Questions and Answers (Summer 2023)
The following represents a select number of actual questions recently sent in to the ministry (lightly edited for brevity, clarity, and anonymity).
If you have a question you’d like to ask, feel free to send it in here: https://www.expositoryparenting.org/contact
Question: How or what do you suggest we, as parents of 17 year olds, do if we’re just now beginning and learning about expository parenting?
Answer: I really appreciate that question. If you believe you haven't discipled your kids as Scripture requires, the first thing to do would be repent. Not only confess it to God, but also humbly confess to your kids that you haven't done what you would have liked. This is particularly important if you're prepared make drastic changes to their lifestyle this late in their childhood (i.e. regular Bible time, educational decisions, prohibiting certain activities, etc.). Second, as a believer, continue to enjoy the forgiveness afforded by Christ—don't wallow in guilt, knowing that any and all parenting failures (which we all have) were already dealt with at the cross. Third, thank God for the convictions He's brought into your life; far better to come to these convictions when your kids are 17 than when they’re 27. Fourth, trust that God in His sovereignty has a plan that can work great good in our lives and overcome our failures. Fifth and finally, get to work discipling your kids as quickly as possible. If you need help, I would suggest beginning in the New Testament and working alongside them through these study guides: https://www.expositoryparenting.org/ntstudyguides. At the moment, there are 51 chapters’ worth of study guides available, meaning you could work through every one of them in a year if you do just one per week, allowing you to maximize the time if your 17 year old is leaving the home at age 18. I have no doubt that a year of deep study would radically impact their lives. Finally, don't assume that once they hit 18, they don’t need your discipling influence any more in their lives. If they’re willing, continue discipling them even on into adulthood. In many ways, the late teens to early twenties are the most pivotal years that need mentoring anyway.
I would also mention this: if I had a very limited time and wanted my older teenage kids to have a comprehensive foundation of sound doctrine, here are the three books (outside of the Bible, of course) that I would want them to read:
Christ’s Prophetic Plans: https://www.amazon.com/Christs-Prophetic.../dp/0802401619
Slave: https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Hidden-Truth.../dp/1400204291
Strange Fire: https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Fire.../dp/1400205174
Cheering for you, and here to help!
Question: I’m working through some stuff with some family members who are neck deep into Flat Earth Theory and claim it’s biblical. As a Science major at a Christian college, I am pretty certain it’s not. If anything ... its not really addressed definitely in scriptures either way. It would not be a huge issue, as I do not think the shape of the earth is an essential component of salvation, however they way they are approaching it worries me as they are praying that the Holy Spirit opens my eyes to see that the earth is flat. Any thoughts on that?
Answer: Like with KJV-Onlyists, the flat earth mindset seems to be a kind of cultic mentality that ultimately exhausts itself and fades out on its own. I think it preys on the conspiracy-theory type of people, and I’d guess that it would have already died out in recent years if it weren’t for the sad fact that many seeming “conspiracies” in society have seem to been proven true in recent times, which only fuels this particular belief. Like you mentioned, it's not a salvific issue, so provided these folks are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation, you can rest at ease that they're just unfortunately misguided. Maybe the bigger danger is that this represents some other problems in their theology as well. How has this belief impacted their life and your relationship? Is it just one isolated, wacky belief they hold to, or are there other factors in play? In terms of the belief itself, we could look at passages like Isaiah 40:22, which talks about God being enthroned above the "circle of the earth," but just knowing that crowd they would already have considered and rejected what those passages imply. I guess this comes down to their commitment to literalism, which I also hold to (especially in Genesis 1), but I think it's a misguided application of literalism that entirely rejects figures of speech, literary devices, and so on. There's a difference between a literal interpretation of Scripture, and a literalistic interpretation of Scripture. So maybe the best approach would be to kindly challenge their commitment to this view of literalism to see if their worldview is internally consistent.
There would be two aspects to this: 1) Assuming they are taking biblical passages "literally," ask them to consider whether they allow for any figures of speech in the Bible. You can look at other passages, in a number of genres, to see if they allow for metaphors and other non-literal phrases. Obvious examples would be something like "The Lord is my rock" (Psa. 18:2), or "I was rescued out of the lion's mouth" (2 Tim. 4:17), or "The world has gone after Him!" (John 12:19). These are all from different genres, and yet in each case, a wooden literalistic interpretation would miss the actual meaning. They should apply the same standard to passages that say "The ends of the earth" (Deut. 13:7) or "The pillars of the earth are the Lord's" (1 Sam. 2:8) or "the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1). 2) Ask them to consider whether they allow themselves to speak in non-literal ways, and if they expect others to recognize and accept their non-literal speech. If so, the question then is, Why wouldn't they grant the authors of Scripture the same courtesy? If they see a guy working out and lifting heavy weights, do they say, "Wow, that guy's a beast!"? Do they understand kids whenever they say, "Mom, I'm starving!"? The Bible is a supernatural book, not a magical book. It is divinely inspired, but through the agency of human authors—it didn't just drop out of heaven as a 66-book collection. Some passages are transcripts from oral instruction (see Prov. 25:1). Some passages were dictated and recorded by an amanuensis (see Rom. 16:22). Some passages are observations of natural events (Luke 1:2-3), while other passages are observations of supernatural events (Rev. 1:1). So, like any other human, they speak in ways that allow for variety in language, emphasis in making a point, enhancing the sensory understanding of the reader, and so on, in order to communicate. Consistency would require granting the biblical authors the same ability to speak in ways that they allow for themselves. At the end of the day, we can trust that God has a plan even for silly beliefs. So, my counsel for these kinds of things is speak the truth, pray for the hearer, and trust the Lord. He'll work everything out in the end, and one day you'll be giving Him even more praise when you see how He used even foolishness for His own glory (Rom. 11:33-36, Eph. 1:11) and your own good (Rom. 8:28)!
Question: In researching Reformed Calvinist thought, I came across one article that says a distinctiveness of that is "Covenant theology (The Church is the New Israel – this generally means infants are baptized rather than believers).” I don't believe in infant baptism and I thought I remember seeing a comment of yours on some post that you do not either. So, is this article misinformed or is that, in fact, a belief of a Reformed Calvinist?
Answer: In many ways, this is a really big theological/historical issue to unpack, as you can probably tell. So I’m just going to try to briefly explain:
Out of the Protestant Reformation came a correction in what is called Soteriology--the doctrine of how a person is saved. Men like Calvin, Luther, and others retrieved the truth of God's sovereign election and predestination over who is saved—from which, through a series of events in history, developed into the “Calvinism” label (also known as the Doctrines of Grace, or by the acronym TULIP). Again, I am really simplifying this just to be succinct.
Well, that's all good and well. Unfortunately, however, due to a number of other factors, the initial Reformers maintained the eschatology of the Roman Catholic Church from which they came—which is Amillennialism. Along with that, they also maintained some of the ecclesiology—a “Covenantal” framework in which they believe the Church has replaced or fulfilled all things pertaining to the nation of Israel to an extent that they would deny any of God’s future promises to restore the ethnic nation of Israel. As part of that Covenantal framework comes paedobaptism, the idea that the children of believers are to baptized even as infants as part of "the church." The defense of this is the idea that just as under the Old Covenant, in which children were circumcised and part of the covenant community, now under the New Covenant even children are baptized and part of the covenant community. You’ll see other adaptations in this kind of thinking as well, one being Sabbatarianism, in which they would believe the Israel’s sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) was transformed into a Christian sabbath (Sunday). So they think they keep the fourth commandment by gathering for church on Sunday. Of course, I think this misrepresents a whole host of passages, but that's a basic flyover of it.
So, to fast forward a bit, folks that call themselves "Reformed" or even "Truly Reformed" are usually found in the Presbyterian denomination, holding not only to Calvinism, and not only to Covenantalism, but also to doctrines such as paedobaptism (and if you can believe it, some even hold to paedocommunion, but that's a whole other story...). Well, as time would go on, some Reformed believers, based on some historical developments (particularly established in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) recognized that Scripture supports credobaptism, not paeodobaptism. So these folks (Reformed Baptists) hold to Calvinism, Covenantalism, but not paedobaptism. They're often criticized by Presbyterians for not being "truly Reformed" because if you hold to a replacement of Israel by the Church, then logically (in the minds of Presybterians) you should also hold to paedobaptism based on the circumcision argument I mentioned.
Well, fast forward again to the 1800s and men like John Nelson Darby, who recognized the errors of Covenantalism, began a return to Dispensationalism (in which the Church does not replace Israel, but rather sees that God will again return to redeem Israel and fulfill His promises to them in the future per Romans 11). From the work of men like Darby came the Fundamentalist movement here in the U.S., which was a "back to the Bible movement" committed to reading the Bible literally, and thus seeing that Old Testament prophecies to Israel must still come to pass in the future. The problem is that over time this Fundamentalist movement threw the baby out with the bathwater: in rejecting Covenantalism they also rejected Calvinism. So today, most Dispensationalists believe in Arminian doctrines like human free will and universal atonement—doctrines which are soundly rejected by Reformed folks (and more importantly, not substantiated by Scripture).
That brings us to John MacArthur. What God has done through MacArthur’s ministry over the past several decades is nothing short of incredible. Beginning in the Fundamentalist movement, MacArthur had a strong commitment to literalism and Dispensational eschatology. However, over the course of his studies and verse-by-verse preaching ministry, he also came to fully affirm the truths of the Doctrines of Grace—including, by necessity, the doctrine of Limited Atonement that is so hated within much of evangelicalism today. Thus, what he has done is successfully "bridged the gap," taking the best of the Fundamentalist movement (literalism, Dispensationalism, etc.) and taking the best of the Reformed movement (Calvinism, confessional terminology) and winding up as a “Dispensational Calvinist.” And far from artificially merging all of these doctrines together, he has proven how they fit together by preaching verse-by-verse through the entire New Testament. So, for example, MacArthur can preach through Romans 9 (a Calvinist favorite) and describe God's sovereignty in salvation. And then he can continue on and get to Romans 11 (a Dispensationalist favorite) and describe God's future plan for Israel. And this is all the product of a seamless, literal, verse-by-verse exposition of God's Word.
Now, here's the rub: tradition is a tough thing to overcome, and both Fundamentalist and Reformed believers have very strong ties to tradition. So you can guess what has happened as MacArthur emerged as a strong Dispensational Calvinst: he has no theological home—both "camps" have problems with him. He's too Calvinistic for the Fundamentalists and he's too Dispensational for the Reformed Christians. And so he takes shots from both sides. But the fact of the matter is, he's right. And that's all that matters.
Question: The link for 50 questions to ask your daughters suitor was found online on social media. Would there happen to be a similar article for daughters?
Answer: Glad you came across that article! It's certainly been one of the most popular over the years, earning a high return ranking on Google and other search engines.
As far as your question, no there isn't an article for daughters. In the biblical paradigm, it is the father who has authority over his daughter and thus "gives" her to another man (cf. 1 Cor. 7:36-37, Num. 30:3-5). Obviously this isn't demanding an arranged marriage, nor the idea that women are a "possession" like an object, but rather it affirms the reality that she is to be protected by her father—especially from men who would seek to harm her. So, part of that protection on the father's part is to interview a young man (which by the way, isn't necessarily a "formal" interview, but rather a sober-minded conversation), and the questions I provided are intended to facilitate the discussion and help the father think of aspects he may have otherwise overlooked.
That paradigm isn't mirrored in the same way for a women. Since she's not the one pursuing the man, it's not her duty to be screened/interviewed in the same way. Instead, it should be the young man's responsibility to discern that the woman he is pursuing is one who reflects the Bible's standards (such as found in Proverbs 31 and Titus 2).
Now, with all of that said, parents certainly should help their son make a wise decision in terms of whom he should pursue, as they can offer counsel and discernment that he might lack. So they can ask questions of a young woman as the situation arises and presents itself, perhaps in a setting with her and their son together, I just wouldn't see it appropriate to "interrogate" her on her own the way a young man should be. Either way, most of the 50 questions in the article can apply just as well to women as to men, so there isn't really a need for a separate list of questions.
Question: I’m hoping to get some biblical wisdom regarding the distraction of children’s noise in church. We’ve been at a solid, Reformed church for awhile now, but the uncontrolled noise from children in the service is unlike anything we’ve experienced. It’s not an occasional squeal or cry, it’s a chorus of whines, coos, screams and constant toy noise. Besides making it literally impossible to keep concentration on the sermon, it seems so disrespectful to the reverence of a worship service and to the pastor for all the diligent study time put in to skillfully preach the Word. Personally he doesn’t seem to have an issue with it, and has small children himself. We are too small of a building to hold classes for kids, but we do have rooms for very young children and their parents to utilize. So my question is, Do we have a biblical basis for taking issue with this situation or are we simply wrong in our selfish hearts and it’s a preference thing?
Answer: As far as the issue goes (family integrated worship, in which people of every age are present during the whole church service), let me give you kind of a brief overview of both sides, my personal take, and then maybe how to move forward.
So when it comes to the Reformed faith, particularly parents serious about discipling and catechizing their kids, you'll notice a much more inclusive view of having kids present in the service. This is partly because of the seriousness with which they take the faith (as seen by the fact that they’re Reformed), but in many circles it also has to do with the view of "covenant children," particularly in Presbyterian circles that perform paedobaptism. Seeing their kids as "part of the church" would mean even the youngest of kids need to be present there, in their minds. But even if a church is Reformed Baptist (not agreeing with paedobaptism), the idea of having kids present is derived from passages like Ephesians 6:1, in which the Apostle Paul directly addresses children and tells them to obey their parents (he uses the second person plural, giving them—not their parents—the command). So the implication is that the children (who needed to hear that command) would be present to hear that.
On the other hand, one of the obvious problems is that not all children (particularly those somewhere around 3 years old and under) are capable of sitting and listening to a message, let alone understanding that they are being addressed. It would be irrational to think that the Apostle Paul assumed that an infant, for example, was listening to him and prepared to act upon the command in Ephesians 6:1. So, the other side would say that some kids don't need to be in the service listening to preaching because of their natural limitations. You see this substantiated in passages like Nehemiah 8:2, which says, "Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month." In this passage, which is foundational for describing expository preaching, notice that the gathered assembly included men, women, and those who could "listen with understanding." Much like when Jonah preached to the Ninevites, the reality is that there are some children so young that they don't even "know the difference between their right hand and their left" (Jonah 4:11). Thus, this would set a precedent for caring for young children elsewhere, trying to meet their spiritual needs in ways more suited to them.
So where do I personally stand? I deeply appreciate the family integrated worship movement, and if I had to choose between having every single child aged 0-18 years old present in the service, or having no child 0-18 present, I would absolutely choose the former. Of course, since that stark of a choice is not often required, I personally believe that young children (decided based on the wisdom of the local leadership) should have the option of having a nursery or a "children's church" during the service. On the basis of the principles in 1 Corinthians 14:20-40, a worship service is to be done orderly, and not with confusion and people talking over one another (hence Paul instructing first century prophets to speak "one by one" and let the others "keep silent"). This applied, in principle, would mean that a service shouldn't have constant yelling or screaming or crying drowning out the preaching either. Even if one believes in family integrated worship, that principle should still hold true, and parents who have disruptive children should, out of love for others, take the children out of the service to discipline or care for them. I would go on to say that once a child around age 7 or 8 is able to sit and understand expositional preaching, it would be wise to have him or her in the service. The goal is to get children in the service as early and helpfully as possible without being disruptive. And to those whose concern is wanting their kids to learn to sit under expositional preaching, my counsel would be to teach them the Bible at home and they will begin to develop that ability. Finally, I would also say that the singing portion of the worship service could certainly include children of all ages, and would be a great way to keep them involved.
With that in mind, it would be difficult to recommend leaving a church over this one issue, unless the noise is unbearably distracting (which maybe it is). But of course, before coming anywhere near that choice, I'd have extended discussions with the pastors to see if a compromise (such as something suggested above) would be possible. I can only imagine that parents with young children in the service have the best of motives, either wanting to involve their kids as much as possible and/or wanting to hear the message themselves rather than having to be out in a nursery alone. So be sure that you're gracious and patient in your conversations. If it is unresolvable, and there is an equally good alternative church, then I would consider it.