What is the percentage of good to bad men?

[Leaf473]

Might it not depend on what the seeker has been taught about what love is?

Definitely! And this is not scripture, but there is a school of thought that says In our marriages we tend to recreate our family of origin.

 

[Leaf473]

Or perhaps just for the glory of God to be shown?

It's a possibility, sure! And either way, it can definitely be a learning experience to draw us closer to Christ,

Romans 8
For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It's a possibility, sure! And either way, it can definitely be a learning experience to draw us closer to Christ,

Romans 8
For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

• Hebrews 12:22-23
  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
  

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Definitely! And this is not scripture, but there is a school of thought that says In our marriages we tend to recreate our family of origin.

Do you mean like Jesus said to the Jews of Abrahamic birthrights "ye are of your father, the devil" when they tried to stone Him? Just a guess. What does that mean?

 

[Leaf473]

Do you mean like Jesus said to the Jews of Abrahamic birthrights "ye are of your father, the devil" when they tried to stone Him?

That's a good scripture, but the school of thought I was thinking of says:

If you grew up with an alcoholic father,
And watched your mother cover for him and make excuses for him,
There's a good chance you will recreate the same kind of marriage,
Unless you are aware of the tendency and consciously choose someone different.

As I said, it's not scripture. It's a school of thought.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That's a good scripture, but the school of thought I was thinking of says:

If you grew up with an alcoholic father,
And watched your mother cover for him and make excuses for him,
There's a good chance you will recreate the same kind of marriage,
Unless you are aware of the tendency and consciously choose someone different.

As I said, it's not scripture. It's a school of thought.

I disagree. My daughters claim to have broken the chain of abuse in their families, so I think that's a poor excuse.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No matter how Christians look at it if it isn't the mind of Christ then it's just an old tale that needs revision.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

A school of thought .... om g

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That's a good scripture, but the school of thought I was thinking of says:

If you grew up with an alcoholic father,
And watched your mother cover for him and make excuses for him,
There's a good chance you will recreate the same kind of marriage,
Unless you are aware of the tendency and consciously choose someone different.

As I said, it's not scripture. It's a school of thought.

A school of thought .... om g

Where does that school of thought harken from or are you being facetious when you call it a school?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My heart goes out to you Citizen in hearing how this unfolded for you, so please know that I share these thoughts here with love and respect... but with honesty too.

1. Any abuse as you've described above, regardless of faith or upbringing, is wrong and certainly not in keeping with anyone who correctly adheres to an "Image of God" humanity. I hope that in your situation you had people to turn to (church?) for help, and that they also didn't worship the same "god of masculinity". God knows if I ever saw a man abusing a woman in public (or vice-versa) I would be on him like the whirlwind.
2. Re. your earlier post today: those four points that I laid out represent, to me at least, something like a biblical and psychological ideal, which isn't to say that all relationships following these points are good, nor that all relationships not following them are bad. But, like so many issues today, nuance and subtlety seem to have been abandoned to tribal, dualistic thinking. So in this case, to state these might be "an ideal" equates to many (especially progressive leaning) as a hard indictment or even as a presumption that those holding to the ideal hate those who don't.
3. I wasn't necessarily making a comment on working versus stay-at-home moms, but if I was to cast my vote as to which model provides the most stable, attentive environment for children then I'd vote for the latter. Doesn't mean that latchkey-kids can't be raised correctly (look at me after all who can find fault here?) but all other factors aside, if I was aiming to maximize the wellbeing of the children, that's where I'd land.
4. Re. headship - to me this would function akin to a "nuclear option" that would rarely be relied on. A healthy, functional relationship between man and woman would be of utmost respect and mutual, careful decision making. Only in situations where it came down to a final impasse would the vote go to the man. The man should always prefer mutual agreement over headship-ruling, and the woman should always prefer to cede to headship-ruling over festering disagreement.
5. Re. "love for all, duty to all" - that just seemed right when I was typing. I'm sticking with it

I just noticed this post so thanks for your response. Mainly I'm just happy that a dialog has been opened up between abuse and abusers, whether male or female, and the need for that to be a public platform in the pulpit, if you could call it a public platform. Thanks

 

[RileyG]

Only God knows for sure.

 

[Leaf473]

I disagree. My daughters claim to have broken the chain of abuse in their families, so I think that's a poor excuse.

That's great to hear about your daughters

It's a school of thought, one among many. It's not intended as an excuse, but as an explanation of why some go from bad partner to bad partner and others from good to good.

Peace be with you, my sister!

 

[Leaf473]

Where does that school of thought harken from or are you being facetious when you call it a school?

It comes from the world of psychology. It's commonly used by psychotherapists.

Here's an example:

If abandonment was present when we were children we find ourselves in recurring relationships, friends and lovers alike, with abandoners.
Recreating Our Childhood (Family of Origin Issues Included) - Healing Hearts of Indy, Inc

Peace be with you

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It comes from the world of psychology. It's commonly used by psychotherapists.

Here's an example:

If abandonment was present when we were children we find ourselves in recurring relationships, friends and lovers alike, with abandoners.
Recreating Our Childhood (Family of Origin Issues Included) - Healing Hearts of Indy, Inc

Peace be with you

If we had unpleasant childhoods, which many have, we should all be elbow deep in psychoanalysis. That's probably true but paints a picture of a web of ever-increasing dysfunctionality within the family dynamic. Also, an almost hopeless case for them. But I can't disagree.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That's great to hear about your daughters

It's a school of thought, one among many. It's not intended as an excuse, but as an explanation of why some go from bad partner to bad partner and others from good to good.

Peace be with you, my sister!

I did go to psychanalysis many years and one of my daughters is in her 3rd yr to become one. That may be why the chain was broken. I know that creating crisis to cover up other crisis isn't a way of life because things get worked thru within our family dynamics now.

 

[Leaf473]

If we had unpleasant childhoods, which many have, we should all be elbow deep in psychoanalysis. That's probably true but paints a picture of a web of ever-increasing dysfunctionality within the family dynamic. Also, an almost hopeless case for them. But I can't disagree.

Well, not necessarily ever-increasing. Some people recreate their childhoods and make it worse, some make it better. A lot depends on how honest a person is with themselves, imo.

But this is definitely true,

People are born for trouble as readily as sparks fly up from a fire.
Job 5 NLT

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Job 5

1“Cry for help, but will anyone answer you?
Which of the angelsa will help you?
2Surely resentment destroys the fool,
and jealousy kills the simple.
3I have seen that fools may be successful for the moment,
but then comes sudden disaster.
4Their children are abandoned far from help;
they are crushed in court with no one to defend them.
5The hungry devour their harvest,
even when it is guarded by brambles.b
The thirsty pant after their wealth.c
6But evil does not spring from the soil,
and trouble does not sprout from the earth.
7People are born for trouble
as readily as sparks fly up from a fire.

8“If I were you, I would go to God
and present my case to him.

That is the school of thought of one of Job's friends. Thanks

 

[Brother-Mike]

Job 5

1“Cry for help, but will anyone answer you?
Which of the angelsa will help you?
2Surely resentment destroys the fool,
and jealousy kills the simple.
3I have seen that fools may be successful for the moment,
but then comes sudden disaster.
4Their children are abandoned far from help;
they are crushed in court with no one to defend them.
5The hungry devour their harvest,
even when it is guarded by brambles.b
The thirsty pant after their wealth.c
6But evil does not spring from the soil,
and trouble does not sprout from the earth.
7People are born for trouble
as readily as sparks fly up from a fire.

8“If I were you, I would go to God
and present my case to him.

That is the school of thought of one of Job's friends. Thanks

It goes without saying that one should be cautious with the wisdom of Job’s three friends… after all God was angered at their falsehoods. Just sayin’

PS. Now Elihu on the other hand…

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It goes without saying that one should be cautious with the wisdom of Job’s three friends… after all God was angered at their falsehoods. Just sayin’

PS. Now Elihu on the other hand…

I agree about Job's friend's because they all displayed legalism in their own ways. (Charles Swindoll had a great book on that) Elihu was the least offensive but still not correct as was Job not either, in God's sight. But that is human wisdom. Our ways are not His ways.

I think that those who do fall into the unkindness of human existence often display the armour of God the most. Their hearts are covered by His righteousness while perpetrators think they are covered by their own. The helmet of salvation is what is tried the most in legalistic societies.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I agree about Job's friend's because they all displayed legalism in their own ways. (Charles Swindoll had a great book on that) Elihu was the least offensive but still not correct as was Job not either, in God's sight. But that is human wisdom. Our ways are not His ways.

I think that those who do fall into the unkindness of human existence often display the armour of God the most. Their hearts are covered by His righteousness while perpetrators think they are covered by their own. The helmet of salvation is what is tried the most in legalistic societies.

Next time you’re bored or wake up on the exegetical side of the bed I would look forward to your analysis in how Elihu was wrong - I see nothing in the scripture to suggest this myself.

Historically, Calvin’s commentary on Elihu apparently favored Elihu’s position. From Tony Reinke’s review of Derek Thomas’ book on Job:

Calvin teaches us to use Elihu to interpret the Jobian dialogues (see Job 32:1-37:24). “While Calvin is consistently critical of the advice of Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar, he is generally supportive of the contribution of Elihu” (226). Elihu best understood the sovereignty of God, the nature of justice, the separation between God and man and that God’s justice and power go alongside His goodness.

By favoring the advice and input of Elihu, Calvin takes from the dialogues several helpful principles: Trials are appointed by God’s providence to educate us, they are used by God to humble us, they bring our hidden sins to the surface, and they bring us to repentance. “Afflictions also drive us to desire more of God’s help, provoking us to return to him, by drawing us to him, taming us, and teaching us to pray.” Certainly, “the distribution of trials is not whimsical or arbitrary” (228).

John Piper’s thoughts on the matter also seem to align.

Anyway, not to derail the thread off topic I’ll leave it at that.