Way back in the 1940's and 1950's, Dr. Benjamin Spock made popular the idea that spanking children was not good way to discipline them.  In fact, Dr. Spock claimed that spanking kids actually hurts them and so spanking kids should be avoided at all costs.  Dr. Spock and other physiologists told us that children should be reasoned with and persuaded to do good using positive reinforcement techniques.  We were told to avoid the use of spanking or other "negative" forms of punishment.  Such ideas from psychology followed the "spirit of this world", claiming that bad behavior is "really not your child's fault", and that spanking "teaches children to be violent through the use of violence" (i.e. by the "violence" of spanking them.)

But were such arguments by Dr. Spock and other physiologists really valid?  Is spanking your kids a good way to discipline them, or is it a bad way that will actually harm them instead of helping them?  We should look at this issue from a number of different angles.

What Are the Alternatives to Spanking?

For years, many people have tried the use of various alternatives to spanking.  These alternatives have generally included such methods as vocal correction, rewards, and various other forms of punishment which do not include spanking.

(1) Correction by the use of vocal instruction

When a child is only verbally corrected, apart from the use of any other form of punishment, the result is almost always a disaster.  The child quickly learns that you are "all talk and no action".  Such a child therefore does not learn to conform his or her behavior to your commands.  Instead, such a child does as he or she pleases, knowing that "the voice" correcting them, (i.e. your "tongue lashing"), is only that - just a voice. Therefore, the use of vocal instruction alone teaches children that disobeying authority is not a serious offence.  Likewise, such children learn to "tune out" their parents.  This "tuning out" of parents can cause children a great deal of trouble later in life, (especially when they are "teenagers").  This is because such children will learn to "tune out" all forms of vocal instruction from others, having developed this bad habit by tuning out their own parents.

(2) Correction by the use of rewards for being good

Correction by offering kids a reward for good behavior has behind it the idea that children are basically good.  Some teach that children will do good if you will just reward them for doing so.  The problem with such an idea is that it rejects "the total depravity of man", by looking at children as being basically good and not bad.  Actually, the offering of rewards can often be beneficial to children.  Nevertheless, the positive benefit of offering rewards is rarely seen unless it is also combined with the fear of punishment in the heart of such kids.  The problem here is twofold - that children will learn to be bad in order to get something good out of you by then "being better".  (This is a case of a child actually training his or her parents through the use of a common "behavior modification" technique.)  The other problem is that you will only be able to correct a child if he or she wants something out of you.  A stubborn, rebellious, self-willed child will not be easily corrected by the use of rewards alone.

(3) Correction by the use of punishments other than spanking

I have found that the use of punishments other than spanking generally works much better than using either vocal instruction or rewards for being good.  Nevertheless, a child who is never spanked will generally eventually develop some sort of discipline problem.  Another problem with using only non-spanking forms of punishment is that such punishments will not work too well with very young children, since such children cannot yet understand what it is that you are trying to say to them.  Spanking solves this problem, by enabling you to communicate in the language of "pain", a language that every child (even deaf ones) readily understand.  Further, the use of only non-spanking forms of punishment can cause such children to become bitter at you, by causing them to think that you are "always punishing them".

All of the above methods have some benefits.  Often the use of more than one of these methods in conjunction will result in a higher rate of success than the use of one method alone.  Nevertheless, on at least a pragmatic level, the use of such methods will not be anywhere near as successful as the use of one or more of them in conjunction with "good old-fashioned spanking".

Is Spanking Kids Better Than Not Spanking Them?

Most people today think that there is something wrong with spanking.  They have been literally "brainwashed" by modern psychology, which claims that spanking is evil, and that children are inherently good.  Both of these ideas are, of course, lies.  Children are ruined by the fall of Adam.  All children are therefore naturally evil, not good.  This "evilness" causes them to do evil things by nature.  Spanking is good instead of evil, because it helps children without permanently harming them in any way.  (This is in strong contradiction to what Dr. Spock and others have long been claiming - their false idea that spanking harms children.)

God Himself declared in the Bible that spanking is the basic way to discipline children.  Therefore, those who refuse to spank their children are in rebellion against God.  They do not trust what God has said in the Bible about such spanking discipline of children.  In the Bible, God clearly commands all parents to spank their children.  "Unbelievers", who reject what God said about Jesus in His Word, The Bible, will have their part in the "Lake of Fire", according to this same Bible in Revelation 21:8.

Spanking does not hurt children - it helps them. The reason that it helps them is that "foolishness" is "bound up" in the heart of a child.  Spanking will "drive" this foolishness from them, enabling them to lead a happy and productive life. (Proverbs 22:15)  As the saying goes, "no pain, no gain".

[How To Escape God's Punishment]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *