Dealing with Heretics and their Use of Scripture (Tertullian)

[Phil D.]

I might be thought to have laid down this position to remedy distrust in my case, or from a desire of entering on the contest in some other way, were there not reasons on my side, especially this, that our faith owes deference to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on questions, or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements, 1 Timothy 6:3-4 or to consort with a heretic after the first and second admonition,Titus 3:10 not, (be it observed,) after discussion. Discussion he has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a Christian; in order that he might not, after the manner of a Christian, seem to require correction again and again, and before two or three witnesses, Matthew 18:16 seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the very reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place, because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.​

​

Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text. Their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the Scriptures whereby they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of their ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.​

​

(Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 16, 17)​

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

What heresy is he referring too?

The pastor of our previous church called us heretics because we stopped and refused to continue spanking our kids. And then the session kicked us out as members in good standing without excommunicating us (they were suppose to use the OPC BCO, but they followed none of its procedures). I think if he knew about this quote he would have used it. But he did use Titus 3:10-11 against us in a sermon.

But I digress.

 

[RamistThomist]

What heresy is he referring too?

The pastor of our previous church called us heretics because we stopped and refused to continue spanking our kids. And then the session kicked us out as members in good standing without excommunicating us (they used the OPC BCO). I think if he knew about this quote he would have used it. But he did use Titus 3:10-11 against us in a sermon.

But I digress.

Heresy in general, though his target is probably some form of Marcionism or anti-Trinitarianism.

 

[TheInquirer]

Non-spanking heresy? That’s a new one.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Non-spanking heresy? That’s a new one.

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that...

 

[John The Baptist]

It is amazing how most heretics have the same shady hermeneutics, and the ‘I just believe the Bible’ line often comes out.

They likewise will not shoot you straight on anything; rather talking in circles around a point until they convince the uninformed that the difference in belief is ever so small.

Lord Jesus come soon

 

[davejonescue]

Non-spanking heresy? That’s a new one.

I dont think so if you think about it. Say we take another general principle; that is feeding your child. If a parent were to refuse to feed their child certainly the church would have issue with it, as it would lead to their death. It seems in the same way one can look at a refusal to spank ones child, that is Gods prescriptive way of discipline, as an equal form of neglect; but in this case it refers to a possible spiritual death. That is believing parents deciding not to fulfill their prescriptive duties of godly child rearing are endangering their child. I am not taking a side either way, I can just see how it can be viewed as an outright denial of biblical prescript. This can especially be seen in light of avoiding possible persecution in areas where spanking is borderline illegal. Are we allowing culture to define our directives or the text?

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol. Proverbs 23:13-14

Thinking about it more too, I think there can be other verses that point to spanking as a preferred method, not so much for spankings sake; but the Biblical consensus that obedience is learned and correction comes via pain. Hebrews 5:8-9 Hebrews 12:11
Unfortunately, time-outs, taking tablets away, and groundings don’t have the same affect.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I dont think so if you think about it. Say we take another general principle; that is feeding your child. If a parent were to refuse to feed their child certainly the church would have issue with it, as it would lead to their death. It seems in the same way one can look at a refusal to spank ones child, that is Gods prescriptive way of discipline, as an equal form of neglect; but in this case it refers to a possible spiritual death. That is believing parents deciding not to fulfill their prescriptive duties of godly child rearing are endangering their child. I am not taking a side either way, I can just see how it can be viewed as an outright denial of biblical prescript. This can especially be seen in light of avoiding possible persecution in areas where spanking is borderline illegal. Are we allowing culture to define our directives or the text?

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol. Proverbs 23:13-14

Thinking about it more too, I think there can be other verses that point to spanking as a preferred method, not so much for spankings sake; but the Biblical consensus that obedience is learned and correction comes via pain. Hebrews 5:8-9 Hebrews 12:11
Unfortunately, time-outs, taking tablets away, and groundings don’t have the same affect.

Agree that the Bible commands spanking. However, I don't think the word heresy would apply to not spanking though. It might be sin, but heresy?

 

[davejonescue]

Agree that the Bible commands spanking. However, I don't think the word heresy would apply to not spanking though. It might be sin, but heresy?

Sin for the individual, but possibly heresy for teachers who might try to allegorize "the rod" as something other than spanking and then teaching congregants spanking is optional.

 

[Morgan]

I dont think so if you think about it. Say we take another general principle; that is feeding your child. If a parent were to refuse to feed their child certainly the church would have issue with it, as it would lead to their death. It seems in the same way one can look at a refusal to spank ones child, that is Gods prescriptive way of discipline, as an equal form of neglect; but in this case it refers to a possible spiritual death. That is believing parents deciding not to fulfill their prescriptive duties of godly child rearing are endangering their child. I am not taking a side either way, I can just see how it can be viewed as an outright denial of biblical prescript. This can especially be seen in light of avoiding possible persecution in areas where spanking is borderline illegal. Are we allowing culture to define our directives or the text?

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol. Proverbs 23:13-14

Thinking about it more too, I think there can be other verses that point to spanking as a preferred method, not so much for spankings sake; but the Biblical consensus that obedience is learned and correction comes via pain. Hebrews 5:8-9 Hebrews 12:11
Unfortunately, time-outs, taking tablets away, and groundings don’t have the same affect.

I would disagree, I do not see anywhere in scripture where correction only comes from physical pain. The rod is only one example of discipline, and I do not see where Proverbs 23 states that only beating should be used for discipline since discipline takes many forms. Your statement appears to state that discipline can only come via physical pain and that is incorrect.

You can make a blanket statement that time outs, taking tablets away and groundings do not have the same effect but you are also incorrect there. Children are all different and react in different ways. Spanking did no good for my daughter but standing in the corner had an immediate affect. Spankings may be necessary but discipline is always necessary.

 

[Morgan]

What heresy is he referring too?

The pastor of our previous church called us heretics because we stopped and refused to continue spanking our kids. And then the session kicked us out as members in good standing without excommunicating us (they were suppose to use the OPC BCO, but they followed none of its procedures). I think if he knew about this quote he would have used it. But he did use Titus 3:10-11 against us in a sermon.

But I digress.

What is the OPC's definition of heretic? I think it refers to someone who is not elect, those that are not redeemed. I do not see a heretic as just someone who disagrees with my view on scripture. I ask since I am curious how he used that word, if he really meant you are not elect since you chose not to spank your children.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I would disagree, I do not see anywhere in scripture where correction only comes from physical pain. The rod is only one example of discipline, and I do not see where Proverbs 23 states that only beating should be used for discipline since discipline takes many forms. Your statement appears to state that discipline can only come via physical pain and that is incorrect.

You can make a blanket statement that time outs, taking tablets away and groundings do not have the same effect but you are also incorrect there. Children are all different and react in different ways. Spanking did no good for my daughter but standing in the corner had an immediate affect. Spankings may be necessary but discipline is always necessary.

I don't think anyone is saying physical pain is the only way to disciple, but there is no way to avoid that the Bible commands physical pain in at least some cases. Also, I would suggest a book by Tedd Tripp called shepherding a child's heart. There is a pretty good criticism for groundings.

 

[Morgan]

I don't think anyone physical pain is the only way to disciple, but there is no way to avoid that the Bible commands physical pain in at least some cases. Also, I would suggest a book by Tedd Tripp called shepherding a child's heart. There is a pretty good criticism for groundings.

So is someone who does not inflict physical pain on their children (for discipline) a heretic? I cannot say that I have looked at this closely so please provide the scriptures that state without a doubt that we must inflict physical pain on our children. Perhaps I have been reading the scripture incorrectly.

 

[retroGRAD3]

So is someone who does not inflict physical pain on their children (for discipline) a heretic? I cannot say that I have looked at this closely so please provide the scriptures that state without a doubt that we must inflict physical pain on our children. Perhaps I have been reading the scripture incorrectly.

The passages are stated above my post. Post 7. And I did not use the word heretic.

There are quite a few passages in Proverbs on physical punishment. Google can point them out (in phone at the moment

 

[TheInquirer]

Does God use a literal rod when he disciplines you? Does he use a literal staff to guide you?

For those that think rod is literal, do you actually use a rod to spank your child? Do you spank them until they are 18 years old? If you dont, are you a heretic?

What confession has forms of discipline listed as essential truths to believe?

Those who charge congregants as heretics for not spanking I would bring up on spiritual abuse charges.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Does God use a literal rod when he disciplines you? Does he use a literal staff to guide you?

For those that think rod is literal, do you actually use a rod to spank your child? Do you spank them until they are 18 years old? If you dont, are you a heretic?

What confession has forms of discipline listed as essential truths to believe?

Those who charge congregants as heretics for not spanking I would bring up on spiritual abuse charges.

You are attacking a straw man. No one here has said not spanking exclusively is heresy. The discussion was around how someone could perhaps see it that way. Can you see anyone here actually saying it is heresy?

Also, the passages in Proverbs being discussed as far as I can tell is that of a earthly family. It is not talking about God's discipline toward us. That is discussed in other passages.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Also, it seems there are a lot of people (people responding in this thread) against spanking in all circumstances here (as far as I can see in the responses). Do you really think its possible to dismiss all of the physical punishment passages as spiritual?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well, this one escalated quickly. This thread is nearly as weird as Tertullian himself!

 

[RamistThomist]

First of all, the Bible literally says rod, and I doubt most here are beating their kids with broomsticks. We are already softening the text. And many of these fundie churches use the Pearls' method, which has involved beating a kid until he dies.

 

[KMK]

Just a word of caution.

Your county's Department of Children and Family Services HATES spanking, and considers it to be abusive regardless of what the law is.

And I know from experience that they troll the internet.

 

[TheInquirer]

You are attacking a straw man. No one here has said not spanking exclusively is heresy. The discussion was around how someone could perhaps see it that way. Can you see anyone here actually saying it is heresy?

I was referring to CovenantPatriot87's experience, I thought that was obvious.

A few points:

1) I don't care whatsoever what our culture thinks about spanking, it doesn't influence my exegesis of Scripture one way or another

2) Proverbs uses non-literal language all over the place to communicate its truths. Hyper literal interpretations of Proverbs have led to all kinds of problems including the prosperity gospel so we need to be careful. Dismissing non-literal interpretations of Proverbs 23:13-14 out of hand because they are non-literal is unwise.

3) "Rod" is used both literally and non-literally in Scripture so there is absolutely justification for considering a non-literal interpretation in Proverbs 23:13-14 without labeling such an approach as "liberal," "allegorical" or any other word that suggests such an approach is being unfaithful to the Word of God.

Non-Literal Examples:

2 Sam. 7:14-15 - I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.

Job 9:34 - Let him take his rod away from me, and let not dread of him terrify me.

Psalm 2:9 - You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

1 Cor. 4:21 What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

Literal Examples:

Ex. 21:20 - When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

Acts 16:22 - The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods.

4) When "rod" is used with a place on the body on which it strikes, it is usually the back, not the backside.

Proverbs 14:3 - By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them.

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools.

5) If one is pressing hard a literal approach to Proverbs 23:13-14, why are you not using a literal rod and hitting your child on the back? Additionally, how long, and at what age, will you stop meting out this discipline on your child? Does gender matter or are you going to be beating your teenage daughters on the back with rods?

We used spanking up until about the age of 5 until we found other punishments were much more effective at disciplining our kids. Our kids were constantly disciplined and I was hyper vigilant about not overlooking sinful behavior. All our girls are walking with the Lord and we continue to discipline them as long as they live under our roof. But spanking teenage girls? Forget it.

 

[davejonescue]

I was referring to CovenantPatriot87's experience, I thought that was obvious.

A few points:

1) I don't care whatsoever what our culture thinks about spanking, it doesn't influence my exegesis of Scripture one way or another

2) Proverbs uses non-literal language all over the place to communicate its truths. Hyper literal interpretations of Proverbs have led to all kinds of problems including the prosperity gospel so we need to be careful. Dismissing non-literal interpretations of Proverbs 23:13-14 out of hand because they are non-literal is unwise.

3) "Rod" is used both literally and non-literally in Scripture so there is absolutely justification for considering a non-literal interpretation in Proverbs 23:13-14 without labeling such an approach as "liberal," "allegorical" or any other word that suggests such an approach is being unfaithful to the Word of God.

Non-Literal Examples:

2 Sam. 7:14-15 - I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.

Job 9:34 - Let him take his rod away from me, and let not dread of him terrify me.

Psalm 2:9 - You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

1 Cor. 4:21 What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

Literal Examples:

Ex. 21:20 - When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

Acts 16:22 - The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods.

4) When "rod" is used with a place on the body on which it strikes, it is usually the back, not the backside.

Proverbs 14:3 - By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them.

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools.

5) If one is pressing hard a literal approach to Proverbs 23:13-14, why are you not using a literal rod and hitting your child on the back? Additionally, how long, and at what age, will you stop meting out this discipline on your child? Does gender matter or are you going to be beating your teenage daughters on the back with rods?

We used spanking up until about the age of 5 until we found other punishments were much more effective at disciplining our kids. Our kids were constantly disciplined and I was hyper vigilant about not overlooking sinful behavior. All our girls are walking with the Lord and we continue to discipline them as long as they live under our roof. But spanking teenage girls? Forget it.

I don't think it is really all that hard. 3 out of your 4 non-literal examples are God exacting justice or correction. God is not going to take human form and beat us with a rod. People have been saying that the Bible simply commands spanking. Whether that is a rod, a paddle, your hand, or a belt. This is in contrast to non-corporal forms of punishment such as grounding, time-outs, standing in the corner, taking items away, etc. Also, I think a case can be made for a biblical definition of child. Many say Mary was 14 when she was pregnant; nobody seems to think she was a child getting pregnant, but a young lady or perfectly acceptable age (within her context) to be betrothed, married, and give birth; otherwise we would have to accuse God of abuse for impregnating a child. Even though our cultural context defines minors as those under 18, I think the principle as it applies to "sparing the rod" from a child would naturally move into the realm where it ceases when such punishments become ridiculous, even as revealed by nature. Also, as we grow, our pain thresh holds develop to such a degree that spanking will simply not be effective and we would then have to move into the realm of abuse to get the same effect of corporal punishment, as one could formally have gotten with spanking when the child was younger.

The Proverb(s) that touch on the subject leave little room for optional interpretation. It is talking about corporal punishment, period. The application can vary in the same way we do not pass a piece of flatbread for people to pinch off of and a cup of wine for people to share around the church when administering communion; but the principle is the same. Whether it is a rod, belt, or hand; or whether it is a cracker, wafer, or loaf, are we administering the principle of the command? I think this is the main gist of the issue at hand. The same way we wouldn't allegorize the Lords Supper to include any carb, such as rice, cookies, or potato chips; even if "bread" is not always used as a literal carbohydrate in the Bible; we understand that there is a difference between adjusting a rigid literal interpretation to an acceptable application; and forgoing the commanded principle altogether to justify something new.

 

[TheInquirer]

3 out of your 4 non-literal examples are God exacting justice or correction.

And 1 out of 4 is not. What percentage of examples do I need to pass the threshhold for consideration? Besides, I think God's discipline of us should be taken into consideration when trying to understand human discipline. Of course it is not going to be the same, but why should it be entirely different?

I would say the principle represented by the rod is discipline in general, not corporal punishment in specific in each and every situation as the pro-spanking advocates interpret the verse. God could easily use physical means to discipline us whenever He wanted to (He doesn't need to personally show up to do it) but He doesn't. His discipline is multi-varied and suits the time and individual. Our discipline of our children should be as well. Some forms of discipline are suitable for certain children at certain ages.

The problem is spanking itself has been used as a kind of shibboleth for godly parenting. Taken even further, a school in our city (associated with Moscow nonetheless) uses spanking as a form of discipline by a male headmaster. The justification is a hyper-literal interpretation of Proverbs 23:13-14.

People have been saying that the Bible simply commands spanking. Whether that is a rod, a paddle, your hand, or a belt.

Then you are already modifying Proverbs 23:13-14 and using a type of non-literal application by extracting a principle - in your case corporal punishment. In my case, any form of suitable punishment that is honoring to the Lord, wise, and loving.

By interpreting Proverbs 23:13-14 as spanking, you are interpreting the passage non-literally. The passage says nothing about spanking on the backside and as I have shown, the context of Proverbs shows rods being used on the back.

If you want the biblical principle that the word "rod" represents, look up every usage of it in the Bible to understand the semantic and conceptual range of the term and then go from there. I say the corporal punishment interpretation advocates are being way too narrow and the analogy of Scripture does not justify such a narrow interpretation exclusively. Arguing for a narrow interpretation is going to require a whole lot more exegetical evidence than what I have seen.

 

[davejonescue]

Some forms of discipline are suitable for certain children at certain ages.

I was just going to comment on this. I think this is just an equal part of parenting as discipline itself. The Proverb doesn't touch so much on when parents feel a child has outgrown spanking (or outgrown childhood,) but withholding spanking altogether as a corrective means. It literally says "beat the child and he will not die." That is hard to allegorize. This may be a side note, but generationally I think there can be much evidence given to this wisdom based on contemporary society correlated with the rise of non-spanking parents. As far as schools spanking, that is not new to me. TX and most Southern states still allow a parent to sign a waiver allowing teachers to spank children. I still remember getting the paddle numerous times in elementary and I am only 40. The problem isn't a school that still spanks, but a culture becoming so opposed to every biblical principle there is, that a school that still spanks seems outrageous and archaic.

Also, I think those who advocate for a non-corporal punishment interpretation have the same work cut out for them as the egalitarian; that is passing over the clear descriptive text to formulate an alternative interpretation.

But above all of this, I hold the parents right and responsibility of guardianship, and thus future consequentiality under God on how they did, to such a great esteem, that when I evangelize in public; I do not evangelize any child; nor give them a Bible without their parents permission. This can happen when I am at the park handing out Bibles or evangelistic DVD's. This is because God has placed those children under the parental headship first. And, I wouldn't want my child given Satanism, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheistic literature without my permission. So, do I feel that Christian parents should be labeled heretics for how they take on the responsibility to punish their children? No. Because God will ultimately hold them accountable for their stewardship of his property while it was in their possession; and the threat of a millstone necktie is no joke. Also, I don't know if not conforming to wisdom per se is outright sin, or simply foolishness, or both? Do I think teachers who teach contrary to the Biblical commendation to spank should be labeled as heretics, yes; because the text is clear. Teachers are not to finagle over endless possibilities of application associated within the realm of Christian freedom; especially not in light of a cultural that is increasingly forbidding it. They are to teach the faithful principle of the text; which in this case, is one who doesn't corporally punish their children, endangers them with death.

Besides, you are not one who doesn't believe in spanking according to your posts; your controversy seems to be mainly the age of stopping.

I have no dog in this fight because I am not a parent. But, experientially I have been on both sides of the corrective spectrum. I have had CPS take me away from my parents and put into foster care because of physical abuse in the name of discipline; we are talking the black and blue type. I have also, as a rebellious teen been sentenced to a juvenile detention camp where staff were hands on, in the name of behavior modification; and though I wouldn't admit it at the time, it completely changed the trajectory of my criminal life. It didn't cure me, but it took me down about 90%. Unfortunately addiction over-rode much of their lasting work. So I have seen abuse, and correct correction. I think the gist of the problem may lie in culture, and that many contemporary parents think that they are wiser than the wisdom of the Bible, and/or that all corporate punishment is basically abuse to begin with.

 

[retroGRAD3]

"Besides, you are not one who doesn't believe in spanking according to your posts; your controversy seems to be mainly the age of stopping."

This was the same thing I was responding to as well. Where it seems that some are saying spanking/physical punishment is never to be used.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I dont think so if you think about it. Say we take another general principle; that is feeding your child. If a parent were to refuse to feed their child certainly the church would have issue with it, as it would lead to their death. It seems in the same way one can look at a refusal to spank ones child, that is Gods prescriptive way of discipline, as an equal form of neglect; but in this case it refers to a possible spiritual death. That is believing parents deciding not to fulfill their prescriptive duties of godly child rearing are endangering their child. I am not taking a side either way, I can just see how it can be viewed as an outright denial of biblical prescript. This can especially be seen in light of avoiding possible persecution in areas where spanking is borderline illegal. Are we allowing culture to define our directives or the text?

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol. Proverbs 23:13-14

Thinking about it more too, I think there can be other verses that point to spanking as a preferred method, not so much for spankings sake; but the Biblical consensus that obedience is learned and correction comes via pain. Hebrews 5:8-9 Hebrews 12:11
Unfortunately, time-outs, taking tablets away, and groundings don’t have the same affect.

Let me ask this:

Does the regulative principle apply to parenting young children?

Bruce A. Ray in his book "withhold not correction, (which I find to be a disgusting blasphemous book) seems to think so.

If the regulative principle does apply, we are about to run head-on into a fully loaded tractor-trailer.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Just a word of caution.

Your county's Department of Children and Family Services HATES spanking, and considers it to be abusive regardless of what the law is.

And I know from experience that they troll the internet.

Good. I hate spanking too. I believe it is abusive, especially when it's not done according to the text.

It's hard to justify performing an act that is considered "erotica" in the adult world but "child discipline" to children. It is especially hard to justify when it is done to an erogenous zone of the body. This would also be a serious violation of the 7th commandment. So, either God has a double standard in his word, or we have been doing something horribly wrong. A return to the text has shown me that there is no "commandment" to "spank little children".

And for the record, I am no troll. I was here before I changed my position.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Sin for the individual, but possibly heresy for teachers who might try to allegorize "the rod" as something other than spanking and then teaching congregants spanking is optional.

Well spanking isn't a law either.

This is from the Book Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva and this is what they have to say about the nature of Proverbs:

“Proverbs are a brief sayings that are memorable, embody the wisdom of many, possess a fullness of meaning despite economy of words, and have a bit of a kick or bite to them to ensure their saltiness and continued usefulness. They are found in practically all parts of the bible. By their very nature and form, proverbs are generalized statements with a wide application, but in no case are they to be taken as a set of unbending rules that must be applied in every case without exception.
On the contrary, one is sometimes able to pit proverb against proverb, both in our culture and often in scripture. For example, one person advises another concerning the porspects of getting married, “he who hesitates is lost”, while some other counselor warns “Look before you leap.” Should the listener hasten his or her pace then, or proceed carefully? Getting a third opinion may not settle the matter either, for another will say, “Happy is the wooing that is not long in doing!’”
So here you go:

Proverbs 22:15: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child (H5288-Na'ar or youth/ young man); but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 27:22- Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.

Hard to make a law out of a Proverb when it's not law like the Pentateuch or any of the prophets.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I would suggest you have become unbalanced on this issue, especially when you are suggesting spanking is a violation of the 7th commandment. Bruce Ray's book is excellent in my opinion. I also think Tedd Tripp's chapters on using the rod are excellent in his book "shepherding a child's heart". Both give a biblical case for physical punishment that is balanced. Both caution against abuse. Both also talk about the importance of communication as well. I do also think not using physical punishment (at all) is a sin. Not saying it always needs to be done. There is no way to escape that is what the Bible is teaching. I would be careful when you start agreeing with the world on child disciple and their methods. We can see how well that is working in society currently with all the entitlement, pills being pushed and used, and various other aliments.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Also, the positive commands of God come from more than just the first 5 books. The Proverbs are also meant to be taken seriously and NOT just read and ignored. I agree that you don't want to take them in a hyper literal sense (like literally using a rod of some kind), but there is a principle there that is to be obeyed. Clearly it is physical punishment of some kind. Otherwise words mean nothing and we can just make the Bible say whatever we want.