, you shouldn’t do these things to your kids either. And I assume you’d find these kinds of punishments acceptable. Your argument proves too much. If the wife to child relation holds for punishments, you literally can’t punish your kids in any way at all. David… Read more »
And why stop there? If we should refrain from doing to our children what would be inappropriate if men did it to their wives, I must apologize to my daughter for all the times in her childhood I stood over her while she brushed her teeth, forbade the eating of cookies right before dinner, counseled her not to hide her peas in her napkin, de-tangled her hair against her will, and made her hold my hand when we crossed the street, The most permissive parent must exercise a degree of compulsion that would be inappropriate between two mentally normal adults.
Ha, again, you missed the point. It’s not ok to hit, which is physical abuse, so why is it ok to hit your child? I never said anything about being permissive or not disciplining. Your assumptions are incredible…
Sorry, I’d forgotten that direct quotations are incredible assumptions. Also that’s literally circular reasoning; everyone here disagrees with your claim that “hitting” is inherently “physical abuse.”
I’m saying hitting is never ok, one way or another, hence spanking is not ok. Discipline is different than punishment. You should understand that. Still, no one has truly answered my question…just lots of “arguments” with no substance.
All your questions presuppose that hitting is never ok. How can you expect people who disagree with that to “truly” answer? They will never be able to give an answer that is acceptable to you.
It’s not OK…prove me wrong. Jesus never hit anyone and spoke against violence/abuse. Feel free to disagree with my presupposition, but substance should be included in said disagreement. No one has provided any substance…
Your position has been proven wrong to my own satisfaction. If you think differently, either the Lord has not opened your understanding or I am in error. The replies in a com-box can only be sketchy, anyway. Perhaps more reading in this blog author’s books will give you satisfactory proof about this topic, in the context of the many-sided task of Christian child rearing. Plaudits for your zeal against child abuse.
E: “It’s because [spanking is] wrong…for both children and adults.”
Singapore begs to differ. Which is why they have nice things and we don’t.
What does that even mean? Please elaborate…
Here, let’s fix your ignorance since you are clearly incapable of educating yourself in the age of Google:
Singapore canes male offenders under the age of 50 who break a variety of laws. Caning is a form of corporal punishment. So is spanking.
As a result, Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Which is a nice thing.
Do you hate nice things?
What are the nice things they have that we don’t?
The laws God gave Moses didn’t prescribe flogging for anything that I recall, but did say no more than 40 lashes; didn’t flatly forbid spanking grownups, so to speak. Ya could say it’s like divorce limiting an evil not setting forth a good, or ya could say the laws don’t cover everything in detail and if a just trial sentences a grownup to be flogged that’s OK.
A reader states: [I]t is hard at least for me to discern whether we might be approaching the line where a thoughtful Christian might believe that Trump has stepped over the line Deporting American citizens to the El Salvador gulags is a bright red line, and Trump has actually stated that he’s pondering this, confirmed by his press secretary. Regardless of the individual’s alleged crimes, stripping a US citizen of their Constitutional rights by sending them where no court has jurisdiction should be alarming to anyone. Is Trump serious or is he just trolling? You confront Trump with his past… Read more »
With Trump the line between serious and trolling is blurred. If he thought it would fly with his base….? I’m not sure there really is any red line for those folks, if it’s something Trump wants to do. If I found out there is it would be a happy discovery.
All is permitted when you worship Trump and money.
No hitting? A few posts back was “Struck by an angel”–Peter to wake him up, Herod to kill him.