Protestant Reformed Churches & Homeschooling

Status
Not open for further replies.

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
State education is sinful for the following reasons:

1. It involves giving unto Caesar what does not belong to him (i.e. covenant children who are to be educated in the fear of the Lord).

2. It involves a usurpation of the families sphere of authority.

3. Christian parents are to being up their children in a Christian worldview (Deut. 6), this cannot be done in a state school.

4. The point of state education is to indoctrinate children in a non-Christian - supposedly neutral - worldview (Dan. 1).

5. State education involves teaching children evolution, which strikes at the very heart of Christianity.
 

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
This thread has been about the liberty of conscience of a pastor to home-school his children, vs. sending them to a private Christian school.

It was not originally a

rant.gif


against the public schools.

:detective:
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
State education is sinful for the following reasons:

1. It involves giving unto Caesar what does not belong to him (i.e. covenant children who are to be educated in the fear of the Lord).

2. It involves a usurpation of the families sphere of authority.

3. Christian parents are to being up their children in a Christian worldview (Deut. 6), this cannot be done in a state school.

4. The point of state education is to indoctrinate children in a non-Christian - supposedly neutral - worldview (Dan. 1).

5. State education involves teaching children evolution, which strikes at the very heart of Christianity.

All of your reasons presume that education is completely taken over by the State. There is neither a rendering to Caesar that which is not Caeser's nor an usurpation of authority when parents delegate authority for the education of their children. It would be an usurpation of parental authority for a parent to be forced to allow the Church to educate their children as well.

3. assumes that parents must, of necessity, never teach anything outside of school.

4. assumes a homogoneous type of Public Education and ignores some regions that do not teach a neutral worldview as well as periods in history when the worldview was decidedly Christian.

5. is another culturally conditioned argument that fails at the point that some public schools do not nor do all grade levels nor have all periods in the history of public education.

All of your arguments are based on specific examples and not a transcendental, Scriptural precept. For every example one can come up with examples of publich education that do not fit the particular mold.

Look, I'm not in favor of sending my children to public schools. That is my decision as a parent, however. I am commanded to raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I am responsible to God for that task. What you seem to misunderstand is the manner in which that can be accomplished as well as my authority to delegate tasks to others while not losing the inherent responsibility for the results.
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
My example was not dealing with sin/no sin...it was proving that homeschooling is possible in the "impossible" situations that are always dragged up. The "what about" and "what if". I know MANY homeschoolers. Some that have NO highschool diploma, yet children are college bound and doing well. Some with NO college...the same with their children. People who have dealt with layoffs and little to no income...still homeschooling while the husband hits the pavement in search of the next job. IF mom went to work, it was to a job that permitted her to continue teaching the children. Parent's that were widow, parents with spouse's in jail, parents where one is undergoing a multitude of surgeries, through bedrest, etc. IT'S POSSIBLE. Not always easy, but possible. Through some circumstances, homeschooling can make family life more bearable through the circumstance and actually SAVE money.

As to the sin issue...I understand that not everyone is where I'm at on the issue and IRL, I don't sit in judgment of them...however, this is how I view it: would it be sin for me to send my children to a muslim school? (yes, I'm borrowing the question)

I realize I helped contribute to the OT discussion but the original issue was Christian School (church run If I recall correctly) vs Homeschool. Why would it be a bad thing to require a pastor to send his kids to a Christian school that is supported by the church? No Public Schools involved in the controversy. :2cents:
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks, Gail, for dragging it back on track ;)

I believe it is wrong for the Pastor to go against his conscience and interfere in this area of Christian Liberty. I prefer homeschooling over a church school, but will not state that a church school is necessarily sin (there are reasons that I choose one over the other though, and they are reasons that weigh heavily to me). But for a Pastor to be dismissed because he chose for his children to be tutored privately at home, whether by a hired tutor or his wife and himself, is wrong as the Pastor has committed no sin or dissension (other than others are offended in their own mind over something that was never meant to be an offense).
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
State education is sinful for the following reasons:

1. It involves giving unto Caesar what does not belong to him (i.e. covenant children who are to be educated in the fear of the Lord).

2. It involves a usurpation of the families sphere of authority.

3. Christian parents are to being up their children in a Christian worldview (Deut. 6), this cannot be done in a state school.

4. The point of state education is to indoctrinate children in a non-Christian - supposedly neutral - worldview (Dan. 1).

5. State education involves teaching children evolution, which strikes at the very heart of Christianity.

All of your reasons presume that education is completely taken over by the State. There is neither a rendering to Caesar that which is not Caeser's nor an usurpation of authority when parents delegate authority for the education of their children. It would be an usurpation of parental authority for a parent to be forced to allow the Church to educate their children as well.

3. assumes that parents must, of necessity, never teach anything outside of school.

4. assumes a homogoneous type of Public Education and ignores some regions that do not teach a neutral worldview as well as periods in history when the worldview was decidedly Christian.

5. is another culturally conditioned argument that fails at the point that some public schools do not nor do all grade levels nor have all periods in the history of public education.

All of your arguments are based on specific examples and not a transcendental, Scriptural precept. For every example one can come up with examples of publich education that do not fit the particular mold.

Look, I'm not in favor of sending my children to public schools. That is my decision as a parent, however. I am commanded to raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I am responsible to God for that task. What you seem to misunderstand is the manner in which that can be accomplished as well as my authority to delegate tasks to others while not losing the inherent responsibility for the results.

Parents may delegate authority to other parents in a parentally controlled Christian school, but not to the state, as the state has no Biblical warrant for getting involved in education in the first place as this duty has never been delegated to it. So any education done by the state involves rendering unto Caesar what is not Caesars.

State education has always been a pagan idea. Why did the Babylonians have Statist schools? To make the children good Statists and servants of the Babylonian religion. I do not need a specific verse in the Bible which says "you shall not send your children to state schools". The fact that such an arrangement is not divinely authorized is enough. Parents who send their children to state schools - under any circumstances - are just like Erastians who allow the state to interfere in church discipline and the payment of ministers etc. While the intentions may be good, the thing is wrong in principle as God never commanded the civil government to do such things.

Covenant children are to be educated in the "teaching and instruction of the Lord", not the teaching and instruction of Caesar (as false Lord), or the teaching and instruction of the state, or the teaching and instruction of secular humanism - this, in and of itself, rules out Statist education. We cannot educate our children partly in the "teaching and instruction of the Lord", and then partly in the teaching and instruction of another religion (whatever that religion may Be).

It might well be argued that you can have a Christianised State Education, like we have in Northern Ireland. But as a product of such a system, I can assure everyone that it is anything but a truly Christian education. In fact, it is the height of profanity, as Christianity is compartmentalised, and the word of God is ignored in just about everything. Moroever, if a nation is truly Christian, then the state will remain within its God-appointed sphere of authority, and wont be getting involved in education which is none of its business. Not to mention the fact that the funding of state education is always the product of oppressive taxation, and let us not forget that taxation is only to be collected for the administration of public justice (Rom. 13:4), anything else is theft. State education is therefore funded by stolen goods.

As for evolution being culturally conditioned, I think this assessment fails to take into account why the state would want to teach evolution. Now let us consider why the state schools teach evolution: because if there is no sovereign creator God, with no unchanging moral absolutes, then who are the people to look to as their sovereign lawgiver? Answer: the totalitarian state.

Anyway, I have taken this as far as I believe to be profitable. We have the arguments laid out, and people can judge what is Scripturally correct.
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks, Gail, for dragging it back on track ;)

I believe it is wrong for the Pastor to go against his conscience and interfere in this area of Christian Liberty. I prefer homeschooling over a church school, but will not state that a church school is necessarily sin (there are reasons that I choose one over the other though, and they are reasons that weigh heavily to me). But for a Pastor to be dismissed because he chose for his children to be tutored privately at home, whether by a hired tutor or his wife and himself, is wrong as the Pastor has committed no sin or dissension (other than others are offended in their own mind over something that was never meant to be an offense).

I agree with you unless the Pastor by choosing to tutor his children at home caused a split in the congregation. The PRC is pretty adamant in their writings that there is only one way to educate their kids and this situation will be interesting to watch.
 

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with you unless the Pastor by choosing to tutor his children at home caused a split in the congregation. The PRC is pretty adamant in their writings that there is only one way to educate their kids and this situation will be interesting to watch.

What if the congregation were split over whether he should wear brown or black shoes when he preaches? This is no more their business than his choice in education for his children, and if they decide to "split" over something that is none of their business, then it is not a legitimate offense for which he can be called to account.

:detective:
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
I agree with you unless the Pastor by choosing to tutor his children at home caused a split in the congregation. The PRC is pretty adamant in their writings that there is only one way to educate their kids and this situation will be interesting to watch.

What if the congregation were split over whether he should wear brown or black shoes when he preaches? This is no more their business than his choice in education for his children, and if they decide to "split" over something that is none of their business, then it is not a legitimate offense for which he can be called to account.

:detective:

Take a look at their website with special attention paid to education for their kids. :gpl: It appears that homeschooling it is not the "norm" in a PRC. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is not material: this particular denomination has made their stance pretty clear. It will be interesting to see if and how this particular church's action is handled. :worms:
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Mitchell Dick

Mitchell Dick is still listed as Pastor of Grace Church on the PRC web site. What is the status of this matter?
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Parents may delegate authority to other parents in a parentally controlled Christian school, but not to the state, as the state has no Biblical warrant for getting involved in education in the first place as this duty has never been delegated to it. So any education done by the state involves rendering unto Caesar what is not Caesars.
So, by your argument, a teacher must be a parent? Where in the Scriptures does it state that parents can only delegate the training of their children to other parents? That was a nice argument. If only it carried any weight to it.

State education has always been a pagan idea.

Always? Because you compare this to the Babylonians you are able to make that general observation? Even when the State was generally "Christian" in England, it was "always" Pagan Daniel? Weren't you just recently vigorously arguing for the notion of a Christian nation? What kind of theonomist are you that would state that a state education is always a pagan idea? In fact, if you read Edersheim, the "State Schools" under Israel educated young boys in the Synagogues. I guess that was pagan too?
I do not need a specific verse in the Bible which says "you shall not send your children to state schools". The fact that such an arrangement is not divinely authorized is enough.
This is not the RPW Daniel. You aren't allowed to create a "Law" prohibiting something because there is no specific divine authorization for it in every sphere. You better stop using your computer now because God nowhere divinely authorizes its use.

Parents who send their children to state schools - under any circumstances - are just like Erastians who allow the state to interfere in church discipline and the payment of ministers etc. While the intentions may be good, the thing is wrong in principle as God never commanded the civil government to do such things.
Do you understand the difference between the State unlawfully usurping the authority of a parent and a parent willingly sending his children to a publicly funded school? A wise argument would never label a parent an Erastian when they are acting as parents for their own children and making their own decisions without compulsion. If this debate was about whether the State should force a parent to send his child to a public school then this would be a different debate.
 

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
If this debate was about whether the State should force a parent to send his child to a public school then this would be a different debate.

I think this is a very important point. The issue is one of Christian liberty of conscience for the parents to make that choice. It is not an issue of the state necessarily intruding into the parental domain.

Or, put another way, there is no single right answer for all parents in all cultures, or even all cities, on how best to educate their children. To posit that there is is to bind the conscience in ways that the Scriptures do not permit.

:detective:
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
So, by your argument, a teacher must be a parent? Where in the Scriptures does it state that parents can only delegate the training of their children to other parents? That was a nice argument. If only it carried any weight to it.

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.

Always? Because you compare this to the Babylonians you are able to make that general observation? Even when the State was generally "Christian" in England, it was "always" Pagan Daniel? Weren't you just recently vigorously arguing for the notion of a Christian nation? What kind of theonomist are you that would state that a state education is always a pagan idea? In fact, if you read Edersheim, the "State Schools" under Israel educated young boys in the Synagogues. I guess that was pagan too?

I am referring to the origins of state education (Egypt, Babylon etc), I do not deny that there have been attempts to Christianize it over the years. However, it should be noted that the rise of Statism in England has culminated with the rise of unbelief and apostasy, as men look to the state for salvation, rather than to Christ (1 Sam. 8).

Always? Because you compare this to the Babylonians you are able to make that general observation? Even when the State was generally "Christian" in England, it was "always" Pagan Daniel? Weren't you just recently vigorously arguing for the notion of a Christian nation? What kind of theonomist are you that would state that a state education is always a pagan idea? In fact, if you read Edersheim, the "State Schools" under Israel educated young boys in the Synagogues. I guess that was pagan too?

Yes, I was arguing for a Christian nation; but in a truly Christian nation the civil government is limited to its God-ordained role - i.e. protecting private property (state education requires oppressive taxation to fund it), punishing crime as Biblically defined, defence of the realm, establishing true religion etc. As there is no Biblical warrant for the state to be involved in education, then it should stay out of it. Theonomy does not teach that all attempts at building a Christian nation in the past have been correct, far from it.

This is not the RPW Daniel. You aren't allowed to create a "Law" prohibiting something because there is no specific divine authorization for it in every sphere. You better stop using your computer now because God nowhere divinely authorizes its use.

Well I believe that Sola Scriptura applies to the civil government. Since the state has not warrant for being involved in education that is enough to prohibit it - therefore I am not creating a "Law", but stopping the state from violating its God-appointed boundaries as God's servant. Computers are part of God's earth (Ps. 24), so I think its okay to use them.

Do you understand the difference between the State unlawfully usurping the authority of a parent and a parent willingly sending his children to a publicly funded school? A wise argument would never label a parent an Erastian when they are acting as parents for their own children and making their own decisions without compulsion. If this debate was about whether the State should force a parent to send his child to a public school then this would be a different debate.

By voluntarily sending their children to Statist schools, parents are surrendering their own authority, and giving Caesar authority which does not belong to him, therefore, it is Erastian.

Anyone who wishes to read more on this theme (for I will not be saying anymore on this thread) may consult chapter 5 of A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (a book endorsed by Ken Gentry, Paul Michael Raymond, John Otis, Douglas Comin and Stephen Welch - the last two are members of this board) "Christianity versus Statism" and in particular the section entitled "Christianity versus Statist Education".
 
Last edited:

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
So, by your argument, a teacher must be a parent? Where in the Scriptures does it state that parents can only delegate the training of their children to other parents?

And I have to add, where would that leave single people or those left childless? How many singles throughout history have help raise and educate children through being a help to a family, tutoring, and church-schools? So it would be wrong for me to ask a single, non parent member of the church to tutor my son in a subject I'm not familiar with?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I don't plan to prove anything either way, but on some readings, concievably, Deut. 6 was actually given to the people (nation maybe?) of Israel. I don't have my Hebrew on me at the moment, but if the command is in the plural, or addressed to a plurality, then it would actually be speaking to state education.

I hate to use the words "nation" and "state" applied to Israel. The nation-state today is, at times, a borderline idol from the Enlightenment.

My argument doesn't disprove homeschooling (I plan to homeschool, Lord willing), but we can't use that verse as a proof-text.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
So, by your argument, a teacher must be a parent? Where in the Scriptures does it state that parents can only delegate the training of their children to other parents? That was a nice argument. If only it carried any weight to it.
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.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
So, by your argument, a teacher must be a parent? Where in the Scriptures does it state that parents can only delegate the training of their children to other parents? That was a nice argument. If only it carried any weight to it.
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.

Rev. Greco

I am asking you to retract that comment towards me and the inflammatory nature of your language. Repeatedly you have misrepresented my position on various state related issues, and have never apologised for so doing.

Deuteronomy 6 is about spiritual formation, but since no education can be taught from a neutral perspective, then "Latin and math" falls into it.

My point is that Deut. 6 indicates that education has been primarily given to the family, and it is reasonable to infer that Christian families may work together as a covenant community to teach one another's children, and the reference to tutors that you make - and other things in Scripture - would seem to substantiate this. And since it is clearly a Biblical requirement that church members attend church worship, then I do not see how this can be a problem.

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

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Mr. Ritchie,

I will not. Your exegesis is convenient for you in this case, as it often is. If Deuteronomy 6 is about parental responsibility, then private education is out. It is NOT reasonable to infer, as you have done. It is not reasonable to further infer that a "covenant community" includes pagans (as I assume your school does). If your exegesis is correct, there is no legitimate reason for your school to even exist. Whether you are an adult or a child makes no difference.

Why would I want to forbid a non-parent (or at least non-covenant member) from teaching children, and then allow or even encourage those who are to teach to themselves learn from non-parents, non-covenant members? Quis custodiet custodes?

You continually apply yokes to others that you are not willing to bear. If you are upset by being called on that, so be it. I would think that Christians would be upset by being told that they are sinning, when the Bible does not say that they are sinning. And you will forgive me if I don't take the time to read a self-published book from a youth who has never pastored a flock nor educated his own children.
 

Virginia Marine

Puritan Board Freshman
Mr. Ritchie,

I will not. Your exegesis is convenient for you in this case, as it often is. If Deuteronomy 6 is about parental responsibility, then private education is out. It is NOT reasonable to infer, as you have done. It is not reasonable to further infer that a "covenant community" includes pagans (as I assume your school does). If your exegesis is correct, there is no legitimate reason for your school to even exist. Whether you are an adult or a child makes no difference.

Why would I want to forbid a non-parent (or at least non-covenant member) from teaching children, and then allow or even encourage those who are to teach to themselves learn from non-parents, non-covenant members? Quis custodiet custodes?

You continually apply yokes to others that you are not willing to bear. If you are upset by being called on that, so be it. I would think that Christians would be upset by being told that they are sinning, when the Bible does not say that they are sinning. And you will forgive me if I don't take the time to read a self-published book from a youth who has never pastored a flock nor educated his own children.

Amen Brother!
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Mr. Ritchie,

I will not. Your exegesis is convenient for you in this case, as it often is. If Deuteronomy 6 is about parental responsibility, then private education is out. It is NOT reasonable to infer, as you have done. It is not reasonable to further infer that a "covenant community" includes pagans (as I assume your school does). If your exegesis is correct, there is no legitimate reason for your school to even exist. Whether you are an adult or a child makes no difference.

Why would I want to forbid a non-parent (or at least non-covenant member) from teaching children, and then allow or even encourage those who are to teach to themselves learn from non-parents, non-covenant members? Quis custodiet custodes?

You continually apply yokes to others that you are not willing to bear. If you are upset by being called on that, so be it. I would think that Christians would be upset by being told that they are sinning, when the Bible does not say that they are sinning. And you will forgive me if I don't take the time to read a self-published book from a youth who has never pastored a flock nor educated his own children.

Again you have misreprented what I have said, and have spoken in a manner unbecoming of a gospel minister and hurtfully insulted me. My interaction with you finishes now.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Gospel ministers protect the weak and defenseless from attack. I do that when people accuse Christians of sin without Biblical basis for doing so.

For the record: I write as a homeschooling father, who believes that homeschooling is the best choice for our family (at considerable cost) and often the best choice for families in general. I also support several local homeschool organizations, and will likely teach in a Co-op situation in the future.
 

Answerman

Puritan Board Sophomore
I cannot figure out why the logic in this is so difficult.

Premise one: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.

Premise two: God commands us to diligently teach our children His words when we sit at home, when we walk along the road… and to raise our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Therefore: Any education that doesn’t have premise two as the most fundamental goal in the education of their children should be considered sin.

This is not to say that we can keep this command perfectly, but the goal that God gives us in the education of our children is clear.

As I mentioned previously, if you study the content and methods used in the public education system to subvert Christian beliefs, I cannot see how an unbiased assessment of this material can draw any other conclusion other than that public schools are in clear violation of God’s commands regarding the teaching of our children.

Repost of my reading list on this subject:
NEA, Trojan Horse in American Education - Samuel Blumenfeld
The Underground History of American Education - John Taylor Gatto
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Brainwashed - Ben Shapiro
The Harsh Truth About Public Schools - Bruce Shortt
Let My Children Go - Ray Moore

I guess you could make the argument that you could spend every waking hour correcting every lie or half-truth that they learned in school that day, but this would be virtually impossible since you would have to record the whole day, listen to the recording and correct each bad teaching with the truth. Why expose them to this kind of schizophrenic method of teaching? Children need to be discipled in the Christian faith before they go out into the world to be the salt and light that they are commanded to be.

Maybe we should start a post highlighting how public schools violate God’s command. This would probably be a way that we as can have a civil debate on this issue without causing too much friction.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
David,
If I grant your conclusion (as Fred pointed out), then we must abandon secular higher education as well (which would then negate Bahnsen's PhD).

And For what it's worth, J. H. Thornwell supported state education.
 

Answerman

Puritan Board Sophomore
David,
If I grant your conclusion (as Fred pointed out), then we must abandon secular higher education as well (which would then negate Bahnsen's PhD).

And For what it's worth, J. H. Thornwell supported state education.

Jacob,

Actually, Bahnsen agrees with me, just listen to his lecture, "Christian Education as Covenant Faithfulness" you can download this lecture from radioapologia.com.

Near the end of the lecture, he goes on to say that after the initial discipleship into the Christian faith that he did not believe that it was a contradiction to go to a secular college. If I remember correctly, Bahnsen talks about his experience in secular college as “dragon slaying”. The point being, once you have matured in the Christian faith, you can then properly use the sword of the spirit to cut down all “strongholds of arguments and pretensions that set themselves up against the knowledge of God.” Until you reach that point your parents should be preparing you for this battle. This is basically the same case that Bahnsen makes in this lecture.

The ideal situation would be that the Christian institutions of higher education would so out perform secular schools that they would go out of business and therefore make this debate a moot point. I look at the current situation with most Christian colleges being considered “ghettos” compared to secular schools as a curse on us for our neglect in raising up the next generation as God has instructed us to. Change can only come if we repent of this sin and once again trust that God will bless our efforts if we obey Him in this matter of education.

Also, do you have any quotes from Thornwell in this regard? Maybe he is assuming that state education would be controlled by orthodox Christians and not by compromisers or rank secularists. I have a hard time believing that Thornwell would accept state education as we have it now. Regardless of what Thornwell thinks, 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.
 

Stephen

Puritan Board Junior
State education is sinful as God has not commanded the state to educate children; as the state is God's minister (Rom. 13) it cannot do whatever it wants, but must only do what is consistent with its God-appointed role set down in Scripture.

Amen, Daniel. State education is founded on a godless foundation, which is sinking sand.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
David,
If I grant your conclusion (as Fred pointed out), then we must abandon secular higher education as well (which would then negate Bahnsen's PhD).

And For what it's worth, J. H. Thornwell supported state education.

Jacob,

Actually, Bahnsen agrees with me, just listen to his lecture, "Christian Education as Covenant Faithfulness" you can download this lecture from radioapologia.com.

Near the end of the lecture, he goes on to say that after the initial discipleship into the Christian faith that he did not believe that it was a contradiction to go to a secular college.

That is his *beliefs.*


If I remember correctly, Bahnsen talks about his experience in secular college as “dragon slaying”. The point being, once you have matured in the Christian faith, you can then properly use the sword of the spirit to cut down all “strongholds of arguments and pretensions that set themselves up against the knowledge of God.” Until you reach that point your parents should be preparing you for this battle. This is basically the same case that Bahnsen makes in this lecture.

My major point will be made below, but to say that the "maturing argument" is subjective and by definition cannot be applied across the board.

The ideal situation would be that the Christian institutions of higher education would so out perform secular schools that they would go out of business and therefore make this debate a moot point. I look at the current situation with most Christian colleges being considered “ghettos” compared to secular schools as a curse on us for our neglect in raising up the next generation as God has instructed us to. Change can only come if we repent of this sin and once again trust that God will bless our efforts if we obey Him in this matter of education.

It is not fair to argue ideal situations because the ideal situation would be a theocratic regime where Christians control the Dept of Education.

Also, do you have any quotes from Thornwell in this regard? Maybe he is assuming that state education would be controlled by orthodox Christians and not by compromisers or rank secularists. I have a hard time believing that Thornwell would accept state education as we have it now. Regardless of what Thornwell thinks, 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.

I have the quotes but it doesn't matter. The arguments made above (and in other posts) imply that state education qua state education is illegitimate.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top