Hello Gerry,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Forgive me for interrupting in this discussion, but I had a thought that I think addresses the concerns that both you and Linda are addressing, and it seems to me that you both have legitimate points and questions.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It was an open discussion, so I welcome your contributions. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] It seems that, as both your example senario and Linda's experience, as well as scripture, I believe, would define a parent as one who is SCRIPTURALLY looking to the NEEDS of the CHILD, not their own selfish wants or unmet needs. That is why the scripture says "obey your parents IN THE LORD", creating a caveat. Thus, in your senario the daughter is under no obligation scripturally to obey her natural father who is: 1) no longer acting as her parent in the Lord, 2) commanding her to disobey the scripture with respect to "forsake not the assembling together (yes I know it is a friday not the sabath, but the command doesn't limit the time to sunday only and the intent is clearly to fellowship and worship and learn which I assume is the intent of the Reformed conference in the senario). </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I don't think your definition could hold up consistently and I disagree with your line of argumentation here. A lawful parent could very well command a child not to attend a Reformed Conference for a good reason. Perhaps they don't want the child driving so far by himself, spending the money, etc. The child has no God given right or duty to attend that conference, so I find your reference to the Hebrews passage to be overextension.<br><br>Other than that, I fear that by making the obligation to obedience contingent solely upon someone Scripturally looking into the needs of a child is too arbitrary and subjective. Surely we can't just apply this to anyone who is Scripturally looking into the needs of a child, otherwise we could justify fellow church members or church leaders assuming the duties that lawfully belong to parents anytime they see the parents making unbiblical decisions. If a child can disobey a parent because they are no longer acting like a parent, then should we not conclude that a wife can rebel against her husband if he is not acting like a husband? Yet, that is strictly forbidden by Scripture. No, we are commanded to obey lawful authorities and submit to them even when they are acting selfishly:<br><br>18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. (1 Peter 2:18 - 20)<br><br>Now if they do command something that is explicitly a sin against the Lord, that is when we need to respectfully say, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). But I don't think the issue is better resolved by asking the question "Which parent is giving me the more biblically informed answer?", but rather, "Which parent lawfully serves as the head of my household?"<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>