Tenet 8

Family, Church, and State
8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 25:11; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.; Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Tim. 3:15)

Matt. 16:19 – “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matt. 18:18 – “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Yes. In Christ, the church can do this. When the church leave Christ, and call people unsaved/ disobedient to the gospel for reasons that Christ did not endorse, it no longer use the keys.

Acts 4:19 – But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.
Acts 5:29 – But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.“
Yes. The same Peter who told us to submit to authorities (1 Pet. 2:13), tell us we ought to rather obey God. The authorities did not want Peter to commit any direct sin. They wanted Peter to shut up about the gospel, to refrain from doing something good. When elders, or a husband, tell you not to do a certain type of good work, does this apply too? I believe it does. After all, the same word for submit is used for submission to governing authorities, church leaders, and husbands.

Acts 25:11 -“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
This is an example, not doctrine. But this same Paul preached submission to government. Because of that, I get the impression that submitting meant yielding to the good things the government could give (legal protection), while opposing the bad (unjust arrest). If this is the truth, then surely it counts for church and home submission too?

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

I Pet. 2:13 – Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,

Yes. Heb. 13:17 refers to church authority, and 1 Pet. 2:13 to state authority within their contexts.

Eph. 1:22-23 – And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Christ is the head of the church, but I don’t see how this is relevant to the tenet. By the way, this verse use “head” (kephale in Greek) in a figurative way that may refer to Him being the source – “Him who fills all in all.” (See tenet 2, discussion under 1 Cor. 11:3)

I Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

True, but how is it relevant to the tenet?

8a) Family, church, and state are parallel institutions,

This is not supported by a text. Moreover, this was not always so. For example, church and state, in some societies, was the same institution. For children whose “family” was a church orphanage, the boundaries between church and family were hardly there. In many societies, the despot’s will overrode that of the family. The spheres have never been separate.

b) each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere.

Family has limited authority in its sphere? This tenet gave no evidence for family authority. Eph. 6:4 (discussed in tenet 5e) perhaps does, for fathers over children.  Some other verses certainly do, for parents – both mother and father – over children.

Church has limited authority in its sphere? Yes, that is defended.

State has limited authority in its sphere? Yes.

c) As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom,

Yes.

d) the church is the central and defining institution of history.

I see no scriptural support for this. Is God – Christ himself – not central to history, instead of his church?

e)As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society.

This is not scripturally supported, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

Other ways Christians understand this:

As a rule, Christians find Christ, not the church, central.

Where patriarchal spheres of authority limits people to roles, many believe spheres of authority exist to give responsibilities to authoritarians, not to limit those under their authority. If upholding the law, for example, is in the state sphere of authority, it means the state have a responsibility in that regard. It does not mean you should refrain from wearing a gun, and say crime protection is in someone else’s sphere.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is not Biblically defended

      This was not defended from the Bible, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society.

Patriarchy and the family

Patriarchy places a very high priority on the family: Children obeying fathers. Wives obeying husbands. Schooling children at home. Staying with the family until marriage. Your father finding you someone to marry. Adherents are even opposed to Sunday school as the family should be teaching children about God.

What does Jesus teach us about family? Jesus is not nearly as pro-family as patriarchy supporters. He says, among others:

Mat_10:37  He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Mat_19:29  And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Luk_14:26  If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus tells his followers to call nobody father, as there is only one father and master over them:

Mat. 23:8-9 But you are not to be called “Rabbi,” for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and He is in Heaven.

As for honoring his family, which family does Jesus choose sides for? :

Mat 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him: Who is my mother? And who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said: Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

A Christian, according to New Testament writers, has a new family – the family/ household of God. Among numerous such verses, here are a few:

Eph. 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; Gal_6:10  As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

1Pe 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Believers are called brothers and sisters (meaning of brethren) – with one Father.

Now, if the New Testament extensively discuss being part of a spiritual family, why would God give authority to teach you and help you on the right way only, or mainly, to the natural family? Christ even approves of abandoning your natural family to follow him.

The Patriarchal focus on family authority is evidentially not how family is viewed in the New Testament. Biological family, in the New Testament, is something you should be willing to lose for Christ’s sake. Your real family is all the believers. There is family authority in the spiritual family, but from a structure where all – including fathers – are inherently brothers and sisters (brethren). It is not about hierarchy. It is about all believers submitting to one another. (Eph. 5:21)

Note:

Biblical Patriarchy is not the way families are pictured in the Old Testament either – in the Old Testament, most men were not patriarchs. Patriarchs were tribal chieftains, and most men and their families had to submit to whichever son the old patriarch appointed as new patriarch. See, for example Gen 27:37: 

And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

Tenet 10

10. The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline. (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20ff.; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 5)

Gal. 1:8 – But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Orthodox confession –yes. (By the time we get to the end of the TBP's tenets on men and women, education, and older children, you can judge for yourself if "the gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy", as the tenets call itself, is the real gospel, or "any other gospel.")

1 Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How is this relevant to the tenet? Does “pillar and ground of the truth” mean the orthodox confession and faithful teaching? Is the living God the pillar and ground of truth, or is His church that?

1 Cor. 12:13 – For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

The sacrament of baptism and presense of the Holy Spirit, yes.

1Tim. 3:1 and further (Excerpt):  This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless …

This covers qualified elders. (By the way, the original Greek of this contains no gendered word like "man" or "he".)

Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Baptism and discipleship is in the tenets.

1 Cor. 11:20 and further (Excerpt):  …the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come…

Acts 20:7 – Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

Breaking bread together is something the disciples did, but it does not say this is what defines the church. 

10a) The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word;

 Yes.

b) by the presence of the Holy Spirit;

Yes. It could be covered by more verses, not just half of 1 Cor. 12:13.

c) by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper;

Yes.

d) by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship;

Nothing in these verses mentions either regular meetings or worship, or instruction. Breaking bread is mentioned, but not as a definition of the church. Fellowship is not mentioned.

e) and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline.

Discipleship is mentioned in Matt. 28:19. Discipline by God, not by elders, is mentioned in the 1 Cor 11:20 and further passage. Discipline by the church elders is meant by TBP, but not covered in the Bible verses.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Some Christians emphasize that the church is not a building or a meeting, but each and every believer. The church can firstly be known, they say, by this:

 Joh 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

This verse, interestingly enough, is not part of how the New Patriarchal leaders define the church, and none of their definitions, except Matt. 28:19, comes from Jesus himself.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is a partial truth. (The other part of the truth, that together make it Biblical, will be added in brackets.)
      This is not Biblically defended

      This can be defended Biblically, but TBP don't give such a verse.

10. The church is defined by (the love of Jesus’ disciples for one another,) its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread,  and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline.

Tenet 12: A man’s dominion carries over into the public square?

Men and women: Spheres of dominion

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household. (Mal. 4:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:5)

Mal. 4:6 – And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.
This has nothing to do with dominion or ruling.

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

1 Tim. 3:5 – (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

See the discussions of these two verses under Tenets 5, 7 and 11.

12a) While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home,

This is not defended from the verses provided.

b) their dominion begins within the home,

Ruling the home well (which is not limited to men only, by the meaning of the word translated “man” in 1 Tim. 3:5) should (by this verse) come before being a bishop. But should it come before any other type of leadership? The Bible doesn’t say that. Jesus led without, as far as we know, ruling a household beforehand.

c) and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household.

Nothing in here connects family ruling to public ruling, but only to one form of church ruling.

Other ways Christians understand this:

The average Christian fail to see this point at all, as the text simply does not say it.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is not Biblically defended

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household.

Tenet 16, and a thoroughly Christian education

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6-9; Rom. 13:3-5; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:15)

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

This is a command to the Israelites to teach their children what they saw. This is no command to teach children reading, counting, or even of the meaning of the death of Christ. Those are not among the things we saw. It could either mean: “Israel, teach the children and grandchildren of your nation” or “each Israelite parent, teach your own children and grandchildren.”

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

This is a command to diligently teach the laws of Deuteronomy. How do you pick and choose what you take from there? Do you still bind a frontlet between their eyes? Do you do a genealogy check on people before they become part of your group, to insist that no bastard (someone born from illicit intercourse) may become part of the group, even if the illicit act was by the grandmother’s grandfather’s great-grandparents?(Deut. 23:2)

Rom. 13:3-5 – For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

We must do good, so we do not have to fear the government. How does this relate to educating our children? Could “he (the authority) is God’s minister to you for good” be used to mean that the authority ministers for good by providing public schools? Or does this relate to being willing to let authorities test your home-schooled children, as you have nothing to fear?

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Notice that fathers are not asked to potty-train their children, or teach them chemical science or bicycle riding or self-defense or how to make a living. These things could be taught by other people, and the father who trains his children about Christian living and understanding the things of God would still obey Eph. 6:4.

TBP use this verse to refer to fathers, and not mothers, in tenets on authority. (See tenet 5 and 12) Now that it comes to the actual work of educating children (closer than authority to the real meaning of this verse) they say fathers should do it with mothers!

Why do they use this for a father’s authority to train children without using Deut 4:9, Deut 6:6-9 and 2 Tim 3:15 for a mother’s authority to train them? The question here is about consistency: If they use verses on teaching children to prove male parental authority, they should also use them for female parental authority. If they believe that verses on teaching children prove no authority, they should scrap Eph. 6:4 from tenets 5 and 12.

2 Tim 3:15 – and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Timothy knew the Scriptures from childhood. His mother and grandmother taught him. It shows mothers could teach their children about God. The Scriptures he knew would have been only the Old Testament and perhaps a few of the first apostolic letters. It would not be the whole New Testament as little of it was written by the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

16a) Education is not a neutral enterprise.

It makes sense, but it was not defended from the Bible.

b) Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education,

It depends. Education has a very wide meaning range. It includes everything that the child learn, from chewing solids through potty training, counting to ten, manners, swimming, algebra, the Bible, using a weapon, healthy eating habits or how to relate to the opposite sex.

Educating babies on how to chew solids pretty much entail the same things whether you are a devout believer, an atheist or a Hindu. The same with bicycle balance, mathematics, preparing a meal, entrepreneurial skills, or a myriad of other things. And the Lord never commands it should be parents who teach children these things.

Bringing children up in the training and admonition of the Lord certainly mean they should be taught to do what they do as if for him. (Col 3:23) In that sense, they do need Christianity to permeate everything in their education. For that reason, and because Eph. 6:4 could refer to both parents (Heb 11:23 use the same Greek word to refer to both), this point gets a pass.  

But patriarchists use Eph. 6:4, about the training and admonition of the Lord, to refer only to fathers and not both parents. (See tenets 5 and 7) As such, they have no scriptural command here to let mothers partake in Christian teaching, or home schooling. (2 Tim. 3:15 is no command, and Deuteronomy don’t speak of Christianity.)

Nothing in scripture say parents should be a child’s sole teachers. Or that they should be the ones to teach much beyond religious belief itself.

That said, a child who is taught by wise Christian parents in many ways, will most likely be better brought up in the training and admonition of the Lord than children who spend most of their time away from parents, or children with unwise parents. For example, the Tenets of Biblical patriarchy provably contain much unbiblical material. (The evidence is all over this blog.) Any parents who believe these tenets prove that they are not wise enough to be solely responsible for teaching their children in the ways of the Lord.

c) one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world.

As far as “training and admonition of the Lord” overlaps with Bible teaching, this is biblical. However, to believe this refers to both parents, you must reject the way Eph. 6:4 is used in tenet 5 and 12.

d) Christians should not send their children to public schools

There is no Biblical defense for this view in TBP.

d) since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and

Nor is education – except for training children about God – a God-ordained function of parents. (Not by the literal words of the Bible, anyway.) If you demand a Bible verse that tell government to teach young ones reading and writing and ‘rithmetic before condoning public school, you should also demand one that tells parents to do so, before condoning home schooling.

e) since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

The Bible says nothing of government schools. As such, this point cannot be Biblical. However, American teachers are not allowed to talk of God to children in school hours. Therefore, I would concede these schools are sub-Christian at best.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Christians believe that children should be brought up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Most Christians, however, have no problem with teaching children whose parents are not Christians, because Christ tells us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. In several spots, the New Testament talks to children. As such, it seems that children were taught not just by their parents, but by the church as well.

Many Christians emphasize that bringing up children in the training and admonition of the Lord does not mean teaching them the right outward attitudes. A parent should help them find Christ, and testify Christ to them in word and deed. To have Christian attitudes outside while not having Christ inside (right behaviour can be beaten into a child, but Christ cannot), is futile. In fact, it could just bring the child under a false impression of having salvation when he/ she does not.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended
      This is a partial truth. (The other part of the truth, that together make it Biblical, will be added in brackets.)

      This is not Biblically defended

      This was not defended from the Bible, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government (nor of parents, beyond the training and admonition of the Lord) and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

Tenet 17: Are fathers sovereign over training their children?

17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

This is a command to Israel to teach the things they saw. This is not a command to Christians to teach reading, writing, the civil war, or the resurrection of Christ, none of which we saw. And is this a general command to Israel to teach Israel’s children and grandchildren? Or is this command to each parent and set of grandparents to teach their own children and grandchildren? The former interpretation is, on face value, as easy as the latter. And Hebrew parents did give sons the opportunity to learn from a rabbi if they could. They did not feel that religious instruction belong at home.

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Here, God commands Israel to teach the commands of Deuteronomy to their children, and to tie the commands of Deuteronomy between their eyes. It is not a command to teach your children to add, multiply and subtract, or to know the New Testament. I have never met a Christian parent who really follows this verse, tying Deuteronomy as frontlet between their eyes. Nor one teaching, by example, to do a genealogy search on anyone who wants to join the congregation, to ensure that his grandfather’s grandmother’s great-grandparents were not conceiving any of his forefathers (or foremothers) from illicit intercourse. (Deut. 23:2)

Ps. 78:3-8 – Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children; That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children, That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments; And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

Notice that this is not a command. It is a statement of resolve. The resolve is: “We will not hide them from their children.” Not: “We will not hide them from our children.” This is apparently a resolve to teach other people’s children!

Why do they want to teach these children? Several great reasons are mentioned why these people want to teach other people’s children. The most intriguing one is: That they may not be like their fathers. One of the reasons in the Bible for teaching children, is to ensure they do not become like their fathers!

Prov. 1:8 – My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother;

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Yes.

17a)Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children

Deut. 4:9 is a command to teach children and grandchildren. As such, fathers are not sovereign there, but have to share it with grandparents (and probably his wife, depending on whether you think this was only written to men or to everyone.)

Deut. 6:6-9 seemingly gives a training mandate to Israelite parents - mothers and fathers. This is no reason to find fathers sovereign either.

Ps. 78:3-8 talks of others teaching children, so they don’t become like their fathers. This contradicts his sovereignty.

Prov. 1:8, whereby a son is told to listen to both parents, also contradicts it.

I already covered Eph 6:4, which could refer to both parents as the same Greek Bible word is elsewhere translated with “parents.”

b) and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers.

Nothing in the verses say who is “chief teachers.” The texts do mention parents and others teaching the Word, but not who should teach them to make a living, or other practical skills.

c) Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children.

I believe parents should walk beside and train their children. But of all these verses, only Eph 6:4 command Christian parents to do so. (The Deuteronomy passages were commandments to a pre-Christian group to teach things we no longer teach, and neither the Psalms nor the Proverbs passages are commands.) Do you think that Eph. 6:4 refer only to fathers, as is implied in earlier tenets on authority? If that was so, then mothers are not commanded to train children at all, but only fathers are commanded to walk beside and train children.

d) Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children.

“Primary teachers” was not defended from any real Bible teachings to Christians, and I’d say Ps 78 contradicts it. I recommend facilitating the role of parents for practical reasons, but no verse commands it.

Other ways Christians understand this:

(No extra notes this time)

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:      This is not Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      Scripture say the opposite

Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children, and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command to personally walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children.

(Note: 17a) and 17c) are mutually exclusive, as they use two interpretations of the same verse. Accepting 17c is also mutually exclusive with some earlier tenets.)

Tenet 26: Applying our beliefs

26. While God’s truth is unchanging, the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer. Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature. For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected. However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches. Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness. The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself. (Gal. 5:2-3 with Acts 16:3; Phil. 3:15; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:12; 9:27; 10:23; Gal. 5:13)

Gal. 5:2-3 – Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Acts 16:3 – Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

This text attempts to support that the specific application of a truth may vary depending on circumstances. Although Paul did not find circumcision important, he let Timotheus be circumcised on behalf of spreading the gospel to the Jews. Another possibility may be that the teaching in Galatians is inspired by God, and Paul did something unwise in Acts because God did not yet reveal His truth about the matter to Paul.

Phil. 3:15 – Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.

The mature knows that outward religious signs are unimportant compared to Christ and His calling, but God could reveal it to the legalists too. (See Phil. 3:1-14 for this being about outward religious things like circumcision and being born into the right, godly group, vs. knowing Christ.)

Rom. 12:10 – Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;

I Cor. 1:10 – Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I Cor. 6:12 – All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I Cor. 9:27 – But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

I Cor. 10:23 – All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

Gal. 5:13 – For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

These are all important Christian truths.

26a) While God’s truth is unchanging,

The nit-picker in me says this is not defended from the texts. But I believe His truth is unchanging. It is easy to misapply, though.

b) the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer.

Scripture don't spell it out in a teaching. (Gal 5/ Acts 16 is an example and not a teaching. From examples, like from stories, you could make wrong applications.) But it is reasonable to believe application of truth varies. What a Christian ditch digger will do, and what a Christian CEO will do, if both believe the principles of honesty and giving his best as to Christ, will look different. It will look different because their circumstances vary.

c) Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature.

From the text, “some issues” that those further along will see is clearly is “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” gaining Christ and being found in him, having -through faith of Christ-- the righteousness that is of God, knowing Him and following His high calling. They will see that circumcision, the group of people you belong to, keeping laws, and zealously working things you think is for Him, are not important. But yes.

d) For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected.

Yes.

e) However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches.

I agree. And none of the things that make patriarchy different from other forms of Christian expression, is what the Bible clearly teaches. Between d) and e), patriarchists should never try to curb non-patriarchist believers.

f) Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness.

Yes. But what about congregational holiness, or the holiness of those in your town/ city, or the holiness of those at your work place? Why family holiness, and none of those forms of holiness? The texts don’t mention “family” or “personal.” I will still concede personal as biblical, since it is completely in context with the rest of scripture. Taking responsibility for your family's holiness by restricting the freedoms of your children/ spouse, however, is against point d) and g) of this tenet. It is also against every Christian message that say Christ is the only mediator, or say everyone will stand before God's judgment seat for themselves.

g) The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself.

Yes. And your wife and children are "others." They should be treated with charity, and their freedom to disagree from you over non-essentials like patriarchy or courtship should not be curbed.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Some Christians believe Patriarchy itself is a form of legalism, which those further along in sanctification see is not gospel-centered. And their view of Christian liberty mean that adult offspring should not be made to stay in their parents' home until marriage, or to do courtship.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This can be defended Biblically, but TBP don't give such a verse.

      This is not biblically defended

      This was not defended from the Bible, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

26. While God’s truth is unchanging, the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer. Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature. For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected. However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches. Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness. The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself.