“Or: discipline.” So fundies can accept synonyms or alternate translations suggested by the original Greek so long as it’s not obvious that the translation is referring back to Greek?
Favorite line: “How many of ya got a Scofield?”
I couldn’t take it anymore after he said disobedient wives were responsible for sending their husbands to hell.
Bleaahh. I have as many bad memories of this man as I do of Jack Hyles.
I thought “rod” meant punishment, not just whipping? Kids WOULD hate their parents if they got beaten for every little thing they did. I believe spanking is right, when needed and if done out of love and not abuse or anger. But beating a kid for doing wrong doesn’t automatically make him a good little child.
this is just . . .ugh! I find this totally disgusting.
Of course, we must always keep in mind that the Scofield KJV is *the* best inspired Word of God.
Lizzy–totally agree about the “wives sending their husbands to hell” part. Talk about screwed up theology.
He compares chastisement of children to the way the Roman soldiers whipped Jesus?!?!?! So, I suppose we’re supposed to beat our kids the same way. And then he jokes about the way he “disciplined” his children.
He seriously talks about “beating” children. . .And guess what, I believe him. And, if you’re not beating or whipping your children, you’re “making them go to hell.”
I’m going to come right out on this blog, since it’s anonymous, and say that I was disciplined similarly to this. I hated it then. It never changed my heart. I never thought God loved me and still don’t. And my relationship with my parents is really messed up. So. . .sorry, but “beating” your kids into submission doesn’t work. And it didn’t work with anyone I know who tried it. And I will *NEVER*, ever, ever, ever do that to my precious kids.
On the wive’s sending their husbands to hell – Rice’s comment shows his failure to understand the fallen state of men. Men don’t go to hell because their Christian wives aren’t perfect examples of Christ, men go to hell because they are sinners. All in hell are there because they are sinners, not because their wife didn’t live right.
Now this is not to diminish the responsibility of the wife to adorn the gospel of God as best as she can. But we must remember that God gives no promise of the conversion of her husband just because she lives right. The impetus of the Christian to live a God-exalting life is just that – to be God-exalting. Leave the results up to God. If one is living right for the primary purpose of getting another out of hell then who is being worshiped and honored – Christ or the lost individual? This is all too common, not just in fundamentalism, but in other factions of “Christianity”. It’s humanism in “Christian garb”. They take Christ and use Him to the benefit of man. Nothing short of wicked idolatry!
OH SO MUCH WRONG with what Rice says…
His example of nurture=discipline=chastening is quite interesting. For example… “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” II Tim 3:16 Same greek word used in Ephesians and Hebrews is translated “instruction” here. But look at all the other “Spanking” words in the text REPROOF, CORRECTION, and INSTRUCTION. Are we to believe that this verse just says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for spanking, for spanking, for spanking in righteousness:” ?
No! Rice is another example of what most preachers I grew up hearing are guilty of. They do not study Scripture, nor exegete it. They are too busy reading their own preconceived notions and philosophies INTO the text to get anything OUT of the text.
Then he says nothing about God’s grace in having/maintaining a Christian home. He presents it as if God has told us and we are to go out in our own strength and do it. This fleshly obedience is another shortcoming that I grew up under in the Fundy movement.
i will give an example: Rice says that “if you can’t raise a good family you’re not a good Christian”. Now my children are still young, and I pray God grants me wisdom to raise them and is gracious to each of them in giving them a heart for Himself, but let’s take Rice’s statement to Scripture.
Samuel – the prophet of God that Rice used in his own illustration. What happened to his sons? I Sam 8:1-3
David – what happened to his sons? Rebellion, death and destruction was rank among his children. Amnon raped his 1/2 sister, and then was murdered by her brother, Absolom rebelled against his own father.
So were Samuel and David not good Christians? David penned most of the Psalms, and panted after God. Is our level of Christianity wrapped up in our performance in childrearing, or any other activity? This is where fleshly obedience leads to. I am convinced, from my own personal experience, that it is due to the error of thinking that our obedience to the gospel is our own personal decision we made of ourselves to avail ourselves to grace. Since we “got in” that way, so we grow that way. The Christian life is lived in the flesh instead of the Spirit. When that happens you get one of two results libertineism (anti-nomianism) or legalism. Here, in Rice, we see the legalistic ditch of the “flesh-filled christian life”.
This is not necessarily an indictment against “Fundamentalist”. There are many groups who are guilty of this. My this be a sharp reminder to pray for those, and patiently teach them if perhaps God will grant them repentance. I do not think every one who does this is lost. I am not asserting that. I am saying that this is a sin on their part, although many are sinning sincerely, and they need to repent of their man-centered ways.
I could continue, but think I have said enough.
DJP wrote; “This is not necessarily an indictment against “Fundamentalist”. There are many groups who are guilty of this. My this be a sharp reminder to pray for those, and patiently teach them if perhaps God will grant them repentance. I do not think every one who does this is lost. I am not asserting that. I am saying that this is a sin on their part, although many are sinning sincerely, and they need to repent of their man-centered ways.”
Well said said, and gracious. I particulary agree with the “man-centered ways” assessment!
I notice a common mistake here, that is often made by fundy preachers, and that is equating the wife’s command to submit to her husband with the children’s command to obey their father. The two are not the same. The husband does not become his wife’s new “father”, and she should not be expected to obey him as if she is a child and he always knows what is best.
And, of course, as most fundy men are fond of doing, he berated unsubmissive wives and completely left out the equal sin of unloving husbands. He also didn’t mention the Christian husbands who are supposedly sending their unsaved wives to hell by not doing what God told them to do (but I guess that’s the wife’s fault too).
A really really tiny issue I noticed: The Bible only refers to Michael as an Archangel, none of the other angels (including Lucifer, or even Gabriel) are ever referred to as that (unless someone can point out a verse, I’m not averse to being proven wrong). He he… now I’m just being picky.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.