tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post4948766708792446546..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: So... is it true? Fathers control their children's every choice?DJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-52950004547502084842009-05-20T05:14:18.055-05:002009-05-20T05:14:18.055-05:00Andy, Do yourself a favor and give it a rest.Andy, Do yourself a favor and give it a rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-48332183263231860112009-05-19T23:24:04.860-05:002009-05-19T23:24:04.860-05:00I was simply synthesizing what you said in your fi...<I>I was simply synthesizing what you said in your first comment today:</I>Andy, I hate to break this to you but MY thoughts are not the same thing as the context of the MacArthur quote. I don't know the man personally and he didn't consult me before preaching the sermon.<br /><br />MacArthur was talking about young children. I, Andrew Disque (not John MacArthur), contrasted that with Bristol Palin who is obviously not a young child. <br /><br />Have I spelled it out clear enough? I'm not trying to mock you but you are obviously an intelligent person. What else can I assume but that you want to split hairs and misdirect from your error?<br /><br />If someone wants to claim that MacArthur has the Wilsonian view that parents bear responibility for their childrens' sin then they (or you) will need to demonstrate this. Since I have read a coule of his books on parenting and the family I know he doesn't share Wilson's position on this. I'm not going to take your context-less quote and pit it against everything else the man has preached and written to the contrary.<br /><br /><I>You claim, "The quote is too short, out of context, and was selectively chosen by another source to make that person's point." Baloney. </I>If it's a canard then how come you misinterpreted his position? Your error proves the point. Mac does not teach what Wilson teaches on this subject.<br /><br />The fact is that JM's quote, when understood in context, is not relevant to this discussion because Bristol Palin is not a child.<br /><br />So far I have not seen any willingness on your part to interact seriously with the issue. You are content to place a black cloud over Christian fathers like Todd (who have wayward teenage daughters) without explaining why, on a Scriptural basis, this black cloud is warranted.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-49407951363647142682009-05-19T22:39:02.599-05:002009-05-19T22:39:02.599-05:00Andrew,
You accuse me of not reading you carefull...Andrew,<br /><br />You accuse me of not reading you carefully. Specifically you cite this:<br /><br />Andy - "As for JM's statement, you described the context as being a contrast between young children and wayward teens." <br /><br />I was simply synthesizing what you said in your first comment today:<br /> <br />Andrew - "In the context he is referring to young children refusing to submit to authority. He is not speaking about wayward teens being influenced by the world to be promiscuous, etc."<br /><br />If you were not establishing a contrast in JM's context between young children and wayward teens, I'm not sure what you were doing. Also, this canard about JM's quote not having sufficient context is silly. You claim, "The quote is too short, out of context, and was selectively chosen by another source to make that person's point." Baloney. Matt Grumm already provided a link to the full sermon, and anyone looking for the fuller text can access it. In fact, I think there are other items in that message that confirm my original assertion that JM and Doug Wilson are saying very similar things about the responsibility fathers have wrt their children's behavior. <br /><br />Also, you have tried to say that DJP gives careful thought, interaction, analysis, etc. to Wilson's work and the sources he may have drawn upon. Fine by me. But then you seem to indicate that I'm not interested in doing the same thing with JM's quote. This is simply not true. That's exactly what I've been trying to analyze and draw out. Understanding exactly what JM meant by "I do not believe there's any excuse for a rebellious child. I believe that children can be under control if they're properly taught by their fathers to obey" has been in my comments since the beginning. I've been attempting to engage others in dialogue about how this statement might support or differ from Wilson's view of federal headship.Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-66250797207156198022009-05-19T21:18:39.918-05:002009-05-19T21:18:39.918-05:00Dan,
You've accused me of being a poor reader...Dan,<br /><br />You've accused me of being a poor reader, among other things. It's certainly possible I've jumbled up stuff badly, but let's start with one claim that should be easy to verify. <br /><br />Yes, I said you introduced the Rayburn essay in the B&M meta, because contextually I was referring to the one I had just linked to. It does appear that it was brought up in some other meta by Bret McAtee, but I was only talking about the linked post's meta. It goes as follows:<br /><br /> Huh? A daughter sins, and it's her father's fault? Which one are you channeling: Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar? Was Adam's sin his father's fault, too?<br /><br /> Dan Phillips (Pyromaniacs) - 9/1/2008 8:21:33 PM | Report Comment<br /><br /> Responsibility, not fault. Go read Federal Husband and Reforming Marriage, Dan. Good stuff.<br /><br /> Terry Stauffer - 9/1/2008 8:38:06 PM | Report Comment<br /><br /> Dan, Terry got it. I don't believe fault and responsibility are the same thing. Responsibility is a function of covenant headship. It doesn't mean that the head is guilty.<br /><br /> Douglas Wilson - 9/1/2008 8:53:31 PM | Report Comment<br /><br /> I am radically anti-Obama but I can honestly say that I would not attack him if his 17 yr old daughter were pregnant. Actually, I would be impressed that they didn't get an abortion (he basically said they would).<br /><br /> Will S - 9/1/2008 9:20:22 PM | Report Comment<br /><br /> McCain certainly knew about this pregnancy before he made Palin his VP pick. I think the pregnancy will be used in away as a plus against the Obama radical abortion stance. This will also make her and her family more relateble to real world every day American family problems. It will be hard for the Dems to attack Palin on this and look like nothing more than dirty politicians.<br /><br /> Terry W. West - 9/1/2008 10:16:05 PM | Report Comment<br /><br /> I concur that fault and responsibility are two separate things but there is no denying the overlap. And the differance of moral blameworthiness differs only in degree. Even if one grants that Rev Wilson's Federal Vision theology (and there is so much good stuff there)as fully accurate, the problem is that his statement is non-falsifiable. No Calvinist would grant that any earthly father is capable of perfectly loving, protecting, and holding all family members accountable. Thus there will never be an example of an out of wedlock child to a daughter of such a man. He does not exist.<br /><br /> Chris Maluta - 9/2/2008 1:08:23 AM | Report Comment<br /><br /> "the problem is that his statement is non-falsifiable."<br /><br /> Chris, I see what you mean, but I don't see that as a problem. Theology is not physics. Some things in theology are not falsifiable. So what?<br /><br /> Gianni - 9/2/2008 1:24:12 AM | Report Comment<br /><br /> The refrain is, "Read [not the Bible, but] this essay by Reymond."<br /><br /> Evidently I'm going to have to, since that isn't what I've gotten out of the Bible. What I get there is<br /><br /> "In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' 30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:29-30)<br /><br /> I do respect Reymond; if he shows me I've missed something in the Word, it's a win/win. But I surely haven't seen any such notion, but rather its contrary.<br /><br /> Dan Phillips (Pyromaniacs) - 9/2/2008 6:07:03 AM | Report Comment<br /><br /><br />Maybe I've missed it, but it certainly looks to me that you introduced the Rayburn (you called it Reymond's work accidentally) essay in THAT meta. From that perspective can you see that I wasn't trying to violate RULE 1?Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-46416651396205987612009-05-19T19:26:38.020-05:002009-05-19T19:26:38.020-05:00Example of really poor reading that makes dialog v...Example of really poor reading that makes dialog very difficult:<br /><br />Me: "In context, MacArthur was speaking about <I>young</I> children."<br /><br />Andy: "As for JM's statement, you described the context as being a contrast between young children and wayward teens."Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-18879966294880117382009-05-19T18:52:03.700-05:002009-05-19T18:52:03.700-05:00Andy,
I will respond, but not to your twisting of ...Andy,<br />I will respond, but not to your twisting of my words. It is wearisome to correct so many misrepresentations. When I say "Dan read sources" you respond asking me to "name the several sources Dan analyzes in this post that Wilson drew from". I don't have the grace, time or energy to untwist that. You seem unwilling to respond in a way that is straightforward.<br /><br />Moreover you missed the point again. Whether it was IN Wilson's post or in his meta, Dan was referred to several sources where Wilson drew his ideas or fleshed out his views or found support for his views or WHATEVER. Don't miss the point and twist it please. The point is that careful THOUGHT and INTERACTION and UNDERSTANDING took place between DJP and Wilson. None of this took place with the interjection of your MacArthur quote. The quote is too short, out of context, and was selectively chosen by another source to make that person's point.<br /><br />If you don't see the difference between your casual unsubstantiated interpretation of MacArthur's teaching on this subject and Dan's careful and thoughtful interaction with Wilson, then I guess we just disagree. Any selectively chosen excerpt and shoot-from-the-hip comment is as valid as any thoughtful essay laden with Scripture.<br /><br />??????<br /><br /><br />HERE is the distinction that I have been carefully making and that your are blurring (because it is indefensible from Scripture):<br /><br /><I>Bristol Palin isn't a little kid, but she didn't get to<br />be a pregnant teenager two minutes after being an obedient child. That<br />path takes time. And any father who would say he bears no part in<br />preventing her from taking that path, as a child under his roof, is<br />lying to himself.</I>Bristol isn't a little kid. Her father cannot effect obedience in her. "There is no technique or method by which any human being can effect a spiritual reality in another human being."<br /><br />You haven't yet explained where your view is found in Scripture.<br /><br />Nor have you demonstrated that Todd Palin did not take any steps to "prevent his daughter from taking that path". And that is the danger of this unbiblical view. It allows for a slanderous violation of Jesus' words in John 7:24 "<I>Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.</I>"Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-14020250667773602872009-05-19T18:27:01.015-05:002009-05-19T18:27:01.015-05:00Andy — either your post is a continuing rule 1 vio...<B>Andy</B> — either your post is a continuing rule 1 violation, or you're just a really poor reader.<br /><br />With an air of "Aha!" you link to the Wilson essay — to which I link in the post. Had you read it, you'd know that.<br /><br />Then you say I introduced Rayburn in the B+M meta... suggesting you didn't read <I>that</I>, either.<br /><br />To say nothing else — such as how it wastes the time of folks who are seriously interacting — it's incredibly rude not to give a serious read to a post, yet nonetheless to strike the pose of poking holes in it.<br /><br />Bring up your game, or please take it elsewhere.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-40472569422779899402009-05-19T17:50:26.577-05:002009-05-19T17:50:26.577-05:00Sure, Stan.
Down to the third and fourth generatio...Sure, Stan.<br />Down to the third and fourth generation.Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-88641068366912142672009-05-19T17:49:03.046-05:002009-05-19T17:49:03.046-05:00I guess since Christians have thrown out the excus...I guess since Christians have thrown out the excuse of <I>The devil made me do it</I> we had to come up with a new one: <I>My daddy made me do it.</I><BR><BR>Give me a break.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-70124589777217775812009-05-19T17:07:02.589-05:002009-05-19T17:07:02.589-05:00Andrew,
A complete essay by Wilson? Seriously? ...Andrew,<br /><br />A complete essay by Wilson? Seriously? Did you read the original Blog and Mablog post? Dan responded to a few sentences in a short paragraph post. <br /><br />Go here and read it. Hardly what I'd call a complete essay. <br /><br />http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5827&Data=3003#posts<br /><br />Several sources Wilson drew from? Please name the several sources Dan analyzes in this post that Wilson drew from. It was Dan who introduced the Rayburn essay in the B&M meta, not Doug Wilson. It was Dan who introduced the MTV commentary, not Doug Wilson. <br /><br />As for JM's statement, you described the context as being a contrast between young children and wayward teens. I asked you where such a distinction could be found since I don't see one in scripture. <br /><br />As for judging Todd Palin, I'm not saying much more than you've already said..."If you want to believe that it is possible for a little kid to carry on a rebellion against the instruction and discipline of her parents whom she is completely dependent upon, go right ahead. I think your opinion flies in the face of universal experience and the wisdom of Christians who have earnest studied children’s behavior. But I do not know of any Scripture which you would be contradicting." Or, "I have not met an out-of-control child that is faithfully instructed and disciplined." Bristol Palin isn't a little kid, but she didn't get to be a pregnant teenager two minutes after being an obedient child. That path takes time. And any father who would say he bears no part in preventing her from taking that path, as a child under his roof, is lying to himself.Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-50073154699058833692009-05-19T15:59:00.000-05:002009-05-19T15:59:00.000-05:00I'm not sure why that means we should exclude some...<I>I'm not sure why that means we should exclude someone. JM's statement is directly related to the subject of this post.</I>Because DJP wrote a very thoughtful post analyzing a complete essay by Wilson? And he read several sources Wilson drew from?<br />From JM we have the brief statement you provided 2nd hand with no context. Confusing and incomplete. You would not want your own views presented that haphazardly.<br /><br /><I>...explain specifically how his application is different than Wilson's.</I>Already did that.<br />For some strange reason you responded by asking about the age of accountability and whether the Bible makes a distinction between toddlers/teenagers.<br /><br /><I>I'm not advocating that we judge one another as though we aren't likewise sinners.</I>Okay but that is obviously not the kind of judgment I meant.<br /><br />Do we presume Todd Palin "missed the boat" as a father, or not? It appears you are willing to assign guilt to this man because of what his daughter has done. Please identify from Scripture how you are able to draw this conclusion about his *failed* fatherhood, since Wilson was not able to do so (he referred to his own books and an article by Rayburn).<br /><br />Sorry to be so blunt but the evasive responses are like nailing jello to the wall. You can't keep *hinting* at blaming this man without coming forward with some kind of explanation.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-39345145203749698762009-05-19T14:55:00.000-05:002009-05-19T14:55:00.000-05:00Just about all the questions you're asking me, And...Just about all the questions you're asking me, Andy, as well as the scope of discussion, are dealt with <I>in</I> the post. I commend it to you. I don't think it's that unclear or complex.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-2116265686191324032009-05-19T14:43:00.000-05:002009-05-19T14:43:00.000-05:00Andrew,
Wilson has written as many, if not more, ...Andrew,<br /><br />Wilson has written as many, if not more, volumes on parenting and family life as MacArthur. I'm not sure why that means we should exclude someone. JM's statement, which was raise by someone other than me, is directly related to the subject of this post. It seems to me that he and Wilson are saying almost the same thing. If you don't think so, then explain specifically how his application is different than Wilson's.<br /><br />I'm not advocating that we judge one another as though we aren't likewise sinners. But, kids don't transition from obedient to pregnant in a twinkle of an eye. If my daughter was to become pregnant I can guarantee I'd be giving great thought to where I as her father missed the boat.Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-66578669364063311582009-05-19T14:30:00.000-05:002009-05-19T14:30:00.000-05:00Sounds good as long as don't judge Christian fathe...Sounds good as long as don't judge Christian fathers such as Todd Palin for *presumed* sin. What his daughter did does not necessarily indicate anything about what kind of father he is. He might be the greatest human father alive. Or he could be terrible. Or somewhere in between. The point is that we (including Wilson) do not know enough to comment. The poor decisions of his grown daughter do not necessarily reflect his parenting.<br /><br />I am not sure if you agree with that. And I am pretty sure that Wilson does not agree.<br /><br />As for MacArthur I think it’s best to leave him out of the discussion since he is out of scope for this blog post (and it would not be fair since he has written many volumes on parenting).Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-60292138123624783572009-05-19T14:09:00.000-05:002009-05-19T14:09:00.000-05:00Andrew,
I think we agree on just about everything...Andrew,<br /><br />I think we agree on just about everything. The point I was raising is that if MacArthur says that there is no excuse for a rebellious child, then he is much closer to Wilson than Dan. <br /><br />You said, "I have not met an out-of-control child that is faithfully instructed and disciplined. It just plain works." That is essentially Wilson's position, but that does not seem to be Dan's position, unless I am misreading him. Please correct me if Ive misunderstood.Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-65044009103514242212009-05-19T13:58:00.000-05:002009-05-19T13:58:00.000-05:00Where does the bible make a distinction between th...<I> Where does the bible make a distinction between the rebelliousness of a toddler and a teenager?</I>There is no “teenager” designation the Bible. A "teenager" in the Bible is identified as either a “man” or a “woman”. A toddler is a “child”. So I think the Bible makes a clearer distinction than we Chrstians do today (as we are influenced by the culture around us)<br /><br />I did not claim Biblical authority that there is no excuse for a child that is out of control. I can only claim the lowly authority of personal experience and empirical observation. And I claim the human authority of Ted Tripp! With godly parenting, kids CAN be brought into submission when they are young (NOTE: that is <I>submission</I>, not <I>perfection</I>).<br /><br />I have not met an out-of-control child that is faithfully instructed and disciplined. It just plain works. Maybe it is because children are so dependent on their parents. Later when they become less dependent on parents they understand that rebellion is a realistic option.<br /><br />If you want to believe that it is possible for a little kid to carry on a rebellion against the instruction and discipline of her parents whom she is completely dependent upon, go right ahead. I think your opinion flies in the face of universal experience and the wisdom of Christians who have earnest studied children’s behavior. But I do not know of any Scripture which you would be contradicting.<br /><br /><I> Are you suggesting that there is an "age of accountability" where the parent no longer bears responsibility for a rebellious child? </I>An “age of accountability” would not be relevant to this discussion since we are talking about open rebellion, not a full comprehension and embracing of the gospel. Any child who is old enough to engage in open rebellion is old enough to know it is wrong (even a 2 year old).Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-29161505257112909342009-05-19T13:56:00.000-05:002009-05-19T13:56:00.000-05:00Dan,
It's fine that you want to distance yourself...Dan,<br /><br />It's fine that you want to distance yourself from MacArthur - you're not his personal defender. Of course I'm assuming you'd say similar things about your familiarity with Doug Wilson's positions.<br /><br />As to your response, it sounds like you accept there's a context in which it would be fine to say what MacArthur has said. What would that context look like? Personally, I don't see how allowing MacArthur liberty to say what he said is consistent with your objections to Wilson's position.<br /><br />Also, I'm not sure what you're driving at with your bottom line. "There is no technique or method by which any human being can effect a spiritual reality in another human being. Period." If your argument is that it is God who is the effective cause of all spiritual change, who wouldn't agree? Has Wilson, or proponents of federal headship, suggested otherwise? You aren't saying that God doesn't use parents as instruments in achieving these spiritual changes, are you?<br /><br />You seem pretty critical of Wilson's theology of parenting, as are many of the comments in the meta. Yet, what I observe about the community who practices what he preaches is that they have joyful and God-fearing families. People are sure to abuse what Doug has been teaching, but where faithfully practiced it seems to bear top quality fruit - or is that a gloss like Mormons?Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1772947910744957022009-05-19T11:23:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:23:00.000-05:00Andrew,
Where does the bible make a distinction b...Andrew,<br /><br />Where does the bible make a distinction between the rebelliousness of a toddler and a teenager? Are you suggesting that there is an "age of accountability" where the parent no longer bears responsibility for a rebellious child?Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-4144980503776832202009-05-19T11:21:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:21:00.000-05:00I know very little about John MacArthur's detailed...I know very little about John MacArthur's detailed positions on everything. I've read a few of his books in the last 30+ years, heard maybe a dozen or so sermons, been to his church either once or twice (unsure).<br /><br />As you excerpt it, my first response is a strong disagreement. But then when Andrew E3 EMD Refresh request and DBA support another context, that's a more reasonable possibility.<br /><br />Bottom line: there is no technique or method by which <I>any</I> human being can <I>effect</I> a <I>spiritual</I> reality in another human being. Period.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-55472250413684120372009-05-19T11:16:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:16:00.000-05:00I will take a gander at explaining the MacArthur q...I will take a gander at explaining the MacArthur quote even though DJP never introduced his views here...<br /><br />In context, MacArthur was speaking about <I>young</I> children. The high-handed temper-tantrum rebellion that is typical of toddlers years should not be continuing in older children. This is a simple battle of authority beginning when they are 2 yrs old, and it is every Christian parent's responsibility to win that battle decisively with instruction and discipline (you know, like the Bible says).<br /><br />This is why MacArthur refers to children being "under control". In the context he is referring to young children refusing to submit to authority. He is not speaking about wayward teens being influenced by the world to be promiscuous, etc.<br /><br />I believe that Wilson and Mac have different views on this issue.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-75447780044450936712009-05-19T11:15:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:15:00.000-05:00Not you necessarily - I enjoy hearing from the ot...Not you necessarily - I enjoy hearing from the other folks, too. You are free to ignore my comment, but I didn't expect you to shy from an opinion either. Am I wrong to assume that you would object to MacArthur's statement?Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-88144943898115141242009-05-19T10:52:00.000-05:002009-05-19T10:52:00.000-05:00Okey doke.
So... why are you asking me to explain...Okey doke.<br /><br />So... why are you asking me to explain John MacArthur?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-67431733598585287562009-05-19T10:48:00.000-05:002009-05-19T10:48:00.000-05:00Late to the party having come here from your link ...Late to the party having come here from your link in the 5/19/09 post on fathers.<br /><br />Reading through the comments I don't quite see the fundamental difference between what John MacArthur says: "You have a task, father, to say to your son you must learn to fear your God, guard your mind and obey your parents. You must learn how to submit to authority and since we represent the authority of God and are teaching you the wisdom of God, you must obey...you must obey. <B>I do not believe there's any excuse for a rebellious child. I believe that children can be under control if they're properly taught by their fathers to obey.</B>" <br /><br />...and what Wilson was essentially saying about the federal headship of fathers. <br /><br />Also, I'm a huge fan of John Piper, so I don't say this as a slander, but he has commented a few times publicly that he acknowledges failing to lead well at home during the early parts of his ministry. He seems comfortable with the idea that Abraham's temporary waywardness (?) was connected to his failures as a father. Or am I off?Andy Dollahitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575945592447351602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-44714191172861163542009-05-02T11:21:00.000-05:002009-05-02T11:21:00.000-05:00Very interesting and excellent. I wrote a post cal...Very interesting and excellent. I wrote a post called <A HREF="http://lisanunley.blogspot.com/2009/04/generational-curse-is-this-belief.html" REL="nofollow">Generational Curse: Is this belief Biblical? </A> that I need to add a link of your post to.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14009121709733650503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-38676613352198331132008-10-07T01:33:00.000-05:002008-10-07T01:33:00.000-05:00*Whee.... blow past 65 comments and start typing*O...*Whee.... blow past 65 comments and start typing*<BR/><BR/>OK, first time visitor, first time commenter: WELL SAID! I about came unglued and out of my chair when I read Doug Wilson's quick-draw-from-the-hip slander against a brother in Christ. And I vaguely remember the "which one are you channeling?" reply in his comments and got a hearty laugh from it. Personally, I thought I was reading some liberal feminist who'd just got an A+ in "Blaming Men 101" or something; but no, it really was Doug. Once my blood pressure returned from the stratosphere, I, too, remembered the Ezekiel and Jeremiah verses. This whole "covenant blame" theology seem like "convenient blame" to me.... know-it-all without knowin' nuthin'. At church, pastors identify Eliphaz/Bildad/Zophar characters like this and make darn sure to intervene when they see said wolves stalking troubled sheep.<BR/><BR/>Also, love this: "it takes a lot of words to prove that the Bible teaches something it doesn't, or doesn't teach something it does." Perhaps, excepting eschatology (think MacArthur vs. Riddlebarger) this is SO true.SomeDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130215862213258932noreply@blogger.com