A woman walks into a convenience store. She walks straight to the manager and asks, “Do you have any small note-books?”
“Sorry,” says the manager. “We’re all out.”
The woman shrugs, and asks, “Well, do you have any mechanical pencils?”
“Nope, don’t have that either,” says the manager.
The woman feels her stomach rumbling and asks, “Do you have Doritos? Nachos?”
The manager shrugs, “Sorry. Don’t have that.”
“My goodness!” the woman shouts, “If you don’t have anything, you should close the store!”
The manager shrugs, “Don’t have the key.”
“How should Christians discipline their children?”
How to best discipline children can be difficult task to learn, but it is crucially important. Some claim that physical discipline (corporal punishment) such as spanking is the only method the Bible supports. Others insist that “time-outs” and other punishments that do not involve physical discipline are far more effective. What does the Bible say? The Bible teaches that physical discipline is appropriate, beneficial, and necessary.
Do not misunderstand—we are by no means advocating child abuse. A child should never be disciplined physically to the extent that it causes actual physical damage. According to the Bible, though, the appropriate and restrained physical discipline of children is a good thing and contributes to the well-being and correct upbringing of the child.
Many Scriptures do in fact promote physical discipline. “Don’t fail to correct your children. They won’t die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death” (Proverbs 23:13-14; see also 13:24; 22:15; 20:30). The Bible strongly stresses the importance of discipline; it is something we must all have in order to be productive people, and it is much more easily learned when we are young. Children who are not disciplined often grow up rebellious, have no respect for authority, and as a result find it difficult to willingly obey and follow God. God Himself uses discipline to correct us and lead us down the right path and to encourage repentance for our wrong actions (Psalm 94:12; Proverbs 1:7; 6:23; 12:1; 13:1; 15:5;Isaiah 38:16; Hebrews 12:9).
In order to apply discipline correctly and according to biblical principles, parents must be familiar with the scriptural advice regarding discipline. The book of Proverbs contains plentiful wisdom regarding the rearing of children, such as, “The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother” (Proverbs 29:15). This verse outlines the consequences of not disciplining a child—the parents are disgraced. Of course, discipline must have as its goal the good of the child and must never be used to justify the abuse and mistreatment of children. Never should it be used to vent anger or frustration.
Discipline is used to correct and train people to go in the right way. “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11). God’s discipline is loving, as should it be between parent and child. Physical discipline should never be used to cause lasting physical harm or pain. Physical punishment should always be followed immediately by comforting the child with assurance that he/she is loved. These moments are the perfect time to teach a child that God disciplines us because He loves us and that, as parents, we do the same for our children.
Can other forms of discipline, such as “time-outs,” be used instead of physical discipline? Some parents find that their children do not respond well to physical discipline. Some parents find that “time-outs,” grounding, and/or taking something away from the children is more effective in encouraging behavioral change. If that is indeed the case, by all means, a parent should employ the methods that best produce the needed behavioral change. While the Bible undeniably advocates physical discipline, the Bible is more concerned with the goal of building godly character than it is in the precise method used to produce that goal.
Making this issue even more difficult is the fact that governments are beginning to classify all manner of physical discipline as child abuse. Many parents do not spank their children for fear of being reported to the government and risk having their children taken away. What should parents do if a government has made physical discipline of children illegal? According to Romans 13:1-7, parents should submit to the government. A government should never contradict God’s Word, and physical discipline is, biblically speaking, in the best interest of children. However, keeping children in families in which they will at least receive some discipline is far better than losing children to the “care” of the government.
In Ephesians 6:4, fathers are told not to exasperate their children. Instead, they are to bring them up in God’s ways. Raising a child in the “training and instruction of the Lord” includes restrained, corrective, and, yes, loving physical discipline.
Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors
Tagged raising children, spanking children, the rod
Leave a comment
“Should all mothers be stay-at-home moms?”
The subject of stay-at-home moms is one that has caused much controversy, especially in Western nations where many women work outside the home. There really are only two direct verses/passages that talk about a mother staying at home with her children. Titus 2:3-5 says, “Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.” The other direct verse is 1 Timothy 5:14, which says, “So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.” Another translation for the phrase “to be busy at home” in the Titus 2 passage is “to be keepers at home.”
Also consider some indirect verses. Proverbs 14:1 states that it is wise for a woman to invest in her home. While it is not necessary to be a stay-at-home mom in order to invest in your home, we see the priority that God places on the home and the woman’s involvement. Clearly, the home is not to be neglected for the sake of outside employment. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 teaches the importance of constantly teaching our children. Of course, this is addressed to fathers as well as mothers. Staying at home with children would only give more opportunities to teach children God’s ways. So it is a positive investment to be made in children’s lives by applying this passage of Scripture literally.
Finally, Proverbs 31 is the well-known passage about the wife and mother of excellence. From the description of her, we learn that this mother did work outside of the home. However, her family never lacked anything. She maintained a proper balance, so her family never suffered. Her family was always her priority. While the Bible leaves women the choice whether to stay at home with the children or go to work outside the home, it certainly is a commendable thing for a mother to be at home with the children and devote herself to training them full time. Women are definitely encouraged in Titus 2 and 1 Timothy 5 to stay at home with their young children. Whatever a woman chooses, she must maintain her home as a priority and her primary sphere of influence.
GRIN AND SHARE IT: “Sarah and a Friend on the Street”
|
|
||||
|
Sarah and a friend were walking down the street. Sarah noticed a Her friend said, “Let me look!” So Sarah handed her the compact. Her friend looked in the mirror and said, “You dumbie, of course she |
Posted in Grin and Share It
Leave a comment
“Is it biblically acceptable for a man to be a stay-at-home dad?”
This topic can be a relatively heated one with well-known pastors teaching that it is a sin to be a stay-at-home dad. There are other well-known pastors who teach the opposite. So, who is right? What does the Bible really say about this subject? The main verse regarding this issue is 1 Timothy 5:8: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” As always, the number-one rule in accurate Bible interpretation is context, and it is vitally important that we apply that rule here.
In this verse, Paul is actually stating negatively the truth or statement he had just made in verse 4: “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God” (1 Timothy 5:4). Here, Paul is commanding children to take care of their parents. He takes it further by stating that those who fail to do so are worse than unbelievers who naturally do so. Paul is repeating this principle because apparently in the church at Ephesus there were many violations of this command occurring.
The phrase “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household” is a first-class conditional statement in the original which could be better translated as “When any of you does not provide” or “Since some of you are not providing.” The word “provide” is from the Greek pronoeo, which means to “plan before.” It describes the forethought necessary to provide care for the widows in one’s family.
The phrase “for his own” is purposely vague. It refers to anyone within the circle of family relationships, even servants, who were considered part of a household in Paul’s time, and possibly close friends. A believing man who is head of a house has a mandated responsibility to provide “for those of his household.” The latter group is more narrow than the phrase “his own.” It focuses on those in the immediate family, where his responsibility begins.
Failing to provide or plan for the needs of those in either the narrow or the wide circle makes a believer guilty of two things. First, “he has denied the faith.” Now it is important to understand that this statement does not refer to the loss of his personal salvation. The key point is that Paul here is not judging the soul but the actions. It means that such a person has denied the principle of compassionate love that is at the heart of the Christian faith (John 13:35; Romans 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:9). In other words, the real command here is that there must be no contradiction between faith and conduct.
Second, his failure to provide or plan for the care of his family makes him in practice “worse than an unbeliever.” As we have seen, even the pagans knew the importance of, and felt the duty of, providing for their parents. For believers to fail to measure up to that standard is inexcusable. We are under greater condemnation because we have the commandment of God to love, and the power of God to enable us to do so.
So, what are we to take from all this? First of all, Paul is not directing this command to men only, but to anyone. Second, 1 Timothy 5:8 has nothing directly to do with working outside the home. A man is a man because he has the foresight to do what is necessary to take care of the needs of his family. For some it may mean working outside the home, for others it may mean working from home. For others, it may mean supporting their wives as they bring in the primary source of income. There are many wives who earn more money than their husbands and are delighted to do so! Will they, either the husband or the wife, be condemned because of it? There is no scriptural basis for such a belief.
The bottom line is that what makes a man more reprehensible than the “unbelievers” is if he does not have the foresight to take care of his family. It has nothing to do with whether or not he is a stay-at-home dad. Perhaps in some instances the “plan before” of pronoeo can be recognizing the greater income-producing ability of the wife and enabling her to be the primary income provider. Generally speaking, if one spouse is going to work while the other spouse stays at home, it is better for the husband to be the provider and the wife to be the “domestic engineer,” but in no sense is that a biblical mandate.
“Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?”
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 18:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth Matthew 2:20-23)?
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word
Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors
Leave a comment
GRIN AND SHARE IT: “The Three Doctors”
|
|
||||
|
Three doctors are returning from a conference when a truck crosses He looks at the doctors and says “Tell me why I should let you into Heaven. ” The first doctor says “I won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.” “OK!” says St. Peter, “Welcome to Heaven.” The second doctor looks worried and says “I never won any prize; but St. Peter smiles and holds open the Pearly Gates for doctor number two. The third doctor smiles and says “I am responsible for setting up HMO’s St. Peter looks this man in the eye and says “You may enter Heaven as |
Posted in Grin and Share It
Leave a comment
THE WALL: a blog of Baptist Voice Ministries 