Protestant Reformed Churches & Homeschooling - Page 4

Ivanhoe · #**121** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

you will still have a hard time convincing me that this would not be the Church or state overstepping its biblical bounds and interfering with the institution of the family.

Am I arguing that we should interfere with the institution of the family? I am against compulsory state education (we are not there yet. Close, but not quite there).

Stephen · #**122** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Personally: I am convinced that state schooling covenant children is sin...I have yet to provide an argument for my position on this thread, so I have been responding quite dogmatically. But my argument is sound, biblical, true, and in accordance with the word of God (at least in my mind, that is why I am obedient to it...just as I am obedient to the fact that Jesus is the only savior)

Well then, GET TO IT. You don't come on my board accusing a swath of people, dogmatically, with committing a sin if you cannot provide a positive case in the Scriptures prohibiting public education.

Warning: You had better provide much more than a Biblical injunction that parents are responsible for the education of their children. Responsibility does not preclude the concept that authority can be delegated while maintaining responsibility. You had better do a bang up job of noting that a Covenant education precludes any ability for the State to fund a portion of that education..

Please show me where I have accused anybody of sin specifically and I will be happy to delete such accusations myself. For it is not in accordance with the word of God to accuse a brother of sin openly, without first having gone to him privately, and if he will not listen to bring 2-3 witnesses.

Just because I have a personal conviction, and I voice that conviction publically, does not make me an accuser.

e.g., If I say that I don't like people who bite thier nails...and there is someone out there reading this post while biting thier nails...have I condemned that person specifically?

Are we not allowed to voice our personal convictions on this site?

Or, if I am convinced from the word of God that homosexuallity is a sin, and I voice that personal conviction, do I have to write out the biblical argument for such conviction just in case a homosexual reads my thread?

Are we not allowed to interact in posts with some presuppositions?

Semper...you just responded to me with presuppositions that state schooling is not sin (or may not be sin).
Ok, that is your position, that is your presupposition...would it be fair for me to make you argue your presupposition every time you mention the topic? Can you not simply interact and discuss with others and still operate under your personal conviction and the presupposition you hold?

How about if I interact on an Athiest forum...should I have to prove first that there is a God, i.e., prove my presupposition before I am allowed to discuss the topic?

My conviction is that state schooling is sin...When I speak about the topic I operate on that conviction, I operate with that presupposition.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Brother, there is nothing wrong with your position and you have every right to state your conviction. This is the purpose of the Puritan Board. If we are not allowed to discuss these issues, whether we all agree or not, then what is the purpose of this board? We owe you the same charity to hear your position as I would expect you to hear others.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #**123** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:58 PM

Amen Stephen. I have found both Moses and Daniel Ritchie to be quite rudely and uncharitably treated in this thread.

Semper Fidelis · #**124** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Since Deut. 6 gives the duty of educating children to the family, and not to the state, then I do not see why Christian families cannot work together to educate covenant children in a Christian school. But even if I am wrong, then that would mean that homeschooling only is correct, it would not be a justification for state education.

You are butchering the context and meaning of Deuteronomy 6. It is not about who teaches math or Latin. It is about spiritual formation.

It was well known in Israel (in Christ's day also), and in NT times that tutors were used to teach children.

I would also note that Deuteronomy 6 gives absolutely no indication that a parent may "delegate" such duties. You simply have made that up out of whole cloth. You can't have it both ways. Can a parent farm out teaching his child about the Lord and His commands? Can he pay someone else to "sit with him" or "walk with him" or have his child live in a different house to see different gates or doorposts?

You see if you make Deuteronomy 6 to be about education in general, and not about what it is about - spiritual formation - you wind up proving too much. Because no one will accept that homeschooling is absolute (i.e. no one else can ever teach a child anything - goodbye worship service and preaching!) you have to allow for "delegation." The problem is that delegation is nowhere in the text, and it proves too much.

(By the way, your view of Deuteronomy 6 also forbids colleges, so you had better un-enroll. Unless of course your school was an explicitly theocratic Christian school. You don't have any pagan teachers, now, do you? If so, please say hello to the kettle for me.

Actually, I attend a private college, and I am an adult - not a child - so your comments are irrelevant.

By whose standard? By his contemporaries, Jesus was considered to be a mature man until He was 30 years old. By many cultural standards you are still a young man and are still in a very critical period of spiritual formation. You are, by no means, wise enough to have struck out on your own with no oversight at this point.

I suppose it's OK to usurp authority by a non-parent as long as it's done privately then.

Something called "fencing the Law" and a loophole comes to mind.

Joshua · #**125** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Stephen. I have found both Moses and Daniel Ritchie to be quite rudely and uncharitably treated in this thread.

Gentlemen, everything has context. Don't be so quick to make judgments.

Semper Fidelis · #**126** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Well then, GET TO IT. You don't come on my board accusing a swath of people, dogmatically, with committing a sin if you cannot provide a positive case in the Scriptures prohibiting public education.

Warning: You had better provide much more than a Biblical injunction that parents are responsible for the education of their children. Responsibility does not preclude the concept that authority can be delegated while maintaining responsibility. You had better do a bang up job of noting that a Covenant education precludes any ability for the State to fund a portion of that education..

Please show me where I have accused anybody of sin specifically and I will be happy to delete such accusations myself. For it is not in accordance with the word of God to accuse a brother of sin openly, without first having gone to him privately, and if he will not listen to bring 2-3 witnesses.

Just because I have a personal conviction, and I voice that conviction publically, does not make me an accuser.

e.g., If I say that I don't like people who bite thier nails...and there is someone out there reading this post while biting thier nails...have I condemned that person specifically?

Are we not allowed to voice our personal convictions on this site?

Or, if I am convinced from the word of God that homosexuallity is a sin, and I voice that personal conviction, do I have to write out the biblical argument for such conviction just in case a homosexual reads my thread?

Are we not allowed to interact in posts with some presuppositions?

Semper...you just responded to me with presuppositions that state schooling is not sin (or may not be sin).
Ok, that is your position, that is your presupposition...would it be fair for me to make you argue your presupposition every time you mention the topic? Can you not simply interact and discuss with others and still operate under your personal conviction and the presupposition you hold?

How about if I interact on an Athiest forum...should I have to prove first that there is a God, i.e., prove my presupposition before I am allowed to discuss the topic?

My conviction is that state schooling is sin...When I speak about the topic I operate on that conviction, I operate with that presupposition.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Brother, there is nothing wrong with your position and you have every right to state your conviction. This is the purpose of the Puritan Board. If we are not allowed to discuss these issues, whether we all agree or not, then what is the purpose of this board? We owe you the same charity to hear your position as I would expect you to hear others.

Stephen,

I thought for a minute you were an owner or admin of the Puritanboard with your assurance to others as to what "rights" a man has here.

Two men have openly and blatantly accused a large swath of Christians with open sin. This is not a scruple when a man accuses others of sin it is a statement of Law and another's violation of it. If I state that I believe public education would be sinful for me to send my children to it then that is a scruple. If I simply state that it is sinful then that is a judgement that a Law exists and that anybody who utilizes public education is sinning. Hence, I categorically reject that I have not permitted a personal opinion to be expressed here. The personal line was crossed at the first mention of sin.

Perhaps others don't find that to be a serious issue but I do. You don't come into a thread with a dogmatic assertion that something that most consider a scruple is a sin and then say: "Oh, but I'll get to demonstrating that to be the case at a later time."

The time to make the water-tight case that something is sinful is before the charge is made. At worst, the men are adding to the Word of God, which is a gross sin in itself. At the very least the attempts to demonstrate violation of Law were re-buffed or even demonstrated that there were exceptions hence it couldn't be a violation in all cases and to broadbrush is simple-minded and to be simple-minded is to invite rebuke.

Now, am I very direct and harsh toward those that do this? Yes. They're in my house and it's incredibly rude. If people don't like the way they are treated when they come into my house and accuse others of sin then they ought to be more careful before they broadbrush on the charge of open sin and don't present a water-tight case. I'll happily be considered "rude" in 100% of these cases.

Semper Fidelis · #**127** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:33 PM

I'd like to publicly repent to both MOSES and Daniel Ritchie.

I was leaving for work this AM and Romans 12 came rushing into my mind that I am to prefer to give honor to my brothers in Christ. I then remembered the Book of Hebrews where we are to fear together and strive toward the goal of the Gospel. Like my Savior, I ought to be patient and longsuffering toward those I believe are ignorant and going astray.

Do not get me wrong, I believe it is a serious matter to charge others with sin. It should be done soberly and carefully. There is also a place for sharp rebuke at times and sometimes a good "butt chewing" is the best thing to help a man recover his senses.

But, lately, I've been in the air a lot and, when this began with MOSES, I was in an airport on a long journey and tired. I should have been more circumspect. I should have been more patient. With Daniel, I fired off some things that were not gentle either. I should have been more patient and loving with both.

I've learned some hard lessons over the last several years that it's sometimes just as important how you help a brother to understand what is good and true as it is to speak the truth. I should have sought to restore with the truth rather than angrily using the truth as a blunt instrument and swinging it around and harming as much (or more) as helping.

Blessings!

Rich