Courtship, Family Integrated Churches, Full-Quiver, Homeschool Movement, Modesty and Purity Teachings, Parenting, Patriarchal-Complementarian Movement, Voddie Baucham

Voddie Baucham: Prescription for Spanking and the Shy Child

*     *     *

One of the traps that we got ourselves caught in was looking to religious leaders for guidance on how to raise our children.  It’s ok to seek guidance, but we didn’t always check what we learned with scripture.  We read a lot of books and went to parenting seminars/classes over the years:  Train Up A Child, Shepherding a Child’s Heart, Titus2.com, Ezzo’s Growing Kids God’s Way, etc.  We weren’t the only ones.  Some of these books/classes were trendy and many churches across the states would jump on the bandwagon.  During the mid 1990s, I spent time visiting homeschool forums online and I’d hear of new parenting books/programs popping up all over the country.    Next thing I knew, our own church was now promoting the program I had just read about online.

In general, we tried to adopt ideas that worked for our family and leave the other stuff behind. That seems like a balanced approach, but we still got ourselves in trouble and I have had to apologize to my kids for the way I treated them.

It’s interesting, but the Bible really doesn’t have a large amount of verses on child training, yet some of these Christian leaders were able to write meaty books on the subject or speak for hours on the subject,  showing us how to parent our children the “biblical” way.  Yet how much of what they write or speak about really is in the Bible?  It’s really more of their interpretation of the Bible and the application of it.   I don’t know about you, but none of my kids were born with an instruction manual and coming from a dysfunctional family, I wanted all the help I could get.

I now get red flags when I see big names being promoted as being the expert on a particular issue.  Voddie Baucham is one such pastor whose name is in the celebrity pastor limelight.  I don’t quite understand why people elevate certain pastors to the level of celebrity status.  It’s high time we start removing people from pedestals and acknowledge that God has given us parents the same ability to discern that He has given them.  They were not given a direct line to God any more than we have been given.

From Mr. Baucham’s “about” page at his church website:

Voddie Baucham wears many hats.  He is a husband, father, pastor, author, professor, conference speaker and church planter.  He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX.  He has served as an adjunct professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, TX, and Union University in Jackson, TN.  He has also lectured at Southern Seminary.

Baucham is a big proponent of homeschooling and his 8 children are educated at home.  He and his church also promote family-integrated church model, meaning families worship together and there is no age segregation for Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc.

In this article, we read about his involvement in the Homeschool Movement.  The Homeschool Movement is a subculture within the homeschooling community which subscribes to specific teachings and ideologies:  Courtship, Patriarchy, Purity/Modesty teachings, Quiverfull, etc.  He believes the Homeschool Movement has the ability to turn the tide in recapturing this current generation for Christ.  Here’s one quote:  “The one hopeful sign I see is that the home-schooling movement is thriving. If there is an answer, I believe that is it.” Along with his support of the Homeschool Movement, Google searches will show that he is a strong supporter of Courtship and Patriarchy.  He also does not think adult daughters should leave the home to go to college.

I’m not going to discuss those specific issues, but only bring them up to give a little background information.

What I do want to focus on is his parenting ideas, namely, spanking.    Listen to his words. Line up his words with what the Bible says on parenting and see for yourself if this man is speaking biblically or his own agenda.  Does the Bible say anything about shy children?  Does the Bible say anything about how many spanks a child needs each day?  Where does that come from?

*  *  *TRIGGER ALERT:  SPANKING *  *  *

The following was transcribed from the above video:

Voddie Baucham

November 4, 2007

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

SPANK OFTEN

Source
Source

Ephesians Chapter 6 Verses 1-4 I want to take you through three things, I want you to see three things, three phases in the training of our children. Phase number one is the discipline and correction phase. These are the first few years of life incredibly important. This is where we lay the foundation for everything else. The discipline and training phase. In this phase is where we are saying to our children “give me your attention, give me your attention.” “You need to pay more attention to ME than I do to YOU, give me your attention.” “The world doesn’t revolve around YOU, YOUR world revolves around ME.” That’s what we need to teach our children in those first few years of their life. Because they come here and just by nature of things they believe that the world revolves around them. And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.”

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the ROD of correction will drive it far from them. In other words God says your children desperately, desperately need to be spanked.

Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and spank your kids, okay? (laughter from audience)

And, they desperately need to be spanked and they need to be spanked often, they do. I meet people all the time ya’ know and they say, oh yeah, “There have only been maybe 4 or 5 times I’ve ever had to spank Junior.” “Really?” ‘That’s unfortunate, because unless you raised Jesus II, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked 5 times before breakfast.” If you only spanked your child 5 times, then that means almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go.

Why do your toddlers throw fits? Because you’ve taught them that’s the way that they can control you. When instead you just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out and they finally decide “you know what, things get worse when I do that.”

THE SELFISH SIN OF SHYNESS

Let me give you an example, a prime example. The so-called shy kid, who doesn’t shake hands at church, okay? Usually what happens is you come up, ya’ know and here I am, I’m the guest and I walk up and I’m saying hi to somebody and they say to their kid “Hey, ya’ know, say Good-morning to Dr. Baucham,” and the kid hides and runs behind the leg and here’s what’s supposed to happen. This is what we have agreed upon, silently in our culture. What’s supposed to happen is that, I’m supposed to look at their child and say, “Hey, that’s okay.” But I can’t do that. Because if I do that, then what has happened is that number one, the child has sinned by not doing what they were told to do, it’s in direct disobedience. Secondly, the parent is in sin for not correcting it, and thirdly, I am in sin because I have just told a child it’s okay to disobey and dishonor their parent in direct violation of scripture. I can’t do that, I won’t do that. I’m gonna stand there until you make ’em do what you said.

*     *     *

297 thoughts on “Voddie Baucham: Prescription for Spanking and the Shy Child”

  1. Forgive me if this is a little off topic. From the belief that we’re all born with a sinful nature it doesn’t follow that babies sin, and it clearly doesn’t follow that all baby or child like behavior is sinful. Babies cry when something needs attention. How else are they supposed to let us know that all is not right in their world? I always wince when we sing Away in a Manger which seems to imply that Jesus didn’t cry. How do we think he let Mary know that he was hungry? Do we think he came out of the womb speaking Hebrew or Aramaic so that he could say, “Mom, at your leisure, would you be able to give me some nourishment? Thanks so much.” If he did that, he was never really a baby. Babies wail when they’re hungry.

    Like

  2. the issue is not ‘spanking’ per se, but the concept of corporal punishment. I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught. You can also take a look at Prov 22:15 and Prov 29:15,17 for the concept of corporal punishment/discipline. Our Eph passage goes to the improper use of corporal punishment.

    Like

  3. B4B posts, “Don’t really need your dissertation concerning the term ‘Hell.’ I’m thinking this may suggest another entry in what I am now calling the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words, to wit:

    Don’t Really Need (to hear, read, study, etc.): Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.)

    Then again, maybe B4B thinks I’m being totally hypocritical. Well, for the record, I compliment Born4Battle for having begun to take the time to begin to enunciate the bases for his positions. I really am interested in what he has to say of a substantive nature.

    Like

  4. “Don’t really need your dissertation concerning the term ‘Hell’. The principle of corporal punishment is what is at stake here in this Proverb. Call it a ‘maxim’, as many have defined such expressions in Proverbs. As one commentator explains (John Gill).”
    Born4Battle

    Do you take every other maxim in Proverbs at face value (as literally read in our current translarions) as well? From your response to Samuel about his book, I get the impression that you fully understand what the original writers of scripture meant when they penned the text. And you trust that the translations we have today, 3,000-4,000 years later, clearly state what the original writers meant?

    What’s really at stake here is not the principle of corporal punishment, but our children being treated and loved the same way God treats and loves you and I who call him Father.

    We don’t war against flesh and blood . . .

    Like

  5. “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.”

    Are you saying that a single Bible verse is all it takes to declare something to be biblical?

    Like

  6. And, while I am proposing entries for the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words, here is one updated entry, along with two new entries:

    Taking Out of Context: Accusatory terminology typically deployed as a tactic to avoid responding substantively to legitimate questions and observations. Specifically, what a doctrinaire apologist, often a pastor, groundlessly accuses a fellow believer of committing when asking a question or making an observation, whether relating to Scripture or to some other source. Often involves the commission of an emotionally aggressive interpersonal putdown/shutdown, i.e. a demeaning, shaming, putting down (by implying the deficiency of a fellow believer’s intellectual and/or moral capacity), coupled with a disrespectful, alienating, shutting down (as in refusing to extend the courtesy of actually responding to the substance of a fellow believer’s concern). Is useful in camouflaging the apologist’s lack of knowledge and/or the error of their views.

    Tactical Exaggeration: A form of deceit wherein some one or more factual circumstances are inflated, either quantitatively or qualitatively, in an attempt to discredit, demean, distract or otherwise gain an advantage by means other than an honest and forthright discussion of issues. Is a species of outright misrepresentation. May be deployed as one of several tactical gambits in an overarching strategy of avoiding a reasoned discussion of matters wherein one’s point of view is unlikely to prevail on the basis of dispassionate discourse.

    Truth: A code word used in place of opinion. Specifically, a word used to refer to any opinion for which a doctrinaire apologist can find the flimsiest of Scriptural proof texts. May be used manipulatively in a manner similar to the manipulative use of the code word “Biblical.”

    Like

  7. Born4Battle,

    You state that “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.” I’m almost afraid to ask, but does that apply to the following passages?:

    Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15, ESV)

    Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:17, ESV)

    If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10, ESV)

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13-16, ESV)

    Like

  8. B4B quoted :

    “Or, correct him with the stripes of the children of men, in a moderate and suitable manner, proportionable to the fault committed; and as he is able to bear it, both as to body and mind”

    Problem is, the verse does not say that. Gill’s “moderate and suitable” is reading his own suppositions into the meaning of the passage.

    “The idea of corporal punishment that, while not causing bodily harm…”

    Again, the idea of no bodily harm is reading something into the passage that is not there. Do you honestly think the application of the rod caused no bodily harm?

    If you want to take it as written then you will be taking a ROD – not a switch, belt, hand or some substitute – and applying it to young MAN or servant. And the striking of the staff/rod/branch is going to cause bruises, welts, or worse.

    Note my emphasis on who this applies to. The word translated “child”(na’ar) is more often translated servant/s, young man/men, or boy. Definitely not girls and probably not toddlers or younger children.

    I just don’t see how you can get the modern practice of “spanking” out of these passages at all. Those who are pro-spanking are taking the liberty to apply them figuratively. Including what instrument is used, how it is applied, and who it is applied to.

    Like

  9. “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.”

    Are you saying that a single Bible verse is all it takes to declare something to be biblical?

    Not even a verse. Just the chapter-and-verse zip code.

    Come to think of it, here’s three verses (I don’t know the zip codes):
    1) “Judas went and hanged himself.”
    2) “Go thou and do likewise.”
    3) “What thou doest, doest quickly.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. A related home and family issue: We watched Jackson Katz, on a terrific TED Talk, who declared that domestic violence is not a women’s issue but is very much a man’s issue.

    This is a ‘must listen’ and share with others talk that challenges society’s (and the church’s) entrenched beliefs about this and a number of key issues.

    Jackson Katz asks a very important question that gets at the root of why sexual abuse, rape, and domestic abuse remain a problem: What’s going on with men?!

    Like

  11. I got a comment a while back on my blog from a reader who, in talking about my ebook mentioned that he felt ignorant to the real depth of Scripture.

    I note in my own studies that deep examination of passages and researching what many scholars and academics have said on these ancient texts is very helpfui. It is just not enough to simply discuss these texts alone. We need academic depth to help us understand things more

    Like

  12. Samuel, I would agree with your assessment that we need academic help to gain the greater depth of so many passages of Scripture.

    Someone I was chatting with recently had an opinion that scholarship was a problem. This is how I responded:

    Though spiritual truths are spiritually revealed, this does not negate the need for rigorous study of the biblical text.

    What I see as a huge problem is that people have taken a Biblicist view of the Scriptures and have run with it without taking any time to investigate the context, the when, where, and who of a passage. What I call ‘springboard preaching’—taking a few Scriptures and then diving into the pool without giving any of the historical background, etc. This does not instill biblical literacy in God’s people but instead encourages biblical ignorance!

    Like

  13. So corporal punishment was valid in the OT and not in the NT? Like dietary laws or something? That might be true, unless the need for corporal punishment is based on the ‘nature’ of human beings when they are born. If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept. Find out what the Bible says about the nature of ALL human beings born and you have your answer.

    Like

  14. Being capable of sin does not logically lead to corporal punishment being necessary for all people for all time to stamp out all sin. It depends on the child whether or not corporal punishment would be effective.

    Like

  15. B4B – You should definitely read my post “So you think you ‘know’ the Bible?” – It deals with the simple and plain teaching of Scripture that there were over 600,000 armed men for the war mentioned in the book of Numbers. I also connect this story to other issues like corporal punishment which are just so clear and plainly taught. When you take in the whole counsel of God, which we should, other ideas can present themselves. http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.htmlYou said: ““I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.” – This is an admirable point of view. But you have to be very careful with this idea.

    The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Like

  16. Samuel Martin

    Much agreement when you write…
    “It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.”

    Seems their is “Truth” in the Bible called – “Present Truth.”
    And “The Truth,” Jesus, takes away the first *to establish the second.*

    2 Pet 1:12 KJV
    Wherefore I will not be negligent
    to put you always in remembrance of these things,
    though ye know them,
    and **be established in the present truth.**

    Heb 10:9 KJV
    Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
    He taketh away the first,
    that **he may establish the second.**

    Mat 5:43-44 KJV
    Ye have heard that it hath been said,
    Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. (Ps 139:21-22)
    **But I say unto you, Love your enemies,** … (Present truth – Establish the second.)
    bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
    and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Like

  17. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Samuel, be careful.

    Like

  18. The teachings of Scripture can be very much liken to a common experience we all generally speaking go through: the education system.

    I have two girls who are 10 and 6.

    Children who are in kindergarden learn the truth. It is the truth for them. It is their truth. It is not my truith because I graduated from kindergarden aover 40 years ago..

    A child in junior high school learns truth. It is their truth, not my truth because I finished junior high school a long time ago.
    A child in high school learns the truth. It is their truth, not my truth because I finished high school oiong ago. A child in college learns the truth. It is their truth, not my truth because i have already graduated from college.

    St. Paul tells us that the Law was like a school master to lead us to Christ. He reproved the Galatians who wished to return to school masters, or to old truth/. The truth is the truth, but just make sure it is your truth and our truth is found in the mature teachings of St. Paul’s epistles generally speaking.

    My t

    Like

  19. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Like

  20. .
    Seems “The Truth,” Jesus, had much to say about “Present Truth.”
    And “taking away the first – *to establish the second.*”

    Many times, The Bible records Jesus saying – One way or another…
    *Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,* — *BUT I say unto you,*

    Matthew 5 KJV
    21 *Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,* Thou shalt not kill…
    22 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause…

    27 *Ye have heard that it was said of old time,* Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    28 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust…

    31 *It hath been said,* Whosoever shall put away his wife…
    32 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever shall put away his wife…

    33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
    Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    34 BUT I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne…

    38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
    39 BUT I say unto you, That ye resist not evil…

    43 *Ye have heard that it hath been said,*
    Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    44 BUT I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you…

    Like

  21. Julie Anne – Gary W

    Really like your new addition to…

    “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    And Julie Anne posting it on the SSB blog under “Helpful Resources.”

    ————-

    Was wondering…

    Folks who were NOT involved/enveloped with the original conversation
    might NOT understand – Why this Title? – Why written? – Why saved?

    Maybe we can get a sub-heading, something to explain in simple English,

    what a “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    actually means – and what it is good for – and why it is needed.

    ————

    Here is one example…
    My example with prejudice. bias, and an agenda… 😉

    ————-

    “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    “Warning” – “Warning”
    These are “Debating Tactics” used by “The Abusive Religious System.” And…
    “Authoritarian Church Leaders” who proclaim they are “God’s Anointed.”

    They use these tactics to “Silence” and “Marginalize” their critics…
    Anyone who would challenge their…
    Power – Profit – Prestige…

    Like

  22. I love this one. I have many things to tell you (truths), but you cannot bear them (these truths) yet, but when He, the spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all the truth (new truth, right?) – JOhn 16:12-13

    Like

  23. Amos, Julie Anne,

    I was also thinking it would be good to have an introductory paragraph to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words. Anybody could do it, but I’ll try to propose something before the weekend is over. In the meantime I would like to propose another Glossary entry. JA, if you decide to add this entry, please please be sure to include the ending comment. Here goes:

    Premeditated Attempted Soul Destruction: An extreme form of poisoning the well (http://tinyurl.com/qaymyr9) wherein premeditated ad hominem attacks seek to destroy, not just a target’s credibility, but the totality of the target’s life. In addition to other forms of provocation, may involve inundation of a target’s friends, associates, contacts, and even the public at large, with false and malicious allegations which, if true, would indicate the target’s utmost moral turpitude, utter depravity, absolute worthlessness, &c. In extreme cases, may involve demonic activity. With or without demonic activity, a spiritual battle is joined, the issue of which is whether the target will be drawn into an obsessive, all consuming, bitter, angry, unforgiving and self-destructive longing for and/or pursuit of vengeance; the ultimate risk being that the target, however unwittingly, will secure for themselves consignment to the Lake of Fire. “[B]ut if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:15, ESV). An extreme instance calling for deployment of the defensive weapon of Spirit-enabled forgiveness, in the sense of leaving of all vengeance to God. “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath `of God’: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19, ASV 1901).

    Comment: This writer does not recall having seen a single instance of Premeditated Attempted Soul Destruction practiced on this blog. For fear of retaliation, he will not here identify any example of its practice. Readers are likewise urged not to publicly identify particular instances of the practice. We may effectively pray for those we know to be targets.

    Like

  24. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Truth that was once truth that is no longer truth, never was truth therefor it was a lie and causes the Bible to be a lie. My child learned 2+2=4 in the first grade. That is still true for me. Truth can’t be truth for one and not for someone else.

    Like

  25. Truth can be partitioned. The Bible has many such partitions. Just one example. The introduction of the Holy Spirit into the heart of the believer. Everything that happneed before that event was truth, but everything that happened after that event was new truth. Grow in grace and knowledge.

    Like

  26. OK, here is my contribution to this glossary . I call this advice from the Great Physician: “It has been determined by the Great Physician that religion can be dangerous to your health (and wealth).” – from Prof. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002)

    Like

  27. Julie Anne,

    I propose to add a final sentence to the “I Don’t Need . . .” Glossary entry so that the whole thing reads:

    I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, etc.)

    Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.) May be employed by doctrinaire apologists, often with an arrogant, high-minded, I’m-the-authority-here tone, for the purpose of deflecting and ignoring any and every suggestion that the apologist give serious consideration to the arguments for a point of view other than their own.

    Like

  28. Julie Anne, with apologies for the length, I propose the following for an introduction to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words. If you think it too long, It should still work if you simply deleted the entire first paragraph. Here it is:

    Introductory Comment by Gary W:

    We humans have a tendency to want to win others to our own opinions and points of view. Ideally, discussion and debate would always proceed in a dispassionate, reasoned manner, with every party being willing to follow wherever truth leads—even if it means abandoning one’s own cherished opinions and convictions. The reality, however, is that we tend to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the conviction of our own rightness, and by our desire to win the day with our own views. The result is that we may be tempted to take rhetorical shortcuts—shortcuts designed, whether consciously or unconsciously, to enable us to win the debate without having to apply ourselves to the hard work of an honest, humble, willing-to-be-taught process of dispassionate, reasoned discourse. Probably we all take rhetorical shortcuts; probably none of us are exempt.

    To the extent I have contributed to this so-called glossary, and there may be other contributors, it is my goal to identify ways we can attempt to win the debate in manipulative ways, without regard to the substance of the issues themselves. Methods (gambits, ploys, tactics, strategies, etc.) can be manipulative. The use of words can also be manipulative.

    In what follows, where I am the author I am using the term “doctrinaire apologists” to refer to the worst offenders. Generally speaking, I intend this term to refer to those who are simply unwilling to try to see another person’s point of view. In extreme cases, they are not even able to see another person’s point of view. In all of my edginess, these doctrinaire apologists are the people I have in mind. Still, maybe we can all take warning lest we overmuch indulge the manipulative methods of the doctrinaire apologists. Oh, and just to be fair, doctrinaire apologists will tend to be found on every side of every hotly contested issue. I do not wish to discuss whether or to what extent I have ever been a doctrinaire apologist.

    Thank you, and enjoy.

    Like

  29. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians.

    Samuel, are you saying that truth that was before the Holy Spirit was truth only for its time and no longer truth for today or is still truth? I don’t want to misunderstand you. Do you believe in absolute truth?

    Like

  30. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Samuel, one more question, if the truth that is in the bible is not the truth for Christians today as that last sentence states, then where should we turn for truth outside of the bible?

    Like

  31. Revelation is alwasy truthful, but it is progressive. The truth that God revealed to Abraham, was the truth, but it is not my truth.

    My truth is really found in St. Paul’s epistles as he was the Apostle to the Gentile world. To attempt to systematize the teachings of Abraham with those of St. Paul, while both were given as God’s truth at the time, will not work.

    God’s truth is progressive. I quoted John 16:12-13 earlier and I will refer to it again.

    Like

  32. Thanks for your question. First of all, I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God. Having said that, there is information therein which, while it is indeed true, it is not directed to me. I am a part of something that began on Pentecost day in the year 30 AD here in Jerusalem. Everything that happened in Scripture before that time, is true, it just applies to other people.

    Like

  33. We have a child who is ‘shy.’ She has her reasons. She is dyslexic, and her words come out wrong at times. This makes her nervous, and so, yes, she is shy. She is getting better, and is pretty much fine with her friends. There is no way I would spank her for something like that. Our oldest was extremely shy. She was fine within her small circle of friend but couldn’t walk into a crowd of unknowns very comfortably. We saw this would be a hindrance to her in her adult years….so we signed her up for youth group, and soccer, and then track and field at the local public school. She is very athletic. In these situations , she was forced to speak up, forced to ask questions. Within two years she was competing all over the place, and then was eventually co-captain of her track team. My parents visited her at her small christian college in Florida, and they said…”wow, she knows everyone.” Today she is ridiculously outgoing. For several summers she has been the camp photographer for a christian camp in the south. Talk about a change. All done without one spank for being shy! I don’t think the people that write these different child rearing books have much grounding in being humble, and merciful. “Come now, let us REASON together says the Lord”. Thats how we have raised ours, and yes we have had trouble at times, sometimes a lot of trouble, but our kids know the truth, and we know that itis GOD that changes the heart..not us.

    Like

  34. B4B wrote – “That might be true, unless the need for corporal punishment is based on the ‘nature’ of human beings when they are born. If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept.”

    One of the purposes of the Law – and I am thinking specifically the OT civil law – was to restrain the “natural” man. You can see the Formula of Concord for more details but as far as I know all Reform folk accept this. And yet this civil law no longer binds us as it was fulfilled in Christ. Based on this, I don’t see how your argument for corporate punishment holds water at all.

    For argument I will assume what what you say is true. So you have 2 things – the OT civil law and corporate punishment – both in place because of our natures. One is no longer binding on us so why would the other be?

    And, btw, babies were not “in scope” in the Proverbs passages.

    Like

  35. Darrell – Is the truth delivered from Moses to the Israelites still truth today or not? If so, then why aren’t you following all the laws given to them?

    Like

  36. Brian, truth and law are 2 different things. So are you asking why I don’t follow the law given to the Israelites by God through Moses? I am not Jewish.

    Like

  37. Brian, thanks for asking that question, maybe that is what Samuel meant in his statement. Cause if he had said law instead of truth his statement would have made more since instead it looks a lot like herasy.

    Samuel in your statement we were discussing, were you talking law instead of truth?

    Like

  38. The statement: “The Bible says what it says” can be a very dangerous assertion. http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.html – Let’s not be confused about this. What many ministers solidly assert concerning corporal punishment/spanking/smacking is nothing more than their own opinions of what they think the Bible means. A good example of this concerns the number of Israelites who left Egypt they had 603,550 armed men for war if all of those men were living at the time (Numbers 1:46). This is what the BIBLE SAYS! This is http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.htmllogistically impossible. To find out what the BIBLE may MEAN, check the following link.

    Like

  39. Born4Battle,

    You state:
    ” If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept. Find out what the Bible says about the nature of ALL human beings born and you have your answer.”

    Tell me how you would punish a two day old baby with corporal punishment, and please tell me the sin to which you would accuse a two day old baby to justify the corporal punishment, and by what instrument that you would use.

    I would like to hear your take on babies being punished and what experience that you have in regards to what sin that you have accused the baby of doing that would justify corporal punishment.

    Please inform us readers the sin that justifies corporal punishment towards any babies.

    I will bet that you don’t practice what you preach. If you have punished a baby, please tell us the sin that you accused the baby of doing. If you have, then you are an abuser of authority as a parent.

    And we all know that the Bible shows that all kids are innocent, not guilty.

    Deuteronomy 1:39 so states.

    Those who do not have knowledge of good and evil are not punished at all.

    Yes, babies have no knowledge of good and evil. Deuteronomy 1:39 so states.

    Like

  40. Samuel,
    Your link “so you think you know the bible” states the following when clicked on your blog:
    “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist. ”

    Please update this as I want to read it. Thanks.

    Ed

    Like

  41. Samuel,
    I read your Numbers 1:46 reference, however when we read verse 1, we see when the census was taken, which was the first day of the second month of the second year.

    Not only that, it does not imply that the number taken over 2 years after they left, was the same number that left, due to the time lag between leaving, and counting.

    So, I do not understand what you are trying to get at when you said:

    “A good example of this concerns the number of Israelites who left Egypt they had 603,550 armed men for war if all of those men were living at the time (Numbers 1:46).”

    Please explain, and/or update your website to show “So you think you know the Bible”.

    Ed

    Like

  42. @ JA~

    This part of Baucham’s sermon in the first paragraph under the video is confusing-

    ” And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.” ”

    The entire paragraph is poorly stated and betrays his ignorance. In it he is speaking of the discipline and correction phase, which he identifies as the “first few years of life” (if I am understanding correctly) and this phase is about children giving the parents more attention than the parents give to children. He says that kids needs to be taught this during their first FEW years of life because when kids “come here” (does “come here” mean their birth, I am guessing?), they believe the world revolves around them. Then comes the sentence I quoted above where he says. “for the first few weeks that’s ok…”.

    For the first few weeks (few? like… 5-10 weeks?….what constitutes a few? I guess I need to buy his book to understand what a “few” means?) it’s ok to let an infant be the center of attention, but after that…no? Is that what he is saying? What does Baucham do to infants to get them to make their parents the center of attention?

    He says that in the first few years of life this correction phase should be enacted and established. He then says it’s ok to let those sin-filled attention seeking by nature infants (good grief- is that how he views infants?) have their way for “the first few weeks.” However, after that you need to get going on to the correction phase so those infants who are older than “the first few weeks” can make their parents the center of their world. ? In the very next sentence he uses the word toddler and jumps from first few weeks to toddler. This is very poor communication on his part.

    Like

  43. B4B wrote – “That’s OK Brian. Proverbs 22:15 provides for disciplining children and states why. The Bible says what it says.”

    Ok then…. I’ll check back later and see if you there is an actual refutation.

    Like

  44. Samuel –

    I’ve spent my reading time this past week reading through the articles on your blog. I had preciously read one of your articles, that was linked to at another blog, but hadn’t ventured over to read your other content. I wanted you to know how much it has blessed me to read your articles and be exposed to other thoughts concerning Scripture and its meaning. There is so much that “seems” incongruent when taken “clearly.” I’ve always thought that we (Western Christianity) were missing “something.”

    I hadn’t read your blog yet when I linked to it above. I was surprised (pleasantly) to read some of your articles that clarified what I briefly alluded to in my comment. I have your book but haven’t read it as yet. I will be getting to that soon.

    I did want to ask if your “Newsletter” is different than your blog content. If so, how do I subscribe to it?

    Thanks for taking the time to write and share your insights into the culture and meaning of Scripture. It will be a blessing to many.

    Like

  45. Bridget,

    Thank you very much for your message. I was deeply moved by your comments. I give all honor to God “in whom we live, move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) Your message inspires me to reach higher and write more. Thank you for that. Write me at info@biblechild.com to get my newsletter as I do send things out sometimes that are not on my blog.

    Like

  46. Samuel, I’ve already asked B4B about the following passages, among others:

    Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15, ESV)

    Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:17, ESV)

    If I’ve received a response, I missed it. Seems it’s only important for the Bible to say what it says when the English translation can be read (without reference to questions of historical application and understanding) as saying what B4B wants it to say.

    By way of further illustration, here’s a passage to which I expect B4B won’t be willing to apply his “says what it says” standard:

    For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19-20, ESV)

    According to the “says what it says” standard “all things” means ALL things, which means every man, woman and child conceived or to be conceived, and it means the devil himself. Or, if that’s too hard for B4B, maybe he’ll be willing to apply his “says what it says” standard to:

    For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV, emphasis added)

    Hmm. Wonder if B4B is going to be willing to take a consistent position when applying his “says what it says” standard to this passage. I’m not holding my breath, although I do get surprised from time to time.

    Like

  47. Diane said:

    This part of Baucham’s sermon in the first paragraph under the video is confusing-

    ” And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.”

    The entire paragraph is poorly stated and betrays his ignorance. In it he is speaking of the discipline and correction phase, which he identifies as the “first few years of life” (if I am understanding correctly) and this phase is about children giving the parents more attention than the parents give to children. He says that kids needs to be taught this during their first FEW years of life because when kids “come here” (does “come here” mean their birth, I am guessing?), they believe the world revolves around them. Then comes the sentence I quoted above where he says. “for the first few weeks that’s ok…”

    Diane – I could be wrong, but my impression of this quoted material is that he was talking specifically about the toddler age, not newborn to toddler age. When he references “first few weeks” – I was interpreting that to mean the first few weeks of the bad behavior as a toddler not first few weeks of life.

    I could be wrong. It sure would have been nice if VB would have offered clarification. I do owe him an e-mail. Maybe I’ll ask again. If he sends me his book as he said, I might be able to get better understanding, too.

    Like

  48. Gary, Here is a link – http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/sky-west-from-crooked-do-we-really.html

    Thanks for this. I have several blog posts in which I try to address this “what it says” versus “what it means” issue. This is a tough one to deal with because often ministers tell people “Let’s just believe what the Bible says.” In one post, I talk about my grandmother, who was from rural Oklahoma. She said things that you cannot find anywhere on the internet and the only reason I know (or anyone knows) what they mean is that my aunt knew what they meant and she told me. Now, rewind 3,000 years. De we really understand what the Bible means?

    Like

  49. Samuel Martin,

    You had stated:
    “If you’re of the opinion that the Bible just means what it says, you’ll want to read the chapter in my free ebook dealing with the Stubborn and Rebellious Son – How many of you have heard that were you in ancient times, you would have been taken out and stoned to death? – ”

    My Response
    Last I recall, The Bible does mean what it says, when it says that the OLD TEST is for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read my free book, at biblegateway.com, any version that you want.

    In other words, the OLD TEST, was given by Moses to the children of Israel. And, the Bible means what it says, that the children of Israel are the children of Jacob.

    So, the LAW does not pertain to the Gentiles. Never has, never will. The Bible says what it means.

    Ed

    Like

  50. Ed said:

    Last I recall, The Bible does mean what it says, when it says that the OLD TEST is for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read my free book, at biblegateway.com, any version that you want.

    LOL, Ed – That’ll teach me to skim. I was thinking, Ed has a free book? And he didn’t tell me? haha! biblegateway.com. You’re too funny.

    Like

  51. JA,
    Haha!!

    You know me!! No offense to Samuel, I hope he has a sense of humor. I saw several of Samuel’s posts, and it seems way too advertising, even tho it’s free, my favorite four letter word.

    I know I put adblock on my browser!!

    I think that Samuel “believes” what he says, just not so sure that he “means” what he says.

    To Samuel:
    Just kidding Samuel…just a little play on words. After reading some of your stuff, I like where you is going with this.

    Ed

    Like

  52. Samuel,

    Thank you for the link you provided yesterday at 9:06 PM Pacific. You do a very good job of demonstrating how a literal understanding of words spoken or written often misses the point a speaker or author is making. Those of us who accept the Bible as the word of God will recognize that God Himself discloses that, unlike with Moses, He speaks to some through visions and dreams, in “dark speeches” (KJV, ASV 1901) or “Riddles” (YLT, ESV). Numbers 12:7-8.

    Clearly, we must go beyond His literal words when Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Likewise when Jesus speaks of cutting off the hand or plucking out the eye that makes one sin (though I’m sure some will contest this particular point). Same thing when Jesus speaks of removing logs from eyes and camels going through eyes of needles, though some have tried to explain away the camel illustration.

    But now comes the fun part. Born4Battle himself argues that words cannot always be taken literally. He argues that Baucham is not to be understood literally when Baucham advocates regularly spanking a child 5 times before breakfast. Neither, according to Born4Battle, is Baucham to be taken literally when Baucham advocates, in the context of comments about spanking children, that sometimes you “just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.”

    In addition to applying the old taking-it-out-of-context ploy, without any real effort to supply the context (which Baucham himself really ought to do), Born4Battle and and at least one other commenter go to some lengths to argue that the phrase “just wear them out” must be understood within the context of black southern culture. Well, I can see that. Maybe the phrase “just wear them out” really is idiomatic, or colloquial, or slang, or whatever; although I wish somebody would provide a better explanation.

    So, here’s the point: If it is legitimate for Born4Battle to come along and insist that we go behind what Baucham said to discover what he meant, so also it is legitimate to insist that Born4Battle be willing to seriously examine Proverbs to discover what was actually being communicated when Solomon spoke of applying rods to children’s (or servant’s or boy’s) hides.

    At this point a few digs at Born4Battle’s expense come to mind, but I will resist. Well, O.K., here’s a hint: my digs would relate to Born4Battle’s lack of consistency.

    Like

  53. Samuel,

    I do believe that your saying that anything in scripture that happened before Pentecost renders discussing thing further with you rather pointless. I do hope you have a nice day, tho!

    Like

  54. Samuel,

    I applaud Born4Battle for avoiding actual condescension in his 8:15 message to you. However, When he announces that further discussion with you is rather pointless, I suggest that that we are observing at least the technical equivalent of what is described in the following Glossary entry:

    I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, etc.): Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.) May be employed by doctrinaire apologists, often with an arrogant, high-minded, I’m-the-authority-here tone, for the purpose of deflecting and ignoring any and every suggestion that the apologist give serious consideration to the arguments for a point of view other than their own.

    I am updating my copy of the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words to add the word “discuss.” The Glossary term will now read “I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, discuss, etc.):” The definition will remain the same.

    Like

  55. Why is that? I would be very interested in seeing you defend a systematic theology which systematized texts from all over the Bible in which the Holy Spirit was not indwelling the individual believers as it does today starting in the year 30.

    Like

  56. Got it, Gary W. There is discussion going on in another thread and this kind of close-mindedness is really what prevents people from using the brains that God gave them. It is also this kind of close-mindedness that keeps people in cults because they don’t want to consider that they may be wrong or their pastor may be wrong.

    Like

  57. Gary W

    😉 😉 😉

    Looks like this “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”
    is becoming a full time job.

    Like

  58. JA and Gary –

    I get what you are both saying in your last comments, but there are also other considerations. For example, 15-18 years ago I would have responded much like Born4Battle seems to be responding today. In fact, I often responded in like fashion. Looking back I can say that I was often arrogant about what I was convinced I knew. But just as often, I was overwhelmed with different information, and even afraid; afraid that I could be wrong. It is only in hindsight that I can see these different emotions and reaponses. None of this is to say that push back isn’t sometimes necessary, but to suggest that a timely word is of greater value to the hearer.

    B4B’s moniker conveys alot to me.

    Gary –
    Your meanings of phrases are spot on. Often people aren’t even aware of what they are conveying with those words. At other times, though, they may know exactly what they are conveying. I don’t know which is the case with B4B.

    Like

  59. Gary W wrote~

    “…Born4Battle and and at least one other commenter go to some lengths to argue that the phrase “just wear them out” must be understood within the context of black southern culture. Well, I can see that. Maybe the phrase “just wear them out” really is idiomatic, or colloquial, or slang, or whatever; although I wish somebody would provide a better explanation.”

    Baucham used that phrase “wear him out” at the 2012 Men of God conference at Calvary Baptist Church in Bellefontaine, Ohio, in a sermon entitled, “What It Means To Be A Family Shepherd” (March 3, 2012). The context was an unruly child in church and the mother taking the child out and rocking him, and Baucham advising the mother to use his “leather strap thingy” that they sell in his church’s bookstore (and which the members keep on their persons there according to Baucham) instead and take the little boy into the bathroom and “wear him out.” When he said the phrase “wear him out”, laughing, amen-ing and applause resulted. The phrase apparently has a humorous meaning, one I am not getting, but one that non-southern Ohioans appear to understand.

    Since the bible SAYS rod…I also wonder how a “leather strap thingy” is anything close to resembling a rod/stick. Why is he using a leather strap thingy and not a rod? I guess he doesn’t believe the verse literally and inserts any instrument he wants?

    Like

  60. JA~

    Do you remember that Men of God conference? It was the one where the attendees (aka the men of God) made quite the mess in the women’s restroom. Women were not there, so they were using it as well as the men’s. The Examiner did a story on it.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Diane – Ok, now I know why I hadn’t heard of that article. That’s right around the beginning of my lawsuit and things were crazy for me. I had no idea that Paul Dohse went to that conference. I’m disgusted by what I read, but not completely surprised.

    Like

  62. Just wanted to acknowledge what Bridget says about a timely word being of greater value than push back. I need to keep this in mind, though it may be that others here may be able to fill in when I miss the opportunity. It has to do, I think, with different ones of us being different parts of the body.

    Like

  63. Thanks for the preview of your book. By the look of this small piece, it seems you have decided to build a case against corporal punishment (could be spanking that while not causing bodily injury). The idea of corporal punishment that, while not causing bodily harm, can be of eventual spiritual good. — B4B

    “So if I rack him ’til he die, what of it? For I shall have Saved His Soul.”
    — The Inquisitor, Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Sam Clemens

    We’re back to the ‘natural’ state of human will at birth, actually. If left to ourselves, we would all rush headlong into Hell. — B4B

    “Man sees a cute little baby, GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!!!!!”
    — radio preacher in the Seventies

    Utter Depravity, Total Depravity, Worm Theology, the arrogance of the Predestined Elect — let me guess, B4B is Truly Reformed(TM)? More Calvinist than Calvin?

    Liked by 1 person

  64. HUG – Someone just sent me that same article yesterday. I had no idea that Paul Dohse went to that conference, but looking at the date, that was the height of my lawsuit nightmare when I was scrambling for an attorney. No wonder I missed it.

    Like

  65. Baucham is a typical narcissist who enjoys everybody´s world revolving around HIM. That poor man seems to need a lot of attention and gets it as well and yes he is quite clever- all in the name of the Lord of course and people are following him like abulic sheep.

    Like

  66. Since women are supposed to stay at home until they get married, is it okay that I got married, then started college? 😉

    Anyways, I’m pretty sure when I was a kid, if some pompous fool stood in front of my mom until she made me come out and say hello, she would have said something incredibly snarky and walked away. Come to think of it, that would have been pretty funny. I kind of wish that had happened.

    It’s sad that Baucham thinks this extreme behavior is the way to teach children to be loving Christians.

    Like

  67. These religious types can be so dangerous for young, ignorant parents. We lived next door to a family that had several young children and they abused them something awful. They believed in nothing but spanking (or whipping, really because they used a belt and strap) and the kids were always whipped naked. I saw the kids with welts and bruises all over their bodies including places where a child should never be touched. It’s just sick. The people who teach child abuse and the people who do it should be jailed.

    Like

  68. My dad believed in spanking. But it was a “big gun” he avoided using. Shyness and timidity were not seen as sins but weaknesses. He and Mom gently reminded me to look people in the eye till I outgrew my excessive shyness.

    As far as Baucham, who believes shy toddlers should be spanked severely, I bet kids are afraid of him. Kids can sense when adults are really ogres in disguise. Maybe he hates kids because they see through his mask to the phony and bully he is at heart.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s