did Jesus not take their punishment?

[greengirl19]

I read something a lady at our old church wrote about having to discipline her young child, and that it made here thankful that Jesus took our punishment for us.

Will someone who knows more about this type of disciplining philosophy explain to me this belief that Jesus took our (adult, parents) punishment but that our children still must 'get what they deserve'? I'm not trying to be critical or judging, I truly do not understand. Is there an age at which it transitions? When they accept Jesus and get baptized?

[BarefootBetsy]

Well, I can't explain it because it doesn't make any sense to me I would be interested to hear if someone else understands the rationale though

[Sparrow]

I really don't understand either.

I'd like to soneone their reasoning. It makes no sense.

[mamahammer]

I think it's more the belief that a child has to a) understand his own depravity and b) experience the pain of punishment before s/he can truly accept salvation. It's warped, to be sure.

[MissusLeata]

Originally Posted by mamahammer

I think it's more the belief that a child has to a) understand his own depravity and b) experience the pain of punishment before s/he can truly accept salvation. It's warped, to be sure.

I think it's this and I can't tell you how much you all have challenged this thinking in me and helped me see that it's not right.

So often when my kids are driving me crazy just because there are 3 of them and they are little so all the little kid behavior starts getting big for me, I have to remind myself that I do *not* need to "punish" them or "make" them change.

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by mamahammer

I think it's more the belief that a child has to a) understand his own depravity and b) experience the pain of punishment before s/he can truly accept salvation. It's warped, to be sure.

Agree. Spanking seems to be doing the work of the law, in making us aware of our sin and our need for a savior. In more Arminian settings, it seems to have the flavor of parents cooperating with God, doing "their bit" to prepare the way for their children's salvation . In more Reformed settings, the belief seems to be that God works through spanking to change the heart - that spanking is a means of grace . A sick, twisted, perverted mockery of the *real* means of grace .

[forty-two]

Here are what I see as the underlying assumptions:

*People need to realize their need for a Savior - be aware that they sin and it is bad - before the Gospel can do its saving work.
*Children need a Savior, just like everyone else.
*Children are fundamentally different - they lack sufficient cognitive understanding to understand sin in the "usual" way (and thus incapable of a genuine salvific relationship with God ) - so they are treated differently. In the "God mandates spanking" paradigm, spanking is the means used to connect sin and badness in those who are not sufficiently cognitively mature to understand it abstractly.

I think point one is accepted by most Christians in some form or fashion. Points 2 and 3 are where we part ways, GBD-wise; some GBDers hold 2 and reject 3 (those who hold to the sacraments) and some hold 3 and reject 2 (those who practice some form of believer's baptism).

I have big, huge, giant feelings about viewing children as incompletely human - saying that a certain level of cognition is required in order to fully participate in the human experience .

[MomtoJGJ]

:lightbulb

so even the people who feel this way... or maybe even especially the people who feel this way... should "back off" after their kids are saved and let God do the work? Because if the point of spanking is to show them they are sinners and need a savior, then once they realize that and are saved, then what's the point of spanking?

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by MomtoJGJ

:lightbulb

so even the people who feel this way... or maybe even especially the people who feel this way... should "back off" after their kids are saved and let God do the work? Because if the point of spanking is to show them they are sinners and need a savior, then once they realize that and are saved, then what's the point of spanking?

You'd think that, but it doesn't usually work out that way.

Sacramental churches don't have the huge emphasis on a particular point of salvation, don't see the Gospel as just for getting saved. The Gospel is for Christians, too - our entire Christian life revolves around continually be refreshed and renewed by God through the means of grace, the Gospel and the Sacraments. So for punitive Christians who hold to the idea of means of grace, and see spanking as one of them (even if just implicitly), it will still have a place, though will be phased out as cognitive understanding increases. Because God is *working* through spanking to change the heart, and that is applicable after salvation, too.

And for believer's baptism believing punitive Christians, they usually see God as a punitive God, who punishes His children for the own good. So as God teaches them through pain, they teach their children, saved or unsaved, through pain, too. Again, spanking would probably phase out as cognitive understanding increases, and they can make connections between less immediate and tactile painful consequences.

But if you see spanking -learning via pain - as needed for moral/spiritual development before salvation, you probably see it as needed after salvation, too .

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Because if you trust the Holy Spirit to work in people without imposing pain *after* salvation, then it's a short hop to trusting that maybe the Holy Spirit can work in people *before* salvation without imposing pain, too .

So your point would be a good one to bring up, get people thinking .

[staceylayne]

And for believer's baptism believing punitive Christians, they usually see God as a punitive God, who punishes His children for the own good. So as God teaches them through pain, they teach their children, saved or unsaved, through pain, too. Again, spanking would probably phase out as cognitive understanding increases, and they can make connections between less immediate and tactile painful consequences.

I'd say this is probably the closest to the reasoning I was surrounded with growing up. Although I'd wager most people would not be able to articulate it nearly so clearly...it was just the way things were done. But the "punishment for our own good" was (is) the underlying belief.

Most (all?) of my friends spank. To them, it is important that children obey and respect authority from a very early age because it paves the way for the child to correctly respond to God's authority in their lives as they get older. They punish their children out of love, because punishments are how they know to "train up a child in the way he should go" and all that. My friends dearly love their children and do parent with a lot of kindness, joy, patience, creativity...but they've never considered that there could be an alternative to punishments other than total permissiveness.

(It's quite a mind-bending ride from punitive minded mama to GCM junkie, if I do say so myself.)

[greengirl19]

Most (all?) of my friends spank. To them, it is important that children obey and respect authority from a very early age because it paves the way for the child to correctly respond to God's authority in their lives as they get older. They punish their children out of love, because punishments are how they know to "train up a child in the way he should go" and all that. My friends dearly love their children and do parent with a lot of kindness, joy, patience, creativity...but they've never considered that there could be an alternative to punishments other than total permissiveness.

This is the exact philosophy that was taught at our old church. And why we left.

[Aerynne]

This is how I understand it: Jesus took our eternal punishment away, but there are still earthly consequences for our actions. So if you are an alcoholic and you work through that and quit and repent, but you still might get cirrhosis later. But that doesn't mean God loves you any less or you are not going to heaven. You can commit a crime and repent and not end up suffering for it in the hereafter but you are still going to have to go to jail on earth. I think sometimes God can take the earthly consequences away, but we are not entitled to that nor should we assume that will happen.

To use a GBD example, let's say a child takes markers and colors all over your table. Regardless of how Jesus feels about it, your child has to help clean it up and is not going to get markers unless you are watching carefully (which means less opportunity to use markers because you can't watch carefully every time). They still take the earthly consequences.

And if you are a spanker, the earthly consequences for a child's action are spankings. And they still have to take them. But they can still go to heaven.

Just my thoughts. Hope that helps.

[Tasmanian Saint]

You know, Aerynne, I think you may have it the nail on the head for how many people see it...

[ReadingMommy]

There was one time I remember growing up when my parents made an object lesson out of NOT spanking when they said we deserved it. We had done something that they usually spanked for, so they had us sit and "wait for the spankings" per usual. Then they just sat down and talked with us about how we were deserving of spankings just like all people are deserving of death. But they were going to extend grace just like God does when He doesn't punish us for our sins. (I remember I was so relieved that I wasn't getting a spanking, that that's all I really cared about right then.) I can see from their perspective what they were *trying* to do with this lesson, but it does seem like a patent admission that spanking is NOT modeled after God's way of dealing with His children

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by Tasmanian Saint

You know, Aerynne, I think you may have it the nail on the head for how many people see it...

I think so too.