|
SovereignIsHe -> RE: Is it acceptable for Christian fam. to kick out adult son for refusing to goto church? (4/23/2008 6:28:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: car2ner
I tend to agree. How come Mom is the bad guy here? If this young man really honored his parents we wouldn't be having this arguement. I think they might have come to a compromise. This is why I cannot rightly say that the mom backed out of her word. We do not know the whole story. I am sure it is not as simple as, " I just changed my mind". If that were the case I'd agree that Zedd was getting a bit of a raw deal. But even still, if this is the worst thing the mom (parents) are doing to him, he has it pretty good!
In spite of what I have posted I am not of the belief the mom isn the bad guy, she's just the one more accountable and the one held to a higher standard. As well I feel for her to have the "UPPER HAND" she needs to do everything in her power to do things according to God's word as much as possible... And without a doubt if the son honored his parents there would be no issue...
The reason the mom should keep her word is not based on the fact her son doesn't act as he should. I spoke to my pastor about an agreement a couple years back I had made with another party after it became evident that not everything was put on the table when things were negotiated... Some things were purposely hidden... I asked about amending the agreement and the pastor spoke of times where the Israelites were told by God to keep their word regardless because it matters that much.
He gave me this verse and what follows...
Psalms 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
And the meaning is, that the faithful will rather submit to suffer loss than break their word. When a man keeps his promises, in as far as he sees it to be for his own advantage, there is in this no argument to prove his uprightness and faithfulness. But when men make a promise to each other, there is nothing more common than from some slight loss which the performance of it would occasion, to endeavor to find a pretext for breaking their engagements. Every one considers with himself what is for his own advantage, and if it puts him to inconvenience or trouble to stand to his promises, he is ingenious enough to imagine that he will incur a far greater loss than there is any reason to apprehend. It seems, indeed, a fair excuse when a man complains that, if he does not depart from his engagement, he will suffer great loss. Hence it is, that we generally see so much unfaithfulness among men, that they do not consider themselves bound to perform the promises which they have made, except in so far as it will promote their own personal interest. David, therefore, condemning this inconstancy, requires the children of God to exhibit the greatest steadfastness in the fulfillment of their promises. Here the question might be asked, If a man, having fallen into the hands of a highwayman, promise him a sum of money to save his life, and if, in consequence of this, he is let go, should he in that case keep his promise? Again, if a man has been basely deceived, in entering into a contract, is it lawful for him to break the oath which he shall have made in such an engagement? With respect to the highwayman, he who confers upon him money falls into another fault, for he supports at his own expense a common enemy of mankind to the detriment of the public welfare. David does not impose upon the faithful such an alternative as this, but only enjoins them to show a greater regard to their promises than to their own personal interests, and to do this especially when their promises have been confirmed by an oath. As to the other case, namely, when a person has sworn, from being deceived and imposed upon by wicked artifice he ought certainly to hold the holy name of God in such veneration, as rather patiently to submit to loss than violate his oath. Yet it is perfectly lawful for him to discover or reveal the fraud which has been practiced upon him, provided he is not led to do so by a regard to his own personal interest; and there is, besides, nothing to hinder him from peaceably endeavoring to compromise the matter with his adversary. Many of the Jewish expositors restrict this passage to vows, as if David exhorted the faithful to perform their vows when they have promised to humble and afflict themselves by fasting. But in this they are mistaken. Nothing is farther from his meaning than this, for he discourses here only of the second table of the law, and of the mutual rectitude which men should maintain in their dealings with one another.
John
|
|
|
|
