# Compulsory Education



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?

If you reply, please elaborate.

I think it's consistent with scripture because subjects must be instructed as to what is lawful.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

joshua said:


> I can delete this message if it's beyond the bounds, but should it depend on if the Civil Magistrate acknowledges the rights of King Jesus or not?


 
See the Confession of Faith (Westminster), ch. XXIII, especially section IV.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

Josh,

Thanks for posting the actual text of WCF 23:4. It would help if there could be away to keep that much intact.

The question is about "compulsory education".

"Compulsory education" is not synonymous as "compulsory attendance in state schools."

I don't want to say too much because I'm trying to focus on the principle of education itself. Hope that helps.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 8, 2008)

why would you delete the posts?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

Why would a compulsory education law be *unscriptural* (or against natural law, for that matter)? 

Why would that be a *wicked law*? 

Anyone?


----------



## satz (Mar 8, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> Why would a compulsory education law be *unscriptural* (or against natural law, for that matter)?
> 
> Why would that be a *wicked law*?
> 
> Anyone?



I see no reason why it would be either unscriptural or wicked. 

(Although because of the type of governments we have, the practical application might end up that way)

Someone on another thread used the phrase 'Regulative Principle of Government'. The idea that the government needs a specific allowance from scripture for whatever it does or however it uses its authority almost seems to be assumed in much of the political discussion on the PB, but I see no warrant for taking such a view in the bible.

Laws may be made that are harsh, overbearing and intrusive and the one in authority will answer to God for that, but that does not give the ones under authority the right to declare those laws as illegitimate.

If we are going to treat government authority this way, I see no bible reason to not do the same with the authority of husbands over wives or parents over children. Yet no one I know would say wives of children have the right to ask their husbands/parents to show them specific biblical warrant for each and every single way they exercise their authority.


----------



## KMK (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children. 

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 10, 2008)

Hmm...

Out of 9 people who voted *false* only one even bothered to tell why they think so.

So far this results of this poll confirm what I suspected all along.


----------



## bob (Mar 10, 2008)

This is a good question that I am not sure how to answer. I am trying mull over in my mind what the Bible requires in regard to education. Is the magistrate requiring a specific criteria in mandating education or simply insisting that children be taught an undefined something?

Would we strike a difference in biblical obedience between the man who educates his children by teaching them Latin, Greek, and arithemetic along with biblical training and the man who ignored most of the classical subjects, but taught his children his trade or craft along with sound biblical training?


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 10, 2008)

The Magistrate is now promulgating a system whose teachings are antiethical to God's word, so in this time and place it should be resisted. The Magistrate has not the right to make law that opposes God's law, and though the mandate to attend does not directly oppose God's law, the nature of the system causes the law, in essence, to be anti-biblical.


----------



## Neopatriarch (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.
> 
> In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?



Is this a judicial law or moral law that the state should enforce?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 10, 2008)

I chose False... Why?

I believe the civil government is overstepping it's sphere of authority that has been regulated out to the sphere of the family... It is not the governments job to train our children, it is our responsibility to train our children. 

"Give instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it." Proverbs 22:6 Young's Literal Translation

In other words we are told by the Spirit of God is for the Parents to "Give instruction to the youth", Train up a child... This is everything from behavioral to regular Reading/Writing/Math education. So it is not the governments job nor their authority to train up our children. They are removing authority from one sphere of government to another sphere of government which is not permitted.

Some will try to use the modal of walk-along, talk-along, primarily non-delegable, Education/discipleship-based training between parents and children (Deuteronomy 6) for the argument but I believe that Deuteronomy 6 is more narrow then broader education.. I believe it is referring to Spiritual Education because it mentioned the Laws and Commandments of God.. So I can't really use Deuteronomy 6 as a proof text like Sproul Jr. Doug Phillips and others have done..

But clearly Proverbs 22:6 shows that the sphere of education resides within the sphere of the Parents and not the government....


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

Neopatriarch said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.
> ...



I don't think it matters since I am talking only about the 'general equity' of God's Law. 

Some seem to be missing the main point of the OP. The question is not about who should do the educating, but should the magistrate demand that children get educated somehow. To me the answer is obvious.


----------



## Herald (Mar 10, 2008)

I wonder how the Puritans viewed Proverbs in relation to doctrine. It is been my experience that Proverbs is not a book that is doctrinally rich and should not be used for that purpose. Thoughts?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 10, 2008)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and *is profitable for doctrine,* for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

Unless Proverbs is uninspired and not written by the inspiration of God otherwise it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction...





North Jersey Baptist said:


> I wonder how the Puritans viewed Proverbs in relation to doctrine. It is been my experience that Proverbs is not a book that is doctrinally rich and should not be used for that purpose. Thoughts?


----------



## Herald (Mar 10, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?
> 
> If you reply, please elaborate.
> 
> I think it's consistent with scripture because subjects must be instructed as to what is lawful.



Jay,

I think it depends on what is being taught. If the state requires all new drivers to attend a mandatory drivers education class, I wouldn't have any issue with the requirement. Driving is a technical skill that needs to be taught by a competent teacher. How about a child who has a learning disorder that transcends the parents ability to teach effectively? Can the parent use outside resources to bridge that gap? I believe so. These choices come under the umbrella of the parents authority in educating their child. It is the parents ultimate responsibility and he can make the decision to use or not to use resources that help in education. Ultimately the parent is accountable to God.

Now, what if the magistrate requires a child to be exposed to an ungodly environment? To be more specific, what does a parent do if the magistrate says, "Your child _*will *_learn about alternative lifestyles."? This is not just a matter of reading, writing and arithmetic. Todays public schools consider social agendas to be just as important as 1+1=2. Now, the Christian who says, "Parents must submit to the magistrate and send their children to school" may say this falls under the auspices of persecution; that they and their children are being persecuted for their faith and must endure it. Hogwash. The magistrate, In my humble opinion, has gone beyond the bounds of his mandate and parents have the responsibility to protect their children. If the magistrate threatens to remove the children from the home, there are options available to parents. Christian schools can be utilized. Churches may recognize the dire nature of the courts ruling and can establish recognized schools if the ruling is not overturned. There is always the possibility of moving out of state. Yes, it may impact careers and family but I believe the situation is that critical. Doing the right thing is not always easy. At times is the most difficult option available.


----------



## Herald (Mar 10, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and *is profitable for doctrine,* for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
> 
> Unless Proverbs is uninspired and not written by the inspiration of God otherwise it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction...
> 
> ...



Michael, I am not doubting the inspiration of scripture. I have heard it taught that two books, Job and Proverbs, are not ideal books for teaching doctrine. To be honest, it's been a long time since that has been taught to me. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 10, 2008)

I voted "false," but I suppose I could change my answer depending on your definition of education. The verses I've used seen in support of education look like they don't go further than necessitating training in religious doctrine. A child can be brought up "in the fear and admonition of the Lord" without knowing mathematics or history. Are you saying that the government should be able to enforce compulsory education in these kinds of subjects? If so, then this is where I disagree. I think any sort of required curriculum is wrong.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 10, 2008)

Reading this question _very _strictly, I would say yes.

I think compulsory education laws _can _be biblical. I don't know if any laws on the books are biblical (or can be at this time), but I think it's possible. A State does have a natural interest in the education of it's citizens, and may therefor compel them to be educated by what-ever information or standard they think is best. This might include required attendance at specific State controlled institutions. And so as long as the State did not try to teach something contrary to Christian doctrine, I don't see how it would be necessarily unbiblical. 

But the answer (True) to the question does not imply that the State can deny the parents the right to educate their own children in addition to the State. That would be unconstitutional and unbiblical. Any law restricting the rights of a parent to educate their own children would require an amendment to state or U.S. Constitutions; and would be contrary to our Christian duty to educate our children in the ways of the Lord.

I don't think such compulsory education laws are should be considered constitutional in most states in the U.S. I think we have a constitutional right to educate our children in place of State education, unless the State specifically takes that right away. In other words, we still have the right to keep our children out of the State education system. And since, most public education institutions teach some views that are antithetical to Christianity, then parents have a biblical/moral right to educate their children in the place of the State.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 10, 2008)

My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

Civbert said:


> My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".



If they are biblical, how can they be a bad idea?


----------



## Herald (Mar 10, 2008)

Ken, because the magistrate in this situation displays every evidence of being unrighteous, therefore their decisions will be equally unrighteous. I can't answer for Anthony, but that is why I would consider it a bad idea.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".
> ...



Well, specifically, I said they _can be_, not that they _are_. I assumed the "are" in the question was looking at a hypothetical possible law, not the laws on the books at present. There are a lot of things within the biblical scope of the civil magistrate that they can get wrong. Just because the magistrate is acting within a biblical scope, does not mean it is done in the most biblical manner.


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 10, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> "Give instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it." Proverbs 22:6 Young's Literal Translation



So you're actually saying that a verse which tells people to give instruction to youths is actually forbidding certain people from giving instruction to youths!? Perhaps the verse means the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps it is–and forgive me if I am misreading it–giving biblical warrant for people teaching youths.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.

If ALL of these requirements are not met, then there is insufficient basis for the law. And even if they are met, a law may still be unwise.

It is arguable that "requiring" education is not enforceable in a non-tyrannical way. Furthermore, "required" _for whom_ and _for how long_? Should adults over 18 be "required" to be educated on the thousands of new laws, regulations, and court interpretations (which amount to countless additions to the statues) promulgated each and every year?

After all, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Who will conduct these classes, and who will pay for them, and is it right to demand the time from the populace, taken out of their work/sleep/maintenance/leisure? In the past few years, we have seen the legal principle of _mens rea_ (L., guilty mind), or intent to break the law as a necessary part of prosecution, effectively removed from the state's burden. Add mandatory sentencing guidelines, and you have a recipe for inefficient, arbitrary totalitarianism.

If we are only talking about "children's education" here, then (leaving aside the question of warrant)-- 1) how will the law be enforced, by whom, which armed agency as last resort? and 2) what penalty? Will children be taken from the parents? Will the parents be fined? How many times? Will one be jailed? Will both?

If these kinds of questions cannot be answered, then no law should be enacted. I think the Magistrate has the duty (assigned by its own Higher Authority) to encourage the education of its citizens, both intellectually and morally. What I am noting is that the "civil magistrate" has _limits_ as to what it is able to do--at least, that is what _subordinate_ authority realizes. Our present state powers do not recognize limits. A magistrate under Authority is content with knowing he has discharged his duty, even if he has stopped short of totalitarian measures. Laws, and the criminalization of every bad behavior, will not bring about greater exhibitions of good behavior.

I find it difficult to say "Since I, personally, cannot think of a justified scenario for such a law, *therefore* no such law can be enacted." However, at present I think it very unwise.


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 10, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.



In other words, no laws using the format of the decalogue?


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.
> 
> If ALL of these requirements are not met, then there is insufficient basis for the law. And even if they are met, a law may still be unwise.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.

One question: "Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the *feeding and clothing* of those under his jurisdiction?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.
> 
> One question: "Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the *feeding and clothing* of those under his jurisdiction?


If the "form of government" is _paternalistic_ then, I suppose that all the paternal duties would fall to them as well.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is an "ideal" form of government. If people are none other than "wards of the state" then they must be fed, clothed, housed, schooled, pampered, and etc. by the state.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

k.seymore said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.
> ...


I don't understand the question. The Law of Moses has: 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (both earthly and heavenly), and 3) explicit, spelled out penalties for violation, as well as the implicit. We are speaking here in the thread of earthly laws, which should direct us at least implicitly to find all the parts I mentioned.

The Moral Law (the Decalogue) all by itself has 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (by God the King), and 3) penalty for violation (death, essentially the CoW), when it is considered under the first and second uses.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 10, 2008)

Howdy y'all,

The question was:

"Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?

If you reply, please elaborate.:

Paul informs us in the following passage about the lawful duties of magistrates:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of [or, in Greek *under*] God: the powers that be *are ordained of God*. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the *ordinance of God*: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers *are not a terror to good works*, but *to the evil*. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do *that which is good*, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is *the minister of God *to thee for good. But if thou do *that which is evil*, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is *the minister of God*, a revenger to execute wrath upon *him that doeth evil*.” Romans 13:1-5

From this we see that the powers that be are 1) God’s deacon, 2) To terrorize evil works, 3) Not to terrorize good works 4) To use the sword to enforce God’s laws.

So, does a servant make up his own rules? Does a deacon decide which laws he wants to enforce, and which are outmoded? Is the servant the source of law, or the administrator of the law? Clearly, Paul is slapping the Roman Caesars in the face with these words, since he preached another King, one Jesus, and called Nero a servant of this Jesus. Nero thought he was god walking in the earth; Paul says, NOPE, you’re a mere servant of the “King of Kings”.

Now, does God anywhere grant jurisdiction for the instruction of children to the judges and magistrates? I’m at a loss to recall where He does so. Rather, God commands fathers and mothers to educate their children:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7 (see also the book of Proverbs)

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:4 (cf. parallel in Collosians)

If it can be demonstrated that God commands the magistrate to teach anyone anything except for the civil laws (and he’s supposed to teach HIMSELF this Deut 17:18), I would concede the point. However, as it stands, God commands the instruction of children to be done by the fathers, and gives the religious instruction to be supplemented by the church (as implied by the Epistles, by Nehemiah 8:1-3, etc.). 

Also, to an earlier point, no sanction is given to the magistrate to enforce against derelict parents. In other words, no Nazi-like “you’d better educate your kinds, or we’ll charge you fines”.

As to the broader question of jurisdictions and venues, the church has a certain sphere, the state a different one, and the family a third. If we confound the jurisdictions, we end up with some very strange (Communistic?) theories. For instance, in Khalifornia, the state thinks that it owns our children. Therefore, it wants to penalize us for not sending our children to the Government schkools to have them “learn to be free” (can you say double-speak?). Anywho, the point being, the state is here transgressing the boundaries set by God, and is therefore no longer a servant of God, but a tyrant. Anyone who says otherwise would have to allow Plato’s argument that women should be held in common, and that the State has the rights of the family over children.
Think of the church exercising capital punishment; why is that so abhorrant? The reason it is so is that God has not given the church that jurisdiction. Nor has He given the state the jurisdiction of education. 

The Reformed faith demands resistance to tyrannical authority. This is not merely theoretically true (consider Rutherford’s Lex, Rex, and Beza’s work on resisting tyrants, “The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects”), but is witnessed to by the Scots Worthies, by the Magdeburg Confession, by the Dutch Declaration of Independence, by the Puritan Justification for taking up arms (against their “lawful king”, Charles 1), by the Huguenot Declaration of Independence, by Luther’s refusal to obey Charles V, by the American Declaration of Independence, etc. Many of these may be found here: Welcome to City on a Hill

Thus, when the state tells us that our children belong to them to be educated, or when they make laws that fall outside the bounds of their jurisdiction, we are to not yield for one moment.

Cheers,


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.
> ...



I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?


----------



## matt01 (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.
> 
> In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?



Yes; the magistrate has the authority, and responsibility for doing this. A better question might be where the Bible gives people the right to dictate the terms of the governmental powers...


----------



## Davidius (Mar 10, 2008)

> “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7



Why do people keep insisting that this passage proves that the sole responsibility of teaching children math, science, history, economics, languages, etc. lies with their parents? The only subject mentioned in this passage is "these words, which I command thee this day."

By the way, I will add that the argument proves too much for some, because many who use this passage to necessitate homeschooling allow for private schooling. Where's that in the passage? Is it only the parents or isn't it? Is the verse talking about math or "these words"?

All the passage proves is that parents have a responsibility to make a habit of speaking with their children about God and His commandments. To say that it has anything to do with the question of government mandates or the legitimacy of public schooling is to make a huge jump.


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

I agree with you, David, but would add one thing...

If you agree with this:



> WCF 1:8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, *and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,*[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.



Wouldn't that necessitate education in at least the areas of reading and writing in the 'vulgar language'? (Which, ironically, is the one area in which America's public schools fail the most)

Also, the training up of a child in the way they should go would include the child learning a trade of some form would it not? Isn't it the parents' scriptural duty to provide a child with enough of some kind of education to make it possible for them to earn a living as an adult? 

I agree that not everyone must learn _every_ subject but everyone must learn _some_ subjects.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 10, 2008)

Perhaps. That's something to which I would like to give more thought (in light of my first post in which I said that no particular curriculum should be mandated). The sole intent of my previous post was to point out that it is wrong to use the Deuteronomy passage.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2008)

To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?



You make an excellent point.

As per WCF 1:8, as I quoted above, didn't the Divines, to a certain extent define education? The ability to read and write in the vulgar tongue? Could the magistrate mandate education by parents if in no other area than the ability of literacy so that children could eventually read their own Bibles?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?


I think the question would rebound in the first place to the issue of property, and to what degree children are considered the "property" of parents. Regardless of the argument that such reasoning might take us back to the question of slavery, the fact is that if all _proprietary_ interest of a parent in his child is eliminated, then so goes all of his authority. The ungoverned State ends up claiming huge proprietary rights over its population, btw. I say this is the first issue, because I deny that a parent is bound to meet ANY conceivable "state standard" of feeding and clothing, or face a penalty. If I send my kid to bed "without supper," does this constitute a "refusal to feed"? If I refuse to buy my kid a designer jacket, or "better" shoes, can I be prosecuted? Who "owns" the children? Because to that degree the authority can "dictate" the standard of care.

Neither the Parents, nor the State has unlimited proprietary rights, over things or people. Under Moses, a man who beat his slave to the death was a murderer (Ex. 21:20). The slave's right to live was not held under the master, but directly under God. So, to draw on the principle, present governments should punish the cruel negligence (not simply the poverty, for example) of a parent that has _withheld_ food and clothing of their children *to a dangerous degree*, as this is would be a violation of the 6th commandment.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2008)

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?
> ...



Thank you, Rev Buchannon. It was the witholding of food to a 'dangerous degree' that I had in mind. Is there a parallel that could be drawn in the area of education. Could it be considered 'dangerous' to neglect a child in not at least attempting to teach a child to read or some kind of skill that will allow them to provide for themselves when they get older?

Is there 'general equity' that parents must provide some kind of education for their children in 1 Tim 5:9? Is a parent who does not attempt to teach their child to read 'providing for his own'?


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?



I think the basic premise behind cumpulsory education in America (right or wrong) was based on the principle that an 'educated' public would protect democracy from turning into tyranny.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> Could it be considered 'dangerous' to neglect a child in not at least attempting to teach a child to read or some kind of skill that will allow them to provide for themselves when they get older?


Sure, it could be considered. And so we have all this prescriptive govt interference, "for the children," "for the good of society." But is it in the long-term interest of a free people to have a govt that continually micro-manages their lives? If they start by telling you what you have to teach your kids, soon they will take your schools away and teach the kids themselves what they want them to learn.

I doubt it can be successfully argued that it is "dangerous" to not teach to read, or other education, in anything approaching the level of not providing food/clothing/shelter. That's not to say that governments don't argue that very thing--clearly they do, and take it upon themselves to create, e.g., "outcome based education" etc., trying to ensure they have a continuing population of drones. Ironically, it seems that eventually the same policy-makers will argue that TOO MUCH education is equally dangerous!

The question for us is: should OUR government attempt to "produce" outcomes via mandates? Our govt was created to be "negative," maximizing individual liberty. It has become "directive," bossing us around. It took over schooling, when most Americans were already literate, and most parents sought at least a minimal education for their children. Today, with all their "mandates" and "directives" and centralized (and expensive) controls, kids don't learn in 13 years what our grandparents mastered in 8, and we have a greater % of functional illiterates.

Historians will look at our age and study how the freest society (maybe ever) abandoned God (that is, Protestant Christianity) and liberty, both in parallel.


> Is there 'general equity' that parents must provide some kind of education for their children in 1 Tim 5:9? Is a parent who does not attempt to teach their child to read 'providing for his own'?


Is this a moral question, or a civil or criminal one? What if the answers to these questions are "yes"? Are you assuming that the civil govt assumes a coercive duty, just because parental govt is derelict? I do not.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2008)

KMK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?
> ...



You know, I can see that, and it does make a certain degree of sense to me. But _what education_ promotes freedom? And what if parents don't agree that education promotes freedom? I think parents who don't teach their children to read the Bible, who don't equip them to function positively within the world, are in grave dereliction of duty and should be admonished by the church. But I think the government criminalizing that sin necessarily involves them in tyranny (with the possible exception of a government that has established Christianity) --which counters that civil reason for education in any case.


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



What if... the church refused to do its duty, or there was no church presence to speak of? 

I am not trying to be obtuse, but just thinking these things through myself...


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

I don't think the absence of the church authorizes the state to pretend that it's the church. Should the state take the role of a father in the situation of a young mother who's been widowed?

No worries, brother; it is very difficult for me to imagine you trying to be obtuse!


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...



If the decalogue really does, as you say, have "all provision of... enforcement, and... penalty for violation" then, since the decalogue is pretty short, it should be pretty easy to show where _all_ provision of enforcement and all penalty for violation is, as you said, contained in the law for those who are guilty of breaking it. Here's an example:


"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Ex 20:7)

Where's the provision for all enforcement and the specific penalties for violation contained within the decalogue for this law? And why would Moses and the Israelites be in error for thinking the decalogue didn't contain these things:

"the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Lev 24:11-16)

So for them, enforcement was by those who heard the blasphemy, they were to take him out and ritually lay their hands in witness on his head, then the penalty was that the people were to stone him. These specific provisions are not found in the decalogue, so the decalogue must not contain _all_ provisions/penalties within it. Yet they are still valid laws whether these provisions are revealed within a specific law or not.

I can understand why one might say a democratic law needs these things in order to become law, but why would, say, a monarch need to do so? Or a parent for that matter? I lay down laws like this all the time with my children. "You are not allowed to do [such and such]." When they ask "But why can't I do [such and such]?" I say, with the authority invested in me by God, "Because I said so." And when they break that law I decide what the penalty is and how it will be enforced, and it isn't always the same. I see no reason why a monarch could not do the same. Why would they need to make sure the law had _all provisions_ of penalties or enforcement within it for those laws to be valid? Aren't the laws valid simply because they come from authority, and the only time we should question that authority is when they clash with the higher authority?


----------



## KMK (Mar 11, 2008)

These are interesting questions concerning the Decalogue. In addition, I was wondering about the curses of Deut 27. If a curse is pronounced on a particular sin would that meet the requirement of warrant, enforcement and penalty? How would a prince of Egypt react if he found out that a man had had sexual relations with his sister for example?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

Law: 3rd Commandment.
Enforcer: God.
Penalty: Hell.

Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable.

The Mosaic Law was a very thorough legal code, at the top of which was the KING, Jehovah. I was never thinking of the Decalogue in splendid isolation, and I don't think you are correct to do so either. If there was a question about how to handle a specific case, and it needed to be taken up the line, there was gradation of courts, and God at the very top.

Your comments are pertinent, but the answers to them have all been implied by what has already been stated.


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable.



I don't think my children's knowledge of my character or a king's people's knowledge of his character is any basis for whether a law is valid or not (!?), I would say that a person in authority is free to use their authority without explaining their reasoning. They can state a law and their word is law (unless overruled by a higher authority). I don't believe that Laws are only valid if the law contains, as you said, _all_ provision for enforcement and penalties. I gave the example of the third commandment which I believe is a valid law as it is written. It doesn't need _all_ provision and penalties to be, as you said, "contained" in it (Perhaps I simply misunderstand what you mean by contained). So I gave the example of Moses who knew the specific law, but didn't know how to enforce it. 
I am sorry if I was not good at explaining what I was trying to say, I should have realized this when you said you didn't understand what I was asking. My wife tells me I'm not always the clear in explaining what I am trying to say. Perhaps I should have asked a question instead:

Do you believe that the word of an authority is law even if that word did not contain "all provision of enforcement, and penalty for violation"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.



k.seymore said:


> Do you believe that the word of an authority is law even if that word did not contain "all provision of enforcement, and penalty for violation"?


Yes, the word of authority is law. But think about _that_ for just a minute. WHY is it LAW? It's LAW for the very reasons stated: the "voice" is that of *enforcement*, I think you'd agree. What does Paul say? Rom 5:13, "For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." Do you hear what he's saying? Compare to Rom 4:15, "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." WRATH=enforcement. If no one is ever punished, then the law is not only toothless, it is no law at all.

Some old, funny laws stay on the books, as "quaint". Its humorous to see a law against "cow-tipping" or some such, and to see the fines or hours in the stocks assessed. But these are, for all intents and purposes, no laws at all.

As for the penalty, 1) to break the covenant was to be cast off, and to bring down the curses of the covenant. God was not obligated to stipulate for his subordinate enforcers of temporal punishments, case law that would run the gamut. He gave them _a whole bunch_ of cases, and expected them to adjudicate untold cases and kinds based on those few examples.

In the example you gave, there was apparently some question as to whether blasphemy was ever a capital crime. The case was serious enough, that it went through the whole court system (Ex 18:13-26) all the way to Moses, who took it to God himself for a final statement. This case rather shows how justice was supposed to work in Israel, if there was insufficient data (for whatever reason) to make a determination.* Perhaps God deliberately left out a statement earlier on how severe a judgment against blasphemy could be meted out, so that the people would come to him, to see his own statement on the matter.

Bottom line, in the end what do we have? Law, enforcement (both ultimate and subordinate), and a maximum penalty. So, the "case" demonstrates the very point. In order to make the law truly effectual, the penalty window also needed to be stipulated.

Hope this has cleared my point up.


*Note how in regard to other laws (cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th) the maximum was so ordered in severe cases.


----------



## sam (Mar 11, 2008)

*Sure, why not?*

Presuming that the effect of the education is not clearly sinful and does not require sin, then I am of the opinion that an educated people are a blessing. John Adams felt the same way and thought it the duty of government to ensure that we as a people have a common base of knowledge (I believe you can see this in Massachusetts' constitution).

My duty as a parent is to make sure that, regardless of what others in this world teach, state or otherwise, that I give my kiddos the truth.

As always...


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> > “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7
> 
> 
> 
> ...



David,

The point is not that Deut 6 is talking about mathematics. The point is that if education is every given to _anyone _(and it is), it is given exclusively to the father and mother. The book of Proverbs deals with broader areas of instruction in wisdom and knowledge, of which the principal point is the fear of Jehovah. The state is never commanded to teach anyone anything. The National Socialist / Hegelian, or Marxist idea of the state is that it is man's family, and therefore supercedes the lawful authority of the family. This is the basis for collectivist or socialized education. That is the point of bringing up Deut 6. 

I agree with your assessment of "private schools" however. If families want to cooperate, fine. But, to "drop off" the kids at school is, in my estimation, a problem.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 14, 2008)

matthew said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.
> ...



This question of the rights of the governed is handled by one of our most influential Confessional Framers, Samuel Rutherford in his book, Lex Rex. Tolle, Lege.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 14, 2008)

KMK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?
> ...



The divines say nothing about the magistrate teaching people to read anything. They say THE PEOPLE have a right to read the Scripture, and therefore they are to learn to read, and that the Scriptures are therefore to be translated. The system of education is not addressed.

Cheers,


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 14, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I can definitely agree with you if thats what you meant originally. I agree that when a person in authority says something it is law, and their authority implies there will be enforcement and penalties. Although I'm not sure it conveys anything to say that a law is not a law unless it contains all penaties and all enforcement, and also a kings word is law and his authority itself implies all penalties and enforcement. What word stated by an actual authority wouldn't then be a valid law? The two statements seem (from my view) to cancel each other out. 

But now that I think a little more about it I see by your example of "quaint laws" what you might be referring to. You believe that laws such as these have no enforcement or penalties and thus are no laws at all. I understand what you are saying, but I've been framing it the opposite way. If an authority's words imply they are the enforcer and penalizer, then it doesn't erase the kings authority to choose what the enforcement or penalties are just because the law is quaint. those quaint laws are actual laws which imply the enforcement and penalties that authority of those over the realm in which they were given would dish out. Except for we "know" that no authority in our day would inflict any penalties for breaking them. That doesn't make them non-laws in the legal sense. Authorities are in the position of power to not penalize, not us. It is also a de facto authority of juries in our country to not enforce any US Law by jury nullification, but that doesn't make all human-made laws in our country not valid just because those enforcing them don't inflict penalties. So, although I think I agree with much of what you were getting at, I hope it is also clear why I was using language that sometimes sounds the opposite of what you are saying.


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 14, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> The book of Proverbs deals with broader areas of instruction in wisdom and knowledge... The state is never commanded to teach anyone anything.



So when proverbs commands people:

"Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it."
(Prov 22:6)

Would you say it is actually telling certain people to not train children that are under their authority, or that it is telling people to train children that are under their authority? For instance, could the verse above justify the possibility of children being taught by the state officials and priests at the command of the king in this passage:

"In the third year of his reign he sent his officials, Ben-hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Micaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them the Levites, Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tobadonijah; and with these Levites, the priests Elishama and Jehoram. And they taught in Judah, having the Book of the Law of the LORD with them. They went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people." (2Chr 17:7-9)


----------

