I'm so glad to agree with you on this one, Dave!
The fact is there is not enough spanking these days. It is amazing how much kids are not punished, or WORSE yet rewarded, after misbehaving.
Out of context, but i was reading the other day this from St. Chrysostom:
"For even those fathers, who especially love their offspring, will forbid them the table, and inflict stripes, and punish them by disgrace, and in endless other ways of this kind correct their children when they are disorderly; yet are they nevertheless fathers, not only while doing them honour, but when acting thus; yea, they are preeminently fathers when they act thus."
Just thought I’d throw these into the mix.
Fulton Sheen said:
"There is nothing that develops character in a young boy like a pat on the back, provided it is given often enough, hard enough and low enough.”
Treasure in Clay, p.16. http://books.google.com/books?
id...lQ1Gd402QlcMnuI
And Augustine:
"And if you shout at him, love him inwardly; you may urge, wheedle, rebuke, rage; love, and do whatever you wish. A father after all, doesn’t hate his son; and if necessary, a father gives his son a whipping; he inflicts pain, to insure well-being. So that’s the meaning of in a spirit of mildness (Gal. 6:1).” Sermon 163B:3:1, The Works of Saint Augustine: A New Translation for the 21st Century, (Sermons 148-153), 1992, part 3, vol. 5, p. 182. ISBN 1565480074
See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aug..._Hippo#_note-
17
Or course, parents should always be on their guard against using excessive ‘discipline.’ Luther’s parents are a good example of how not to discipline a child. In his Table Talk for example, Luther speaks of the strictness of his 'home' life:
“My parents kept me under very strict discipline, even to the point of making me timid. For the sake of a mere nut my mother beat me until the blood flowed.” – p. 235.
http://books.google.com/books?id...g18HDApV-
pxKUi8
Patrick F O’hare (about as sever of a Luther critic as one will find, btw) in his Facts About Luther, gives a slightly different wording. He says that,
“…[Luther’s] mother in her inflexible rigor flogged him, until the blood flowed, on account of a worthless little nut.” – p. 36.
http://books.google.com/books?id...22&lr=&
as_brr=0
Poor Luther! Wonder how he’d of turned out had he had my parents, who, for the most part, just let me run wild?!! Dear heaven, I shudder at the very thought!!
While I don't think children are ruined for life by spanking neither do I consider it an appropriate method for training children.
My main points are as follow:
1. Behavior is best modified by positive and negative re-enforcement. Each defined as a "good" or "bad" response to an action perceived as inevitable (EG Candy tastes good, Syrup of Ipecac tastes bad).
2. Punishment is a negative re-enforcement applied after the fact and not perceived as inevitable.
Most punishment is: a. Too strong and generates a fight/flight response.
b. Too weak and no real response
c. Too late and no connection perceived between the act and the response (note DA's success with the "swat on the rear"...perceived and both immediate and inevitable.
I view the well behaved children reared by spanking parents as an example of the parent’s love carrying the children through some bad child rearing techniques or, you may feel free to use my, well-behaved, non-spanked children as an example of the same. This is NOT a hot button issue with me. I just wanted to get my two cents in.
Well intentioned, emotionally stable parents can use either technique to raise children. I will say that, in my perception, the number (and seriousness) of children suffering from abuse masked as discipline is greater than the number of children suffering from lack of discipline masked as love.
What do you do with the biblical data, and the Church's sanction, and even the scientific study of the American College of Pediatricians? The discussion can't proceed on mere bald opinion. There are facts to be reckoned with, too.
Mere bald opinion? The guy has well-behaved non-spanked kids. So do I. So do tons of my friends.
Church's sanction? Has the Magisterium anything to say about spanking?
I offer St. John Bosco, St. Elizabeth Seton, Father Flanagan and Maria Montessori whose life mission it was to work with kids, and who opposed spanking. I'm not saying they are infallible. I'm saying that you can be Catholic and not spank on more that bald opinion.
I find myself waffling back and forth with this issue. I had a discussion with a friend about this and he quipped: "Disiplining could not occur if dads were 50 lbs."
Great, Keith.
I have very well-behaved sometimes-spanked kids (two of them teenagers and "special-needs") that I would stack up against any other kids in the world, too. This isn't a tribunal on Good vs. Bad Parenting. I ain't the one saying that non-spankers are engaging in bad parenting. Usually we are the ones accused of that (i.e., in some circles), as if we are child abusers.
I'm simply looking at the ethics of spanking with regard to what the Bible states on the topic and what the Church has traditionally taught.
I want to know how the biblical data is dealt with, other than an unrealistic dismissal on grounds of "rod" and "beating" being supposedly symbolic, which I consider absurd and utterly without exegetical or linguistic foundation. That's all I'm asking.
The reference to four famous Catholics is helpful and interesting. Most of those scenarios were in teaching rather than parental situations, though, right (and St. Elizabeth Seton was also a teacher as well as a mother)? A teacher spanking a child is a lot different from a parent, because the close love and trust relationship is lacking.
Martin & Keith,
Martin said, I will say that, in my perception, the number (and seriousness) of children suffering from abuse masked as discipline is greater than the number of children suffering from lack of discipline masked as love.
I think America has become a spoiled nation precisely because parents haven't disciplined their children under the guise of love. Supposedly 50% of all marriages end up in divorce, so approximately 50% of kids are from broken homes. My brother married a divorced woman with a daughter. My brother can't spank her, because she's not his daughter legally. Her mom won't spank her, because my "niece" will say, "I want to go live with my real dad" if she does. So they've ended up with a spoiled child who doesn't get disciplined under the guise of love. I coach my daughter's soccer team, and we have girl in the same situation as my niece, and she runs her mom's house, because mom doesn't want to upset the daughter. I don't think my niece and soccer player are isolated incidents either.
Kids who don't get disciplined grow up thinking there aren't serious consequences to their actions. I'm a firm believer in disciplining one's children with whatever hurts the most. If it hurts your child to get a spanking, spank them. If it hurts your child to lose a toy, take a toy away. If it hurts your child to sit still, sit them in a corner. Or if it hurts for them to hear, "I'm disappointed in you," do that. Spanking isn't the only form of punishment, but I've heard it's the only form sanctioned by the Bible.
We see in Prov 13:24, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." We don't see "timeout" or "getting a talking to" in the Bible with regard to discipline.
I don't doubt you have wonderful children, but spanking has been proven, stood the test of time, and Biblically sanctioned. I'm with Dave on this one; how can one condemn spanking if it's Biblically sanctioned?
Peter,
"Disiplining could not occur if dads were 50 lbs."
What's the point? Surely you (or your friend) don't suggest dads stop disciplining their children. That goes directly against what the Bible teaches a father to do, AND it would make for wildly unruly children. What does he suggest? Just talk to your children? You can't reason with a 1 year old (I've tried), nor should you have to try when spanking is so effective at that age.
Besides a 50lb dad couldn't talk to his child either if the child didn't want to be talked to. The child would just walk away. I don't think your friend's point is very meaningful if applied to all forms of child rearing and correcting. Don't you agree?
.
What's the point? Surely you (or your friend) don't suggest dads stop disciplining their children. That goes directly against what the Bible teaches a father to do, AND it would make for wildly unruly children. What does he suggest? Just talk to your children? You can't reason with a 1 year old (I've tried), nor should you have to try when spanking is so effective at that age.
Besides a 50lb dad couldn't talk to his child either if the child didn't want to be talked to. The child would just walk away. I don't think your friend's point is very meaningful if applied to all forms of child rearing and correcting. Don't you agree?
Uhm,... Grubb,... the point my friend was trying to make was pretty much your comment above. Sorry, I was not clear.
Grubb,
You're equating lack of spanking with lack of discipline. It is possible to discipline w/o spanking.
Also, you will be hard pressed to convince me that what is wrong with the nation's children is that they aren't spanked enough. I'm sure that if you go to the streets and prisons you will not find men and women who were not spanked as children. What our society lacks, to its detriment, iis strong parent/child attachment and relationship--whether or not spanking is a part of that, I don't think it matters all that much. As JP2 said, "Discipline begins at the breast." Personally, I think spanking is such a powerful and persuasive disciplinary tool in the short term that there is a tendency to rely on it at the expense of the kind of parental involvement that more properly forms the child (and the parent) in the long term.
Peter,
I apologize for misunderstanding. That comment seemed to say that the only reason dad gets to spank is 'cause he's bigger. One of my coworkers has that mentality and never spanked his daughter. The truth is, dad gets to spank (or discipline as he sees fit) because he's the authority over the child (moms too).
Keith,
Not sure I'd agree with you on the prison scene. A majority of men in prison had absent fathers, and if mom was working, there may have been very little discipline in the home (spanking or otherwise).
I agree spanking can be the "quick fix" that addresses the behavior instead of the heart. I posted a comment on the other "Spanking" thread that said my philosophy is "Spank early, spank often." This is intended to be humorous yet truthful. I believe the younger a child is, the more effective and appropriate spankings are. As they mature, so should one's discipline. I also agree with you that the paternal bond is paramount. Without that, any discipline will probably only be effective at altering behavior in the short term. It takes a quality parental bond to help change a child's heart long term.
Peter & Keith,
When I was growing up, everyone didn't put plastic things in wall outlets to keep kids from putting their fingers in them. Assuming you have a 1 year old at someone's house without them, what do you do if he starts to put his finger in one? One modern technique says to say "no no" and redirect the child to something more constructive. But that may not be very deterring. He may WANT to try it again. In something like that which can be life and death, a spanking may be the appropriate deterrent where simply redirecting may not. If he gets a spanking the first time he tries to touch it (after being warned once), he may well remember that the next time he passes one; but if he was simply redirected the last time, he may give it multiple tries until dad's not looking. What would y'all do?
.
Grubb, you seem to be under the impression that I am opposed to spanking. I am not. I guess the waffling that I mentioned above comes from the fact that I cannot be certain that I will always use such measures with moral clarity.
As regards to your example with the child playing with the wall outlet. I believe that the child might still do so even if he knows he will get spanked because those who "break the law" so to speak will do so because they think that they won't get caught. The punishment might not always deter behavior.
I'm a firm believer in disciplining one's children with whatever hurts the most. If it hurts your child to get a spanking, spank them. If it hurts your child to lose a toy, take a toy away. If it hurts your child to sit still, sit them in a corner. Or if it hurts for them to hear, "I'm disappointed in you," do that.
Well, for the child who has a strong attachment to his parent, what hurts most is that the parent is disappointed in the child. I think one reason why people advocate an escalation in forms of discipline, is that they haven't cultivated the kind of relationship with their child which makes the child desire to obey them. As JP2 said, "Discipline begins at the breast". Attach early, attach often is what I think the late, great pope was saying is the key to discipline (as opposed to your "spank early, spank often")
When I was growing up, everyone didn't put plastic things in wall outlets to keep kids from putting their fingers in them. Assuming you have a 1 year old at someone's house without them, what do you do if he starts to put his finger in one? One modern technique says to say "no no" and redirect the child to something more constructive. But that may not be very deterring. He may WANT to try it again. In something like that which can be life and death, a spanking may be the appropriate deterrent where simply redirecting may not. If he gets a spanking the first time he tries to touch it (after being warned once), he may well remember that the next time he passes one; but if he was simply redirected the last time, he may give it multiple tries until dad's not looking. What would y'all do?
"His loving-kindness endureth forever". I think of the age of reason. The Church (God's mouthpiece) says that children aren't culpable for their sins prior to the age of reason. It's a child development issue. If God recognizes that, why shouldn't I? If God doesn't hold the child culpable, why should I? I shouldn't, because it's not disobedience, but immaturity. I wouldn't even say no to my child at that age because he isn't even capable of obeying me, so why foster a habit of disobedience? Instead, I would lower myself, give myself physically to the child and give the child as much of myself that he needs to be redirected away. Sure, I could get results by hitting him. But those aren't the kind of results I want. It's not the kind of obedience I want. Nor, do I think, is it the kind of obedience God wants. How did God ultimately deal with the rebellion of his children? Did He give us some sort of cosmic spanking? Quite the opposite. He lowered himself. He appealed to our hearts, He tried to win them over through love. He lowered himself to become one of us. Even then he didn't take to the streets telling people how wrong they were. Instead he went about healing people infirmities. He served us. Gave himself to us. Washed our feet. Then He gave up his life for us.
[cont'd]
Since man has a rational nature, endowed with free will, he had to be brought back to a state of uprightness, not necessarily by external force, but according to his own will...but rectitude or uprightness of will, consists in the regulation of love, which is the will’s chief affection... Now, to win our love for God, the Word of God [Christ], by Whom all things were made, could do nothing more for the reparation of our nature, than to assume it, so that He is God and Man.
—St. Thomas Aquinas
He has become so small—you see: an infant!—so that you can come close to him with confidence.
St. Josemaría Escrivá, The Way
That's our model as fathers. In my experience, when I see a father who has discipline problems, it is not for the lack of blows he has delivered to the back side of his child. It is because he has failed to pour out himself, to lower himself, to give himself...to win his child's heart through love. And because that is lacking, he must compensate with corporeal punishment....but it's never enough as I see it. Theoretically, I believe in spanking. I don't think it is wrong. I do think it is misused and over-used because it yields enormous external results. I say, go ahead and spank as long as you are also taking pains to model yourself after the fatherly love of God as demonstrated in the quotes by the two saints above. But in my experience, if you making a heroic, manly, saintly effort at the latter, then you won't even need the former.
I don't doubt you have wonderful children, but spanking has been proven, stood the test of time, and Biblically sanctioned. I'm with Dave on this one; how can one condemn spanking if it's Biblically sanctioned?
Could spanking be kind of like a matter of doctrinal development? The references to it are relatively almost as old as an eye for an eye.
Not sure I'd agree with you on the prison scene. A majority of men in prison had absent fathers, and if mom was working, there may have been very little discipline in the home (spanking or otherwise).
OK, then. There you go. Absent fathers. Working (absent) mothers. Then that's your problem, not the lack of spanking.
were comments erased here?
weird. the last 3 or 4 comments didn't show up until I posted the above one....
Peter,
I have a 6 year old niece who does what she wants despite the form of punishment used, BUT she's less likely to disobey when her dad is around than her mom, because her dad spanks her hard. Mom either spanks lightly or just talks to her. You're correct that there will always be "law breakers" (whether it be lying children or bank robbers); but the harsher the punishment, the less likely one is to break the law. If we had the death penalty for speeding, would everyone regularly drive 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit? Obviously that's too harsh, but you see what I'm saying, right?
I think things like playing with outlets, running into the street, and going near the fire place (things that could have life altering or ending consequences) deserve harsh punishment. Part of that harsh punishment may be a stern talking to and losing privileges, but spanking definitely needs to be in the mix the younger the child is.
Sorry if I put you in the "I never spank" category.
As for "moral clarity", Dave has shown nicely the Bible sanctions spanking. 'nough said.
.
I didn't delete any comments. Halsoscan has been acting weird lately. The counters don't operate right, etc.
How did God ultimately deal with the rebellion of his children? Did He give us some sort of cosmic spanking? Quite the opposite. He lowered himself. He appealed to our hearts, He tried to win them over through love.
I'm surprised you would make this argument. Surely you know how God dealt with His rebellious children throughout the Old Testament.
When Adam and Eve rebelled, they were kicked out of the garden.
When the Jews rebelled in the wilderness under Moses, God judged and killed thousands of them on the spot.
When the Jews rebelled over and over again with idolatry, they would often lose battles, because God wasn't with them. Saul and his army (including Jonathan) went down this way.
After a number of bad kings, God used Nechuchadnezzar and the Babylonians to defeat Israel, destroy the temple, and lead the Jews away into captivity for over 100 years.
When the Jews rejected Jesus, the Romans came in and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple once again, in 70 A.D.
The point is that, in cases of wanton rebellion and "not listening", God would be harsh. In the OT period, this was the equivalent of the Jews being (spiritually) "children." God was trying to get through to them the basic notion of obeying a fundamentally superior Being and Creator. So He was relatively more harsh, because that was all they could relate to at that primitive stage. God loved them the whole time. Even His judgments were an act of love. You see the analogy, I trust, by now . . .
Once Jesus and the New Covenant came, then God could exercise much more outward mercy and love and tenderness than before. But there is still a strong motif of "chastisement" in the NT, as I have shown.
Indeed, purgatory itself is another analogy. Because we won't be obedient we have to learn the hard way, and so we will have to suffer again before we can go to heaven.
Of course, if you want to go the Protestant route, where everything is all warm fuzzies and peaches and cream when you die, and you go right to the throne of God the Father, like Jesus did, then that would be the analogy there. No spanking; just pure mercy. But we believe that when we are again "infants" in terms of entering heaven, there will have to be some suffering to be endured first.
Keith,
I wouldn't even say no to my child at that age because he isn't even capable of obeying me, so why foster a habit of disobedience?
"No" needs to be the first word a child learns. I say that partly in jest but partly serious. God says "No" to us all the time. In fact the 1st two commandments say, "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below," and "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Some of the other commandments say essentially, don't lie, don't steal, don't defraud, and don't covet. Sounds like a whole lot of 'no's to me, and we teach our children these things from the earliest of ages.
You don't have to foster disobedience, kids will naturally disobey. So do adults. Paul said (paraphrased) where there is no law, there is no law breaking. That's essentially what you're doing by never saying "no", right? But even if you remove the law and the ability to disobey, you can't remove a selfish desire to do what he wants to do. It's admirable that you're available to your kids 24/7, but at some point in their young lives they may be out of your & your wife's sight. If they've never been told "NO!!" to the wall outlet (but merely directed away from it), they may stick their metal spoon in it, and they're not even being disobedient in doing it.
One of the most important lessons a Christian needs to learn is to say "no" to himself, and the earlier he starts the better. Whether it be overeating, impure thoughts, watching too much tv, watching "Desperate Housewives" or "Dirty Sexy Money", living beyond one's means, and on and on. If we don't learn to say no to ourselves by the time we leave home, we may never learn. The kid who can say no to his desire to put a metal object into a wall outlet has learned a great lesson. Wouldn't you agree? But how can he start learning at the age of 1 or 2 if you never say "no" to him? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying when you state, "I wouldn't even say no to my child at that age."
In my experience, when I see a father who has discipline problems, it is not for the lack of blows he has delivered to the back side of his child. It is because he has failed to pour out himself, to lower himself, to give himself...to win his child's heart through love. And because that is lacking, he must compensate with corporeal punishment....but it's never enough as I see it.
I agree with you very much on this point. Again, I'm not saying spanking is the only effective means of discipline, but with a 1 year old it's usually the MOST effective. I also agree that a great parent-child bond is of the utmost importance.
.
Dave & Keith,
I agree with most of your comment Dave. Obviously I disagree with the "Protestant route" portion. Setting aside purgatory, God says in multiple places in the NT that true followers who are disobedient get disciplined. Heb 12:6-7 says, "because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline, God is treating you as sons, for what son is not disciplined by his father?" That's not to say every hardship is the result of disobedience, but I bet if each of us was honest about it, we'd agree that we have far less hardships (aka discipline) than we have disobedient actions.
He also says in Rev 3:19, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent." God indicates in multiple places that we'll be rebuked and disciplined by Him while we're on earth. There are no CLEAR indications in the Bible that we'll be punished after we die.
That notwithstanding, God does give "cosmic spankings" when He sends hardships to us. Or maybe sometimes it's a cosmic timeout, cosmic go-to-your-room, or cosmic take the toy away. The point is "the Lord disciplines those He loves," and there's no guarantee that discipline won't be a cosmic spanking.
.
There are no CLEAR indications in the Bible that we'll be punished after we die.
What do you do with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 then?
For that matter, Luke 16 and the "parable" of the rich man and Lazarus is quite clear. He died (16:22) and then was "in anguish in this flame" (16:24). 1 Corinthians 3:15 also mentions a (non-hell) fire or something akin to it: "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
So that's two passages I would say are quite clear enough.
As for "moral clarity", Dave has shown nicely the Bible sanctions spanking. 'nough said.
What I meant is that a father can spank out of anger more so than for wanting to do what is most appropriate and useful for the child. God knows what the best form of discipline for a given situation is and exactly how much of it to apply. Human fathers on the other hand -especially me-are not this capable so I would rather be able to use a different form of disipline just in case my wacking my children is more motivated by anger than love and convern. I recognise that both motives may be present. I just don't trust myself all that much. I also realize (I have five children) that some of children respond to a tone of voice or a look, but others have more nerve and Dad is compelled to come down heavier on those children. Indeed, God chastizes those he loves and He is perfect in His motives and moral clarity when doing so.
I made it clear in my post(s) that the type of person who feels he can't control his anger or spank with the right loving motivation should not spank his kids. Thus, I have already covered that scenario. I wold urge you just as much as my friend Keith would, to not spank, and to find other means to discipline.
I only object to the sweeping language that is so common in anti-spanking or more "neutral" comments: "Human fathers on the other hand -especially me-are not this capable."
We don't have to be like God or perfectly holy to spank in a wise, intelligent manner. We simply need to be in control of our passions, as is, I think, possible for most people to achieve with God's help, at least after a lot of practice and self-discipline.
If God thought no human father (or mother: lots of single moms out there) could spank intelligently, then why is spanking specifically sanctioned several times in Scripture? In one place it even said "whip him often" as routine child discipline.
I didn't even do that: spanking was pretty rare for all my four children. But GOD recommends it. This simply can't be dismissed. That's why, I think, no one has overcome those clear Scriptures yet in any responses to my papers, either here or on the CHNI board, where they first originated.
Dave,
Put in it's context, we see that I Cor 3:10-15 says,
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
In verse 10 we see that Paul is comparing a spiritual foundation (about which his readers may have been unclear) to a building's foundation (of which they had great knowledge). Did he really lay the foundation "as an expert builder"? Did he dig, level, smooth, and then place stones, or is he just making a comparison? So if he didn't really dig, level, and smooth our hearts (as an expert builder would do on the soil he's laying a foundation on), why does the final comparison in verse 15 have to be a literal one?
Then he compares good/bad deeds and right/wrong doctrine to "gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw." Then he says "the Day will bring it to light," which we both agree is Judgment Day. He continues the comparison by saying "It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work." Will God really set our works on fire? The comparison continues: he will be saved "as one escaping through the flames." Just as a man who builds a house that's exposed to fire barely escapes with his life if he built it out of straw and hay, one may feel that way when his deeds are judged before the Judgment Throne on Judgment Day. There's no clear statement that once we die we have to go through a painful, fire-induced cleansing process. Paul is simply comparing what we don't know to what we do know in hopes that we understand that on Judgment Day our deeds will be shown to be good or bad, just as a house is shown to be good or bad on its judgment day (when it's exposed to fire).
I was a goalkeeper in high school in SC, and my senior year we had a tie game after 2 overtimes that went to penalty kicks (aka a shootout) in the playoffs. You can't imagine the pressure of standing there with the entire season and hopes of my teammates on my shoulders. It was as though someone twice my size was sitting on my chest.
Now am I saying if one is ever a goalie in a shootout he'll actually have someone twice his weight sitting on his chest, or am I merely trying to connect what you may not know (the pressure of a shootout) with what you clearly know (something VERY heavy on your chest)?
(continued below)
.
The story of Lazarus:
Luke 16:22, "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,"
Why wasn't the poor man carried to purgatory first? It appears he went straight to heaven.
Luke 16:23, "and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side."
Hades = Hell not purgatory. Can those in hell really see and speak with those in heaven? This leads us to believe it's a parable rather than a true story.
Luke 16:24-25, "And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
Sounds more like the great divide between heaven and hell than a temporary cleansing doesn't it? Not really sure how this supports purgatory at all. It's certainly not crystal clear in doing so.
I can see how I Cor 3 might be interpreted to support the idea of purgatory, but Luke 16 doesn't even come close as near as I can tell. My point wasn't that there's no scripture that can be used to support the idea of purgatory but that it's not clear and irrefutable. I still stand by that.
.
I made it clear in my post(s) that the type of person who feels he can't control his anger or spank with the right loving motivation should not spank his kids. Thus, I have already covered that scenario. I wold urge you just as much as my friend Keith would, to not spank, and to find other means to discipline.
I only object to the sweeping language that is so common in anti-spanking or more "neutral" comments: "Human fathers on the other hand -especially me-are not this capable."
We don't have to be like God or perfectly holy to spank in a wise, intelligent manner. We simply need to be in control of our passions, as is, I think, possible for most people to achieve with God's help, at least after a lot of practice and self-discipline.
If God thought no human father (or mother: lots of single moms out there) could spank intelligently, then why is spanking specifically sanctioned several times in Scripture? In one place it even said "whip him often" as routine child discipline.
I didn't even do that: spanking was pretty rare for all my four children. But GOD recommends it. This simply can't be dismissed. That's why, I think, no one has overcome those clear Scriptures yet in any responses to my papers, either here or on the CHNI board, where they first originated.
Dave, as I mentioned to Grubb, I am not opposed to spankning children under the appropriate circumstances (some of which you touched on).I have used such corporal discipline. I was only suggesting, or more accurately reiterating, a couple of the points that you made earlier. There have been enough times that I, after administering some form of discipline (say the removal of a priviledge for a period of time) that after some sober second thought I have mitigated the punishment somewhat. There have also been times where I have admited to my children that I had overreacted and that the punshment didn't fit the crime. For me, I have decided to avoid spanking as much as possible, since once it is performed, the deed is done and I can't take it back or mitigate the discipline. Those men who are more capable than I would have no such reservations
Hi Grubb,
I don't have time to get into purgatory and 1 Cor 3, but I'll do Luke 16 with ya:
The story of Lazarus:
Luke 16:22, "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,"
Why wasn't the poor man carried to purgatory first? It appears he went straight to heaven.
Nope; this is Hades, or the Limbo of the Fathers. It clearly says so in 16:23. It's neither heaven nor hell. So it proves that there is such a thing as a third state after death and thus indirectly touches upon purgatory as a possibility of another "third state."
Luke 16:23, "and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side."
Hades = Hell not purgatory.
It's not hell. The word for hell in Greek is Gehenna. This is Sheol / Hades.
Can those in hell really see and speak with those in heaven?
No. That's why this isn't referring to hell and heaven. The rich man may end up in hell. We don't know. But we know he's not in hell here because he still has charity towards his brothers.
This leads us to believe it's a parable rather than a true story.
It's called a parable, but it really isn't. It isn't introduced as such, and reads like true history. But even if it were a parable, Jesus couldn't include false categories in it, because that would mislead His hearers.
Sounds more like the great divide between heaven and hell than a temporary cleansing doesn't it?
It's the divide between the wicked and the righteous in Hades.
Not really sure how this supports purgatory at all. It's certainly not crystal clear in doing so.
I didn't say it directly supported purgatory. You forget what I am responding to. This was in reply to your claim that there is no biblical indication of punishment after death. I showed you this passage which is indeed a clear instance of that. The argument for purgatory is more involved. I give many biblical arguments for that in my first book. I'll send an e-book copy to you for free if you want one.
I can see how I Cor 3 might be interpreted to support the idea of purgatory, but Luke 16 doesn't even come close as near as I can tell. My point wasn't that there's no scripture that can be used to support the idea of purgatory but that it's not clear and irrefutable. I still stand by that.
You wrote:
God indicates in multiple places that we'll be rebuked and disciplined by Him while we're on earth. There are no CLEAR indications in the Bible that we'll be punished after we die.
I have shown that Luke 16 fits this category perfectly. You haven't overcome that. You've only shown that you are confused about the various biblical categories of the afterlife.
I've already sparred with Bishop White on 1 Cor 3 and purgatory, which is one reason I don't want to spend more time on that passage:
Refutation of James White on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and Purgatory
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...white-on-
1.html
Dave,
Thanks for responding. I'll do some checking on your points and hope to respond later today or Monday. I know you've already discussed this at length, and re-discussing something over and over (even with a different person) can get old and monotonous. Maybe I'll post my reply here and in the open forum to see if anyone else wants to discuss it.
I've noticed a lot of material from you this month. Have you gotten back to full-time apologetics? I really enjoy reading a lot of the topics you bring up even if I don't discuss them. Unlike you, it takes me a long time to think through and formulate what I want to say. I'm one of those guys who after a discussion says, "Ohhhhh, I should have said such and such." So I take a long time to try to make sure I say what I really want to say. I do horrible in verbal debates unless I know a topic inside out. The message board and blogging forums are perfect for me.
.
Actually, you didn't address one of my best points. It says that Lazarus was carried directly to Abraham's side. Why didn't he go to Sheol for a brief cleansing?
Plus Abraham said no one could go from here to there or there to here, but one WOULD go from purgatory to heaven after being purified. If Sheol is a temporary stopping point that leads to heaven, Abraham lied; but we both know Abraham wouldn't lie.
Anyway, I'll look up the other points you made.
.
I've noticed a lot of material from you this month. Have you gotten back to full-time apologetics?
I never stopped! I've done full-time apologetics since Dec. 2001, when the delivery company I worked for went out of business. But I am working 30 hours a week for the Coming Home Network, on their discussion board, so oftentimes stuff that I post there can be cross-posted here. There is an overlap in my work for them and my "own" stuff. So that accounts for some of the increased output. I did have another part-time driving job for about 3-4 months during the summer, so that took time away from my writing.
I really enjoy reading a lot of the topics you bring up even if I don't discuss them.
Thanks! That's very kind of you to say. We enjoy having you here and your discussions are always thoughtful and stimulating. I'm honored and humbled that you feel comfortable hanging around here. I wish many more Protestants would do the same.
Actually, you didn't address one of my best points. It says that Lazarus was carried directly to Abraham's side. Why didn't he go to Sheol for a brief cleansing?
Abraham and Lazarus and the rich man were all in Sheol. The Jews believed (and Jesus agrees by virtue of this story) that Sheol / Hades had a divide between the righteous and the wicked. Christians believe that Jesus went and "rescued" these people after His death (see Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:19-20). The reprobate in Hades eventually are sentenced to hell (Rev 20:13-15).
Plus Abraham said no one could go from here to there or there to here, but one WOULD go from purgatory to heaven after being purified.
That was the nature of Sheol / Hades, as determined by God. It is analogous to purgatory mainly insofar as it is a third state after death that is neither heaven nor hell, but which has foreshadowings of both, as we see in Luke 16.
If Sheol is a temporary stopping point that leads to heaven, Abraham lied; but we both know Abraham wouldn't lie.
I don't see why you would have to think anyone lied. Again, you need to become more acquainted with the doctrine of Hades in Scripture. It's a fascinating topic, for sure.
Here is a Protestant page that talks about Hades and takes essentially the same position I have:
http://www.minuteswithmessiah.co...tion/
hades.html
Here's another, that is virtually identical with what I have argued in this discussion:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-...-
believers.html
I was making these arguments 25 years ago in debating Jehovah's Witnesses, as a Protestant, and opposing their doctrines of annihilationism and soul sleep. It's not just an argument used by Catholics. It's an exegetical biblical argument that anyone can make.
Commenting by HaloScan
