# Protestant Reformed Churches & Homeschooling



## dannyhyde

Hello PB'ers,

Does anyone have information about the Protestant Reformed Churches' latest decision on homeschooling? Good friends of mine who live in Grand Rapids said they interpreted their Church Order to require all members to educate their kids at their own Christian schools and that David Engelsma gave some sort of speech on this.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This should be interesting to hear.


----------



## Stephen

I had not heard this, but am interested in the ruling. There are a few Protestant Reformed brothers on the Puritan Board, so perhaps they could fill us in on this issue.


----------



## N. Eshelman

It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'. 

A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC. 

Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point. 

It is quite sad.


----------



## Stephen

nleshelman said:


> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.



Yes, it is.


----------



## Archlute

nleshelman said:


> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.



I can understand concern over the state of public education, but why the opposition to homeschooling as well? Do they desire to see catechesis and spiritual training in line with their positions integrated into the education of their children, and if so, is not that the role of the church in her preaching and teaching on the Lord's Day?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

To me, this sounds like church totalitarianism. Although I believe that parents should be encouraged to remove their children from Statist schools, nevertheless, the matter of whether to exclusively homeschool or use a Christian school is a matter of liberty.


----------



## KMK

It is very 'fundamentalist' of them! Are they teetotalers as well?


----------



## Gesetveemet

Is this the latest decision? Pg 309-310 http://www.rfpa.org/downloads/8413.pdf

Bill's 

The PRCA in my opinion are the modern day standard bearers regarding the covenant, baptism, and the proclamation of the gospel they also have an outstanding seminary but *IF THIS INFORMATION IS TRUE *I find it terrible that they would silence the mouth of a man called by God to preach the gospel because he wants to train his children God's way. 




nleshelman said:


> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.


----------



## Gesetveemet

Gesetveemet said:


> Is this the latest decision? Pg 309-310 http://www.rfpa.org/downloads/8413.pdf



January/February, 2008 at the Georgetown PRC

Classis East met at its regularly scheduled time on Wednesday,
January 9, 2008, but because of the business before it, held continued
sessions on February 13, 14, and 27, 2008. All the churches were represented
by two delegates for these sessions. Rev. C. Haak served as chairman.
Classis treated protests from four individuals and a consistory
against decisions taken by classis in September, 2007 regarding a
pastor’s calling with regard to the education of his children in light
of Article 21 of the Church Order. Classis did not uphold any of these
protests, thus allowing the original decisions of classis to stand. (For
a complete presentation of the decisions taken by the September,
2007 classis confer the Report of Classis East given in the November
1, 2007 issue of the Standard Bearer.) Classis also dealt with the report
of a special committee appointed to assist the Grace PRC in
implementing the decisions taken by classis. The discussion of this
report and of the advice of a committee of pre-advice was held in
closed session. Classis, however, decided to make its decisions public. Classis
decided 1) that, in light of the requirements of Article 21 of the
Church Order, Grace PRC’s consistory erred when they judged
valid the reasons for their pastor’s withdrawing his children from two
good Christian schools and home schooling them; 2) to advise Grace
PRC to work with their pastor to show him the inadequacy of his
reasons, and to inform their congregation of this and of the fact that
they are working with him to show him that his reasons are not acceptable 
as the pastor of Grace PRC. Because of classis’ concern for the
welfare of the congregation of Grace PRC and for the restoration
of peace and unity in that congregation, it further advised the Council
of Grace PRC to consider whether their pastor can be an effective
preacher/pastor to his congregation and whether he can lead
them out of their present unrest. Classis appointed another special
committee to assist Grace’s Council and Consistory in implementing
these decisions should they desire such help. An overture to Synod 2008 
re-garding Article 21 of the Church Order was considered and judged
to be an improper overture. The consistory submitting this overture
subsequently withdrew it. 

*Me thinks there may be inaccurate information going around.*


nleshelman said:


> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.


----------



## HaigLaw

Gesetveemet said:


> *Me thinks there may be inaccurate information going around.*



In other words, there is concern in the Classis over division in the church about their pastor's decision to home-school instead of Christian-school his children?


----------



## Herald

So, in some circles, the church is able to tell parents what to do with their children? I thought this was only the domain of the secular progressives.


----------



## Pilgrim

nleshelman said:


> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.



Quite true, but In my humble opinion some mighty big eisogesis is done by those who demand homeschool or else as well.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon




----------



## staythecourse

Yeah, that's an oops. Expect recanting by those demanding adherence by the pastor or hardening on their part in the near future.


----------



## HaigLaw

Presbyterian Deacon said:


>



Hey, I had to respond to this, just to get the code! I have a Notepad file where I save some of my favorites, and recycle them.


----------



## HaigLaw

staythecourse said:


> Yeah, that's an oops. Expect recanting by those demanding adherence by the pastor or hardening on their part in the near future.



Yeah, parental choice in education, unless it's in the school of Satan or something like that, has got to be a classic case of liberty of conscience.


----------



## beej6

If I recall correctly, part of the PRCA's argument against homeschooling is that, at least in recent history, its origin is not Christian but secular.


----------



## Davidius

beej6 said:


> If I recall correctly, part of the PRCA's argument against homeschooling is that, at least in recent history, its origin is not Christian but secular.



What does that even mean? Christian origin? Toothbrushes and deodorant aren't of "Christian origin." Are PRCA pastors smelly old men with toothless grins?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

beej6 said:


> If I recall correctly, part of the PRCA's argument against homeschooling is that, at least in recent history, its origin is not Christian but secular.



Does Deut. 6 count as Christian origin?


----------



## HaigLaw

That makes no sense. When I became involved in HS'ing in 1982, it was clear that about half the people were doing it for Christian faith reasons, and half for secular reasons.

So, take your pick. The question, though, is -- who decides? Does the church have jurisdiction to second guess the parents' choice in education? I think not, as long as it's not the school of Satan, or something like that which clearly violates Scripture.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Does Article 21 require the pastor to have his children in the local Christian (I assume PRCA) School? 


Gesetveemet said:


> regarding a
> pastor’s calling with regard to the education of his children in light
> of Article 21 of the Church Order.


----------



## Stephen

Davidius said:


> beej6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall correctly, part of the PRCA's argument against homeschooling is that, at least in recent history, its origin is not Christian but secular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? Christian origin? Toothbrushes and deodorant aren't of "Christian origin." Are PRCA pastors smelly old men with toothless grins?
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI, article 21 of the Church order says:
_The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant.

http://www.prca.org/PRC_Confessions_and_Church_Order.pdf
_


----------



## Guido's Brother

NaphtaliPress said:


> FYI, article 21 of the Church order says:
> _The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant.
> 
> http://www.prca.org/PRC_Confessions_and_Church_Order.pdf
> _



We have something similar in the Canadian Reformed churches:

"The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions." (CO Art. 58)

In the CanRCs, there are a good number of homeschoolers, including pastors and elders who do it. In fact, my wife and I did it for a few years as well. The difference between the PRCA and CanRC is that we generally give some breadth to the definition of "school" in this article so as to include home schools.

None of that is to say that homeschooling hasn't been controversial in our churches. It has. And there are those among us who will still say that Article 58 means parental Christian day school, period.


----------



## BJClark

Could it be that if his church offers schooling and he refuses to send his own children to the school it is as such causing conflict?

If the school isn't good enough for the pastors children, why would I want MY children to attend there?

I can certainly see why something like that could cause unrest within a church
especially if members of his own congregation are teachers at one or both or any of the Christian schools..

the information provided doesn't really explain what the pastors reasons are for homeschooling his children as opposed to sending them to one of the schools, that information would be helpful to understand the fight a little more..


----------



## MOSES

I'm for the seperation of "education" and "the state". I'm also for the seperation of "education" and "the church". in my opinion, "education" "the state" and "the church" are distinct and seperate spheres, i.e., from eachother, but all three spheres are *under Christ*.
Christ is to be the ruler and head of all three spheres and it is a mistake for "the state" to take Christ's place as head of "education"...it is also a mistake for the Church to take Christ's place as head of "education". No sphere can take headship over another. But, the sinful heart of man, even in the Church, wants to be totalitarian.


----------



## Guido's Brother

MOSES said:


> I'm for the seperation of "education" and "the state". I'm also for the seperation of "education" and "the church". in my opinion, "education" "the state" and "the church" are distinct and seperate spheres, i.e., from eachother, but all three spheres are *under Christ*.
> Christ is to be the ruler and head of all three spheres and it is a mistake for "the state" to take Christ's place as head of "education"...it is also a mistake for the Church to take Christ's place as head of "education". No sphere can take headship over another. But, the sinful heart of man, even in the Church, wants to be totalitarian.



Just to clarify: I had a look and I think the PRCA and the CanRC are similar in that the schools are not operated by the churches. Instead, they are operated by the parents. We don't have parochial schools, but parental schools. The parents form an association or a society whereby they operate a school. Where needed, consistories "lean" on families to ensure that their children are receiving a Christian education, but they don't participate in the operation of schools.


----------



## MOSES

Guido's Brother;404047
Just to clarify: I had a look and I think the PRCA and the CanRC are similar in that [B said:


> the schools are not operated by the churches[/B]. Instead, they are operated by the parents. We don't have parochial schools, but parental schools. The parents form an association or a society whereby they operate a school. Where needed, *consistories "lean" on families to ensure that their children are receiving a Christian education*, but they don't participate in the operation of schools.


<--- Bold emphasis mine.

If this is all that it is then I would not see the Church taking headship in the sphere of education. 
Note: Of course the Church should be concerned that it's members are providing thier children with a Christian education. This is a moral thing. If parents are not seeing to it that thier children are being educated within the bounds of the covenant, then the parents are in sin, and yes the Church should get involved. If the parents refuse to repent, then the Church must take disciplineary action.
This is a much different thing then what I orginally thought. The Church is not taking headship over the sphere of education, it is simply taking action in encouraging its members not to live in sin, by having it's members educate thier children in the school of Christ...Right?


----------



## Guido's Brother

MOSES said:


> This is a much different thing then what I orginally thought. The Church is not taking headship over the sphere of education, it is simply taking action in encouraging its members not to live in sin, by having it's members educate thier children in the school of Christ...Right?


----------



## staythecourse

*Children as light in dark schools*

Pastor Wes, I do not know if you hold to the following view and I am somewhat reluctant to use this if you are a strong adherent but if I may, I'd like to use this as an example.



> The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions." (CO Art. 58)



A home-schooled young man I know now attends University of Louisville. U of L is a typical secular school with a strong leaning to humanism and plain partying. This young man stands in front of class for speech class and writes papers in English class against Catholic dogma (Louisville has a strong Catholic population) and evolution to name 2 things of which I have been made aware.

If this above rule were strongly regulated, the parents could in essence be shunned, disciplined, etc for exposing their child to potential harm. 

In my estimation, the earlier a Christian can make a difference in his or her environment (regardless of age) the better for tearing down strongholds. The strongholds are shaken at U of L to a degree by this young man based on other students and teachers' responses. Catholic teachers (because of his gentle spirit) are not offended but admit they did not know basic differences in theology between Catholic heresies and Reformed truths.

My point: it's a case by case issue based on the maturity of the child and how well the parents know their children and the grace of God at work in them.


----------



## MOSES

staythecourse said:


> Pastor Wes, I do not know if you hold to the following view and I am somewhat reluctant to use this if you are a strong adherent but if I may, I'd like to use this as an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions." (CO Art. 58)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A home-schooled young man I know now attends University of Louisville. U of L is a typical secular school with a strong leaning to humanism and plain partying. This young man stands in front of class for speech class and writes papers in English class against Catholic dogma (Louisville has a strong Catholic population) and evolution to name 2 things of which I have been made aware.
> 
> If this above rule were strongly regulated, the parents could in essence be shunned, disciplined, etc for exposing their child to potential harm.
> 
> In my estimation, the earlier a Christian can make a difference in his or her environment (regardless of age) the better for tearing down strongholds. The strongholds are shaken at U of L to a degree by this young man based on other students and teachers' responses. Catholic teachers (because of his gentle spirit) are not offended but admit they did not know basic differences in theology between Catholic heresies and Reformed truths.
> 
> My point: it's a case by case issue based on the maturity of the child and how well the parents know their children and the grace of God at work in them.
Click to expand...



I hope you don't mind my 2 cents analysis of your post.

*If this*:


> The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions." (CO Art. 58)
Click to expand...


Was supported by biblical law (e.g., Deutoronomy 6) then your above post would/could in essence be saying.

Do evil that good may come.
i.e., break God's law (concerning covenant education) that some sort of "greater" good may come (like maybe an athiest hearing that evolution is bunk)

Note: Perahps the young man is making a differnce...but that would be because God can use that which is "evil" for good, but we are not given the ability to do such. 
Of course the "evil" here spoken is the breaking of God's law, and the breaking of God's law in my post is presupossing that the quote above is actually based on God's law.


----------



## Guido's Brother

staythecourse said:


> My point: it's a case by case issue based on the maturity of the child and how well the parents know their children and the grace of God at work in them.



Context is everything. In our context, Church Order Article 58 has never been understood to refer to anything past grade school (K-12). So to just take my personal experiences: I went to public school for Grades 1-3 (my Dad was in the RCMP and we were stationed in the Canadian Arctic), then Christian school from Grades 4-12 (we were stationed in Edmonton where there is a Canadian Reformed community). Then I went to the secular University of Alberta for my undergraduate degree -- despite its motto of Quaecumque Vera (Whatsoever Things are True), the U of A was/is a high temple of humanism and also a place of much debauchery.

My point: Article 58 is not applied rigorously past grade school. At any rate, we don't have a lot (any?) of options in Canada for Reformed, Christian post-secondary education.


----------



## Gesetveemet

Please forgive me if I have not fully understood.




NaphtaliPress said:


> Does Article 21 require the pastor to have his children in the local Christian (I assume PRCA) School?





NaphtaliPress said:


> FYI, article 21 of the Church order says:
> _The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant.
> 
> http://www.prca.org/PRC_Confessions_and_Church_Order.pdf
> _




Volume 84 - Issue 3
Report of Classis East
The Standard Bearer

The appellant argued incorrectly that Article 21 requires that all families, regardless of circumstances, must send their children to our schools, and consistories must work with these parents until their children attend these schools. *The intent of Article 21 is, rather, that the church (consistory) promote good Christian schools, not force them, and urge parents to use these schools, not coerce them, and that the preaching regarding the demands of the covenant should be done persistently, in a wise and timely manner. *

The second appellant asked the consistory to require that their pastor reenroll his children in our Christian schools so that peace in the congregation could be restored. *This appeal was not upheld, on the ground that such an action by a consistory would improperly require their pastor to act against his conscience. Home schooling falls within the area of Christian liberty; no member, not even an officebearer, may be required to act against his conscience on a matter of Christian liberty,* though in certain instances an officebearer's holding to his conscience may jeopardize his office; therefore the consistory may not seek to restore peace in the congregation by forcing their pastor to enroll his children in PR schools against his conscience. 


.


----------



## HaigLaw

I think Gesetveemet has made a very important point about the education of children being a matter of Christian liberty of conscience by the parents. 

There is no hard and fast rule to the effect that you must choose a Christian day school, or you must or must not home-school.


----------



## staythecourse

> My point: Article 58 is not applied rigorously past grade school. At any rate, we don't have a lot (any?) of options in Canada for Reformed, Christian post-secondary education.



Thanks for reply Wes,

I was trying to say ( but didn't segue very well) that there's nothing magical about 12th grade even though my example has a student in college already. If he could have done this a year ago (two , 5) by God's grace in him, he shouldn't be disallowed by a governing body.


----------



## MOSES

HaigLaw said:


> I think Gesetveemet has made a very important point about the education of children being a matter of Christian liberty of conscience by the parents.
> 
> There is no hard and fast rule to the effect that you must choose a Christian day school, or you must or must not home-school.



As long as that Christian liberty falls within the bounds of God's law and word. i.e., upon pretense of Christian liberty with regards to educating our children, we cannot break God's law. e.g., we cannot educate our children in the school of (say) prostitution, in the name of Christian liberty.
Your decision must fall within the bounds of God's law/word.

As the confession reads in chapter 20.


> 3. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life



YOU ONLY HAVE liberty of conscience in educating your children as it is constrained (framed in) by the law of God...e.g., you can choose homeshooling in the school of Christ, you can choose christian day schooling in the school of Christ, etc...your consience is free (liberty)...but you cannot NOT choose schooling your children in the school of Christ (e.g. state schools)
_*You do not have the libety of conscience to choose sin.*_

This is the greatest commandment in scripture:


> 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. deut. 6



This is the VERY NEXT VERSE i.e., an application that God gives of obeying such a great commandment.


> these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.



By my own experience and witnessing such in others...we, because of our sin nature, choose to break God's law in the name of "christian liberty".

Note: bringing an application to my comments...if someone sends thier children to humanist states schools (as christians) because of thier own "liberty of conscience" in choosing how to educate thier children, then such a one would be mis-using Christian liberty.


----------



## turmeric

Are you sure this is a hill you want to die on? The education of our children is important, but it seems like a stretch to equate a choice, often made because of necessity, as sin. The Bible doesn't mention public school anywhere. It does state that Daniel went to a very pagan school.


----------



## HaigLaw

MOSES said:


> As long as that Christian liberty falls within the bounds of God's law and word. i.e., upon pretense of Christian liberty with regards to educating our children, we cannot break God's law. e.g., we cannot educate our children in the school of (say) prostitution, in the name of Christian liberty. Your decision must fall within the bounds of God's law/word.



Yes, I think I used a similar illustration earlier in this thread.

I would also have to say that the public schools in the US are often quite good and in many places have quite Godly teachers. My wife is a retired public school teacher and she was never constrained in sharing Biblical truth with her students.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Bingo! We are our own worst enemies. The battle should be over state schools but we bicker amongst ourselves on whether Christian Schools or Home Schooling is 'God's way' for education. (We home school by the way.)

I think the debate between Christian Schooling versus Home Schooling is one of the dumbest moves within Christianity in America when the real enemy is the government schools. 




Pilgrim said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is going back to classis. There is a minister (Mitchell Dick) who has been released from his pastoral duties because he will not send his kids to the 'covenant schools'.
> 
> A couple of friends of mine have written appeals and things, but it looks like Rev. Dick is going to be a martyr for the right to homeschool in the PRC.
> 
> Englesma and Hanko are both preaching against it, and from what I hear from PR friends, they are doing some mighty big isogesis in order to 'prove' their point.
> 
> It is quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true, but In my humble opinion some mighty big eisogesis is done by those who demand homeschool or else as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## Virginia Marine

I think you have to be careful with this subject. I have attended churches (particularily OPC) where people were almost looked down upon if they didn't home-school. I have seen this subject divide churches, driving a wedge between church members. We home-schooled for several years and have been blessed in recent years to be able to pay for our kids to attend an excellent Christian School, but that in no way should define what kind of Christians my kids are or what office I can hold in the church. My wife and I lead our senior high youth group in our church and have been blessed by some of the young men and women's testimonies of being able to witness to fellow classmates in public school. There are several Christian families in our church who do not have the means to either homeschool or send their kids to a Christian school. Is that a poor reflection on them???


----------



## SouthernHero

I posted this story a little while back, as it was unfolding, and it got deleted by the mods as a "rumor." Glad to see that it made it through; it's a tragic thing.

PS: MOSES, I like the cut of your jib. Keep it up.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Can someone reconcile these two statements? I must be missing something.



> January/February, 2008 at the Georgetown PRC
> 
> Classis East met at its regularly scheduled time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, but because of the business before it, held continued sessions on February 13, 14, and 27, 2008. All the churches were represented by two delegates for these sessions. Rev. C. Haak served as chairman. Classis treated protests from four individuals and a consistory against decisions taken by classis in September, 2007 regarding a pastor’s calling with regard to the education of his children in light of Article 21 of the Church Order. Classis did not uphold any of these protests, thus allowing the original decisions of classis to stand. (For a complete presentation of the decisions taken by the September, 2007 classis confer the Report of Classis East given in the November 1, 2007 issue of the Standard Bearer.) Classis also dealt with the report of a special committee appointed to assist the Grace PRC in implementing the decisions taken by classis. The discussion of this report and of the advice of a committee of pre-advice was held in closed session. Classis, however, decided to make its decisions public. *Classis decided 1) that, in light of the requirements of Article 21 of the Church Order, Grace PRC’s consistory erred when they judged valid the reasons for their pastor’s withdrawing his children from two good Christian schools and home schooling them; 2) to advise Grace PRC to work with their pastor to show him the inadequacy of his reasons, and to inform their congregation of this and of the fact that they are working with him to show him that his reasons are not acceptable as the pastor of Grace PRC. *Because of classis’ concern for the welfare of the congregation of Grace PRC and for the restoration of peace and unity in that congregation, it further advised the Council of Grace PRC to consider whether their pastor can be an effective preacher/pastor to his congregation and whether he can lead them out of their present unrest. Classis appointed another special committee to assist Grace’s Council and Consistory in implementing these decisions should they desire such help. An overture to Synod 2008 regarding Article 21 of the Church Order was considered and judged to be an improper overture. The consistory submitting this overture subsequently withdrew it.





> Volume 84 - Issue 3
> Report of Classis East
> The Standard Bearer
> 
> The appellant argued incorrectly that Article 21 requires that all families, regardless of circumstances, must send their children to our schools, and consistories must work with these parents until their children attend these schools. The intent of Article 21 is, rather, that the church (consistory) promote good Christian schools, not force them, and urge parents to use these schools, not coerce them, and that the preaching regarding the demands of the covenant should be done persistently, in a wise and timely manner.
> 
> The second appellant asked the consistory to require that their pastor reenroll his children in our Christian schools so that peace in the congregation could be restored. *This appeal was not upheld, on the ground that such an action by a consistory would improperly require their pastor to act against his conscience. Home schooling falls within the area of Christian liberty; no member, not even an officebearer, may be required to act against his conscience on a matter of Christian liberty, though in certain instances an officebearer's holding to his conscience may jeopardize his office;* therefore the consistory may not seek to restore peace in the congregation by forcing their pastor to enroll his children in PR schools against his conscience.



If attendance at church schools is not mandatory according to Article 21, and if homeschooling is a matter of conscience, how can the pastor's determination (reasons for homeschooling) be judged either valid or invalid by his consistory? Is the classis saying that the pastor’s conscientious decision, which he has the right to make for his family, was contrary to the best interests of the congregation?


----------



## MOSES

turmeric said:


> Are you sure this is a hill you want to die on? The education of our children is important, but it seems like a stretch to equate a choice, often made because of necessity, as sin. The Bible doesn't mention public school anywhere. *It does state that Daniel went to a very pagan school*.


<---bold emphasis mine.

Please note:
Daniel went to a very pagan school BECAUSE of SIN..i.e., the Babylonian captivity was do to the sin of covenant breaking by Israel (Judah precisely). Daniel was FORCED into that school, by the state because of the sins of his fathers in breaking covenant with God.

Do we really want to follow such an example?

As for the right or wrong of sending your covenant child to state schools let me ask another question.
Would it be ok for me to send my covenant child to a fundamentilist Muslim school because it is close to where I live, the bus picks them up, they have a good math program, and because most of all it is "Free"(supposedly)?
Should I send my *christian* child to that Muslim school?

Well the muslim school has a world view that is closer to that of Christianity then does the state schools. The muslim school would actually be the lessor of two evils.

The relegion of the state schools is much, much more hostile to the christian worldview.

Note: All education is relegious in nature...wether it is christian or humanist...the very act of educating is going to be based on a "worldview" and it is going to be relegious.
The federal government has not not promoted a relegion...They have actually mandated a state relegion. It is called humansim, and the state school (with compulsory education laws) is the "church" where indoctrination in this relegion takes place. Again, the State has an official state relegion, and it is taught in the state schools.

So you really only have a few choices...send your children to Christian schools, homeschool, or send your children to OTHER relegious institutions like a muslim school, or a state (humanism) school, or a Roman Catholic school.


As the example of Daniel, which was given, shows...Having your child educated in "pagan" (non-christian) schools is a result of sin and covenant breaking...
That may be someones only choice (i agree) but that ONLY choice is still a result of SIN...(just like Daniel)


----------



## Answerman

I see the proper role for the leadership in the church is to point out what the Bible teaches regarding the parents role in education, which places the responsibility squarely on the father/parents. So the hierarchy would look like this, Christ disciples pastors (through the Word), pastors disciple parents, parents disciple children. Whether or not the parents decide to delegate this role to another trusted person is a matter of Christian liberty but it is the most serious matter to be undertaken by a Christian and should not be taken lightly.

Which reminds me of this quote from R.L. Dabney “The education of children must be the most important business done on earth, it’s the one business for which the earth exists, every parent needs to know that this is his purpose for being kept alive by God, that this is his task on earth.”

The gravity of this task cannot be overemphasized.


----------



## calgal

As long as the PRC writes into the contract of their ministers that school tuition is waived, what is the problem? PRC families being large it would seem to save about $5-6K per year per kid. Then the problem is solved......


----------



## HaigLaw

Virginia Marine said:


> I think you have to be careful with this subject. I have attended churches (particularily OPC) where people were almost looked down upon if they didn't home-school. I have seen this subject divide churches, driving a wedge between church members. We home-schooled for several years and have been blessed in recent years to be able to pay for our kids to attend an excellent Christian School, but that in no way should define what kind of Christians my kids are or what office I can hold in the church. My wife and I lead our senior high youth group in our church and have been blessed by some of the young men and women's testimonies of being able to witness to fellow classmates in public school. There are several Christian families in our church who do not have the means to either homeschool or send their kids to a Christian school. Is that a poor reflection on them???



Colonel, I gotta amen you heartily, as I think the core issue here is parental choice in education, as a liberty of conscience that has its own whole chapter in the WCOF. As a lawyer in Texas defending home schoolers back during the 80's, I always felt that was the core liberty we were fighting for.


----------



## staythecourse

*Snobbery in home schooling*

From what I have seen, home-schoolers are a cut above in knowledge. That is from my limited experience (and their on-gong habit of winning national spelling bees)

But I didn't realize pride was becoming an issue until I heard a pastor ask from the pulpit "Who here knows Neville Chamberlain? Ahh I see we have some home schoolers in the congregation"

He home-schooled his children...


----------



## Answerman

Virginia Marine said:


> There are several Christian families in our church who do not have the means to either homeschool or send their kids to a Christian school. Is that a poor reflection on them???



When the Bible commands Christians to raise our children up in the nurture and admonition or of the Lord, we were not given the qualifier, "if you can afford it."

Homeschooling does not have to cost anything. I have found enough free material online to out do any public school in terms of preparing them to live the Christian life. And even if you didn't have any material, you still have all you need to complete this God given task. All it really takes is a commitment of time spent training them in the most important aspects of life for a Christian. Throughout most of history, homeschooling was the default method for education. In most cases they were trained in the trade of the father, just like Jesus was trained in carpentry.

Our homeschool consists mostly of Bible reading and memorization, prayer, catechism, psalm singing and then the lesser things such as math, history and science and all from a Christian perspective, and yes, even math needs to be taught from a Christian perspective. Our children are 10, 8 and 7. When they are ready, I plan on teaching them philosophy and apologetics from a perspective that presupposes the Bible as a guide to all truth, so by the time they are ready to go out on their own, they will be prepared to think through every problem that they may face as a Christian should think, anything less than this is a disservice to God and our children.

If we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul and strength, we will obey God's commandment to teach His words to our children when we sit at home, when we walk along the road, when we lie down and when we rise up. We will tie them as a sign upon our hands and as frontlets between our eyes and write them upon the doorframes of our houses and on our gates.

So to answer your question, yes, this is a poor reflection on them and their leaders that chose not disclose this information to them.

If this sounds preachy, remember, I have to preach this to myself everyday. My wife and I see this as a sacred duty to God. Many times my wife and I have been tempted to give up and have both of us work, but knowing what we know about how the evil people that control the government education system in our country have devised plans to manipulate our children into rejecting God and His word, we are all the more adamant at staying the course and thwarting their wicked plans. If you don't believe that this is infact what is happening, all you have to do is read their writtings. Here is a reading list that catalogues these facts.

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

Any one of these books will give you a good outline about what is happening in government schools and that it is all intentional. I am not saying that everyone down the ranks knows what is going on but the actions at the top are very methodical and deliberate. All I ask is that you research this subject by reading some of these books before coming to any final conclusions.


----------



## MOSES

Answerman said:


> Homeschooling does not have to cost anything..



The average cost per year for a state school child in my area is over $7000 per child.

Note: this is not voluntary...by threat of inprisonment the local govt. takes this money from me every year per child.
--if I have 5 kids then I (in essence) have to pay $35,000 per year to educate them.

That is a lot of money.

State schooling is EXTREMELY expensive...and those parents who send thier children to state schools because it is "free" need to have thier heads examined.

Mr. "answerman" does more then speak truth when he say's "homeschooling does not have to cost anything"

Note: I live in a state that is supposedly ranked the 48th state in school funding...so my $7000 per year per child example is way low for most of you.


----------



## LadyFlynt

It is true that there are ways to homeschool even for those with next to nothing in our country. It's called "Homeschooling on a shoestring" and many people do it. I've even known families where there were family crisis of all sorts that have continued to homeschool. It's possible.


----------



## smhbbag

> As long as the PRC writes into the contract of their ministers that school tuition is waived, what is the problem? PRC families being large it would seem to save about $5-6K per year per kid. Then the problem is solved......



That would solve the problem, if a lack of funds is what caused the Pastor not to send his kids to that school.

It would not solve the problem if the Pastor simply preferred to homeschool, for whatever valid reasons of Christian liberty he had. Maybe his wife just plain enjoyed teaching at home, or they had a lot of plans for educational field trips that are not compatible with a school schedule, or he wanted them to learn subjects not available in the PRC school. There could be a dozen other reasons that are legitimate, and which one it is really doesn't matter - and most of the possible reasons contain no necessary insult to the PRC school. And I don't think he really owes anyone an answer for why he wants to homeschool, though he should probably nicely offer one without apologizing for it, as a means of keeping peace.

In summary, the PRC folks who (evidently) have their knickers in a bunch over this need to get a life.


----------



## HaigLaw

smhbbag said:


> ... the Pastor simply [may have] preferred to homeschool, for whatever valid reasons of Christian liberty he had. Maybe his wife just plain enjoyed teaching at home, or they had a lot of plans for educational field trips that are not compatible with a school schedule, or he wanted them to learn subjects not available in the PRC school. There could be a dozen other reasons that are legitimate, and which one it is really doesn't matter - and most of the possible reasons contain no necessary insult to the PRC school. And I don't think he really owes anyone an answer for why he wants to homeschool, though he should probably nicely offer one without apologizing for it, as a means of keeping peace.
> 
> In summary, the PRC folks who (evidently) have their knickers in a bunch over this need to get a life.



This is a very good point. He might even offer to help with a fundraiser for the school, or some other kind of olive branch for the people who have their shorts in a knot, without compromising his parental principles over his choice to home school.


----------



## tcalbrecht

MOSES said:


> The average cost per year for a state school child in my area is over $7000 per child.



I did some quick math and figured that we've saved our local school district about $650,000 over the course of homeschooling seven children … and not even a thank you from the school board.


----------



## SueS

tcalbrecht said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average cost per year for a state school child in my area is over $7000 per child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did some quick math and figured that we've saved our local school district about $650,000 over the course of homeschooling seven children … and not even a thank you from the school board.
Click to expand...




Of course not - that's $650,000 that the district didn't receive from the state! It's all about warm bodies in seats that bring in money - who said it was about educating the child???


----------



## HaigLaw

One of the interesting things about defending home-schooling or other private-schooling is the double standard the statists use. They want to insist upon forms of credentialism by the private competition, but they would never agree to even a nominal $50 fine for educational neglect by private or public educators.


----------



## christianyouth

Why Home Schools Are Superior to Private Schools by Gary North


----------



## Virginia Marine

Answerman said:


> Virginia Marine said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several Christian families in our church who do not have the means to either homeschool or send their kids to a Christian school. Is that a poor reflection on them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Bible commands Christians to raise our children up in the nurture and admonition or of the Lord, we were not given the qualifier, "if you can afford it."
> 
> Homeschooling does not have to cost anything. I have found enough free material online to out do any public school in terms of preparing them to live the Christian life. And even if you didn't have any material, you still have all you need to complete this God given task. All it really takes is a commitment of time spent training them in the most important aspects of life for a Christian. Throughout most of history, homeschooling was the default method for education. In most cases they were trained in the trade of the father, just like Jesus was trained in carpentry.
> 
> Our homeschool consists mostly of Bible reading and memorization, prayer, catechism, psalm singing and then the lesser things such as math, history and science and all from a Christian perspective, and yes, even math needs to be taught from a Christian perspective. Our children are 10, 8 and 7. When they are ready, I plan on teaching them philosophy and apologetics from a perspective that presupposes the Bible as a guide to all truth, so by the time they are ready to go out on their own, they will be prepared to think through every problem that they may face as a Christian should think, anything less than this is a disservice to God and our children.
> 
> If we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul and strength, we will obey God's commandment to teach His words to our children when we sit at home, when we walk along the road, when we lie down and when we rise up. We will tie them as a sign upon our hands and as frontlets between our eyes and write them upon the doorframes of our houses and on our gates.
> 
> So to answer your question, yes, this is a poor reflection on them and their leaders that chose not disclose this information to them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You're assuming that all of these families have two parents in a stable home that have all of the benefits of home schooling available to them... My intent was certaintly not to argue about the benefits of a home school education. We home schooled each of our three kids for 5 years and I would be the first to agree with the blessing that it was for our entire family. My point is that whether a family chooses to home-school, place their kids in a church sponsored Co-op educational curricullum, pay for a private Chrstian education, or even have to utilize public education; that factor alone should not be used to determine whether they are capable or qualified to serve in a church office. BTW, I have read many of the referrences you sited... Good reads. I don't think you're being "preachy", I just think you missed my point...


----------



## Pilgrim

Virginia Marine said:


> I think you have to be careful with this subject. I have attended churches (particularily OPC) where people were almost looked down upon if they didn't home-school. I have seen this subject divide churches, driving a wedge between church members. We home-schooled for several years and have been blessed in recent years to be able to pay for our kids to attend an excellent Christian School, but that in no way should define what kind of Christians my kids are or what office I can hold in the church. My wife and I lead our senior high youth group in our church and have been blessed by some of the young men and women's testimonies of being able to witness to fellow classmates in public school. There are several Christian families in our church who do not have the means to either homeschool or send their kids to a Christian school. Is that a poor reflection on them???



Good post. It does appear that the devil has used this issue to cause strife in the churches. Some homeschoolers have gone into home (or family) churches too because they can't find a "homeschooling church" i.e. one that agrees with them that it should be homeschool or the highway. (No, I am not saying a church can't meet in a home.) We can see from this issue how easy it is to fall into eisogesis and fanaticism, if not idolatry.


----------



## Answerman

Virginia Marine said:


> You're assuming that all of these families have two parents in a stable home that have all of the benefits of home schooling available to them... My intent was certaintly not to argue about the benefits of a home school education. We home schooled each of our three kids for 5 years and I would be the first to agree with the blessing that it was for our entire family. My point is that whether a family chooses to home-school, place their kids in a church sponsored Co-op educational curricullum, pay for a private Chrstian education, or even have to utilize public education; that factor alone should not be used to determine whether they are capable or qualified to serve in a church office. BTW, I have read many of the referrences you sited... Good reads. I don't think you're being "preachy", I just think you missed my point...


Ok sorry, I did miss your point. I do think that hard cases such as the ones you cited ought to have the church fund private Christian education. My point is, is that public schools should be out of the question. Some people may not agree with this strong stance but it is based on my research and I believe that I am only expounding on what I find is the Biblical view of this subject.


----------



## Pilgrim

Answerman said:


> Virginia Marine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming that all of these families have two parents in a stable home that have all of the benefits of home schooling available to them... My intent was certaintly not to argue about the benefits of a home school education. We home schooled each of our three kids for 5 years and I would be the first to agree with the blessing that it was for our entire family. My point is that whether a family chooses to home-school, place their kids in a church sponsored Co-op educational curricullum, pay for a private Chrstian education, or even have to utilize public education; that factor alone should not be used to determine whether they are capable or qualified to serve in a church office. BTW, I have read many of the referrences you sited... Good reads. I don't think you're being "preachy", I just think you missed my point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok sorry, I did miss your point. I do think that hard cases such as the ones you cited ought to have the church fund private Christian education. My point is, is that public schools should be out of the question. Some people may not agree with this strong stance but it is based on my research and I believe that I am only expounding on what I find is the Biblical view of this subject.
Click to expand...


Your point that the church should fund Christian education is well taken. Too often this necessary aspect is absent when the call for all Christians to abandon public schools is issued. It ignores the single mothers and others whose situation precludes home schooling or paying for private school.


----------



## Virginia Marine

Ok sorry, I did miss your point. I do think that hard cases such as the ones you cited ought to have the church fund private Christian education. My point is, is that public schools should be out of the question. Some people may not agree with this strong stance but it is based on my research and I believe that I am only expounding on what I find is the Biblical view of this subject.[/QUOTE]

Again, I agree fundamentally with your stance. However, remember just because a church "should" fund a private Christian education, doesn't mean they always (or even most of the time...) do...


----------



## Answerman

Just one more point of clarification. I do not think all Christian education should be funded by the church just the hard cases. The ideal situation would be that our income would not be taxed for the purpose of education in the first place. This was probably the single most serious error that the church in this country made was to find public funded education acceptable. It started us down the road to be further enslaved by evil people. I pray for the day when we the church is looked to for the education of even the unbelievers in society because of its obvious superior job at producing the best in all the fields in education. In other words,, I pray for a revival of the concept known as Christendom.


----------



## staythecourse

> This was probably the single most serious error that the church in this country made was to find public funded education acceptable.



"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" Although I do not claim to understand Christ's reasoning here since the money was going to an evil regime whose taxes bought the nails and wood for his cross, I still say let the government do what it believes is best, taxing us Christians for their own worthless schemes.



> It started us down the road to be further enslaved by evil people. I pray for the day when we the church is looked to for the education of even the unbelievers in society because of its obvious superior job at producing the best in all the fields in education. In other words,, I pray for a revival of the concept known as Christendom.



Since I am not amill, I believe this will happen during the millenial reign. I look forward to that day, too.


----------



## calgal

HaigLaw said:


> One of the interesting things about defending home-schooling or other private-schooling is the double standard the statists use. They want to insist upon forms of credentialism by the private competition, but they would never agree to even a nominal $50 fine for educational neglect by private or public educators.



 So you do not accept any schooling but home schooling? A little dose of reality. The homeschool option is not available to all families or most families. A family who has a limited educational background or who lacks the ability to be a one income family where Dad works one job and is home by 5 (In other words, daddy barely finished high school and never learned a trade). Then there are the families where dad or mom has a long term expensive severe illness (MS, MD, ALS, Cancer) where the life sustaining treatments and medications mean the healthier spouse is required to work in order to have some decent medical insurance and keep the family fed, clothed and housed. And of course there are downsized families where daddy lost his job and single parents for whatever reason (divorce, widowers and widows...). Christian schools often will offer these families scholarships or there may be a church education fund. 

The church can NOT afford to take care of these families long term so they can have the LUXURY of homeschooling. Nor SHOULD the church do so: if mom has to work at a retail or food service job for a while, then do it to the Glory of God. If the kids are in a public school, surely you can trust your teachings and your children enough to have them "in the world" for a time. If not then you have a bigger problem than "statists."


----------



## MOSES

staythecourse said:


> This was probably the single most serious error that the church in this country made was to find public funded education acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"
Click to expand...


*Education does not belong to Caesar.*

Especially for the covenant people of God. God has specific commands for the education of his children. . . And it ain't under the authority of Caesar!

Note: The pagan god "Molech" was a "caesar" (sort of speak) in ancient Israel. His name meant King..he was the head of the STATE...he was, in essence the STATE...he, as head and king, commanded that the Israelites give them their children.
God forbid this practice and called it an abomination.


----------



## MOSES

calgal said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the interesting things about defending home-schooling or other private-schooling is the double standard the statists use. They want to insist upon forms of credentialism by the private competition, but they would never agree to even a nominal $50 fine for educational neglect by private or public educators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not accept any schooling but home schooling? A little dose of reality. The homeschool option is not available to all families or most families. A family who has a limited educational background or who lacks the ability to be a one income family where Dad works one job and is home by 5 (In other words, daddy barely finished high school and never learned a trade). Then there are the families where dad or mom has a long term expensive severe illness (MS, MD, ALS, Cancer) where the life sustaining treatments and medications mean the healthier spouse is required to work in order to have some decent medical insurance and keep the family fed, clothed and housed. And of course there are downsized families where daddy lost his job and single parents for whatever reason (divorce, widowers and widows...). Christian schools often will offer these families scholarships or there may be a church education fund.
> 
> The church can NOT afford to take care of these families long term so they can have the LUXURY of homeschooling. Nor SHOULD the church do so: if mom *has to *work at a retail or food service job for a while, then do it to the Glory of God. If the kids are in a public school, surely you can trust your teachings and your children enough to have them "in the world" for a time. If not then you have a bigger problem than "statists."
Click to expand...



Could we then argue, by way of PRAGMATISM, that a single mom, who is a prostitute, can still continue to be a prostitute after becoming a Christian because that is her only option to earn a living.
Should this prostitute be allowed to be a member of a church, even though she continues in prostitution because that is her only way to earn a living and she *has to *do it to get by?

All these pragmatic "have to's" are irrelevant to the law of God.


----------



## LadyFlynt

calgal said:


> So you do not accept any schooling but home schooling? A little dose of reality. The homeschool option is not available to all families or most families. A family who has a limited educational background or who lacks the ability to be a one income family where Dad works one job and is home by 5 (In other words, daddy barely finished high school and never learned a trade). Then there are the families where dad or mom has a long term expensive severe illness (MS, MD, ALS, Cancer) where the life sustaining treatments and medications mean the healthier spouse is required to work in order to have some decent medical insurance and keep the family fed, clothed and housed. And of course there are downsized families where daddy lost his job and single parents for whatever reason (divorce, widowers and widows...).



A dose of reality...we've been in a couple of these situations and we've still managed to homeschool. I also know a woman with a husband that lost his job, ended up in jail, she's on disability (legitimately), has two autistic children, and receives no educational assistance from a church...she homeschools her children. I could list case after hard-luck case that has managed to homeschool under extreme circumstance one way or another. Some with support of family and church and some without any outside support.


----------



## MOSES

LadyFlynt said:


> A dose of reality...we've been in a couple of these situations and we've still managed to homeschool. I also know a woman with a husband that lost his job, ended up in jail, she's on disability (legitimately), has two autistic children, and receives no educational assistance from a church...she homeschools her children. I could list case after hard-luck case that has managed to homeschool under extreme circumstance one way or another. Some with support of family and church and some without any outside support.



Sounds like that woman is picking up her cross and doing what she has to do...Praise God. She is relying on the King of Kings, and not on the false gods of the state.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MOSES said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dose of reality...we've been in a couple of these situations and we've still managed to homeschool. I also know a woman with a husband that lost his job, ended up in jail, she's on disability (legitimately), has two autistic children, and receives no educational assistance from a church...she homeschools her children. I could list case after hard-luck case that has managed to homeschool under extreme circumstance one way or another. Some with support of family and church and some without any outside support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like that woman is picking up her cross and doing what she has to do...Praise God. She is relying on the King of Kings, and not on the false gods of the state.
Click to expand...


 "Put not your trust in princes".


----------



## satz

MOSES said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dose of reality...we've been in a couple of these situations and we've still managed to homeschool. I also know a woman with a husband that lost his job, ended up in jail, she's on disability (legitimately), has two autistic children, and receives no educational assistance from a church...she homeschools her children. I could list case after hard-luck case that has managed to homeschool under extreme circumstance one way or another. Some with support of family and church and some without any outside support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like that woman is picking up her cross and doing what she has to do...Praise God. She is relying on the King of Kings, and not on the false gods of the state.
Click to expand...


But God's law commands parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, it says nothing about homeschooling per se.

At present I see insufficient bible evidence to indicate it is sinful for a christian couple, or single parent to not homeschool if they are under significant pressure. They might chose to homeschool and undergo the financial hardships that come with that, or they might chose not to homeschool and work harder as parents to make sure their children are still brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord despite the school they may go to.

Going back to the example of Daniel, Daniel knew where to draw the line and what was sin - he would not eat the king's food. However, he was willing to attend Nebuchenezzar's pagan school and did not see such mere attendance as sin.


----------



## satz

LadyFlynt said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not accept any schooling but home schooling? A little dose of reality. The homeschool option is not available to all families or most families. A family who has a limited educational background or who lacks the ability to be a one income family where Dad works one job and is home by 5 (In other words, daddy barely finished high school and never learned a trade). Then there are the families where dad or mom has a long term expensive severe illness (MS, MD, ALS, Cancer) where the life sustaining treatments and medications mean the healthier spouse is required to work in order to have some decent medical insurance and keep the family fed, clothed and housed. And of course there are downsized families where daddy lost his job and single parents for whatever reason (divorce, widowers and widows...).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dose of reality...we've been in a couple of these situations and we've still managed to homeschool. I also know a woman with a husband that lost his job, ended up in jail, she's on disability (legitimately), has two autistic children, and receives no educational assistance from a church...she homeschools her children. I could list case after hard-luck case that has managed to homeschool under extreme circumstance one way or another. Some with support of family and church and some without any outside support.
Click to expand...


By the way it is not my intention to make light of the obvious sacrifices and hardships this woman must have gone through. I am sure God honors and is pleased with her faith. However without a bible command to homeschool I do not think examples like these can be used to prove that christians who make a different choice, even if it is 'easier', are in sin.


----------



## staythecourse

*Just got back from a Home School Consortium Grad Ceremony*

Full scholarship, Full Scholarship, Full scholarship,

Out of 34 grads they got $1.6 million in scholarships. That's $47,000 a pc. average.

The family and friends packed the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Chapel (my guess is 4,000 people give or take 500) 

You had the worldly (one grad chose Pink Floyd's "Money" as his theme song, and a young woman chose Lauper's "Girls just Wanna Have fun".) The only tune I recognized as somewhat Christ-honoring was "Like a Rose"

Most of the girls were going on to higher education. A couple wanted to be missionaries. One young man wanted to go to Boyce (the undergrad program at Southern) Several drama and art majors which surprised me guys and gals both. One guy had an earing. The girls were beautiful and the guys still gangly for the most part. The young man I knew was aiming for Marines and Law.

I'd say a smattering of Christianity as opposed to an overwhelming awe of Christianity. Jesus was honored in speech much more than a secular school could/would have.

An Arminian (from Southeast Baptist the megachurch) gave the message in which he said he heard from God (as he held his child and prayed for him as a tot)

So, highly educated kids no doubt. Full of themselves (as we all were as teens) and a meager "home" emphasis for the women (though one said she was looking forward to being a soccer mom. She seemed the most "healthy?" I guess in her outlook on life. Mature and joyful.) 

The gentleman who is an apparent genius in the class is going into politics.

A nice touch was that the administrator of the consortium gave the diploma to the parents who gave it to their child.

That was a mind-dump and _apropos_ for the thread.


----------



## MOSES

satz said:


> By the way it is not my intention to make light of the obvious sacrifices and hardships this woman must have gone through. I am sure God honors and is pleased with her faith. However without a bible command to homeschool I do not think examples like these can be used to prove that christians who make a different choice, even if it is 'easier', are in sin.




AMEN to "without a command" !!!

'Without a command" you do not have to repent and believe the gospel either.

Your post is exactly right in that we are not to command, as the word of God, what the word of God does not command.

My question to you is:
Do you know the word of God so thuroughly, that you know evey command of God, have studied every doctine (i.e., teaching), and you know without a doubt that "covenant education" is not commanded by God in scripture for his "covenant people'?

If I pasted a scripture right now, a clear and precise bible command, would you even believe it?
(yes...I'm sure you would)

My point is:
Just because you have not learned, studied, and seen the commands from scripture concerning "covenant education" does not make "state schooling" ok...

It may take some time to convince a coveteous person that coveting is a sin...but once you realize it, you see it in scripture, you must then obey.

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)

Note: I do not believe that I have advocating home schooling alone on this thread...I do not think I was even propogating homeschooling. (correct me if i am wrong)...my position is devotly anti state schools. 

As a matter of FACT state schooling is a communist ideal...not a biblical OPTION for Christians.


The thrust and point of this thread is displayed clearly in the quote from my normal signature line:

*Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18*

I thank the Lord that he has taught me that state schooling is sin according to his law.


----------



## calgal

back to the OP: if the church decides they want their pastor to send his kids to a Protestant Reformed Church affiliated *Christian School* as a condition of employment, there is NO Publick Skool involved, why is that a problem? Would it not be reasonable to assume that a PRC parent run school would teach about Jesus? And that as the pastor (or Dominee), the pastor is held to a different standard than some random ordinary family at church: they do live in a fishbowl. The consistory is not necessarially in the wrong in this case.


----------



## calgal

MOSES said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way it is not my intention to make light of the obvious sacrifices and hardships this woman must have gone through. I am sure God honors and is pleased with her faith. However without a bible command to homeschool I do not think examples like these can be used to prove that christians who make a different choice, even if it is 'easier', are in sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMEN to "without a command" !!!
> 
> 'Without a command" you do not have to repent and believe the gospel either.
> 
> Your post is exactly right in that we are not to command, as the word of God, what the word of God does not command.
> 
> My question to you is:
> Do you know the word of God so thuroughly, that you know evey command of God, have studied every doctine (i.e., teaching), and you know without a doubt that "covenant education" is not commanded by God in scripture for his "covenant people'?
> 
> If I pasted a scripture right now, a clear and precise bible command, would you even believe it?
> (yes...I'm sure you would)
> 
> My point is:
> Just because you have not learned, studied, and seen the commands from scripture concerning "covenant education" does not make "state schooling" ok...
> 
> It may take some time to convince a coveteous person that coveting is a sin...but once you realize it, you see it in scripture, you must then obey.
> 
> 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)
> 
> Note: I do not believe that I have advocating home schooling alone on this thread...I do not think I was even propogating homeschooling. (correct me if i am wrong)...my position is devotly anti state schools.
> 
> As a matter of FACT state schooling is a communist ideal...not a biblical OPTION for Christians.
> 
> 
> The thrust and point of this thread is displayed clearly in the quote from my normal signature line:
> 
> *Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18*
> 
> I thank the Lord that he has taught me that state schooling is sin according to his law.
Click to expand...


You have not proven that state schooling is sin. Nor have you proven that Christian Schooling (private faith based school) is sinful. So where do you see a clear mandate to NOT send your kids to state run schools?


----------



## MOSES

calgal said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way it is not my intention to make light of the obvious sacrifices and hardships this woman must have gone through. I am sure God honors and is pleased with her faith. However without a bible command to homeschool I do not think examples like these can be used to prove that christians who make a different choice, even if it is 'easier', are in sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMEN to "without a command" !!!
> 
> 'Without a command" you do not have to repent and believe the gospel either.
> 
> Your post is exactly right in that we are not to command, as the word of God, what the word of God does not command.
> 
> My question to you is:
> Do you know the word of God so thuroughly, that you know evey command of God, have studied every doctine (i.e., teaching), and you know without a doubt that "covenant education" is not commanded by God in scripture for his "covenant people'?
> 
> If I pasted a scripture right now, a clear and precise bible command, would you even believe it?
> (yes...I'm sure you would)
> 
> My point is:
> Just because you have not learned, studied, and seen the commands from scripture concerning "covenant education" does not make "state schooling" ok...
> 
> It may take some time to convince a coveteous person that coveting is a sin...but once you realize it, you see it in scripture, you must then obey.
> 
> 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)
> 
> Note: I do not believe that I have advocating home schooling alone on this thread...I do not think I was even propogating homeschooling. (correct me if i am wrong)...my position is devotly anti state schools.
> 
> As a matter of FACT state schooling is a communist ideal...not a biblical OPTION for Christians.
> 
> 
> The thrust and point of this thread is displayed clearly in the quote from my normal signature line:
> 
> *Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18*
> 
> I thank the Lord that he has taught me that state schooling is sin according to his law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that state schooling is sin. Nor have you proven that Christian Schooling (private faith based school) is sinful. So where do you see a clear mandate to NOT send your kids to state run schools?
Click to expand...



YES I KNOW...I openly admitted that in my last post, and others. I am operating in this forum on the presupposition that it IS SIN.
The same way I operate with an un-believer that there is a God...I don't stoop to the fool's folly, I operate on my own biblical convictions.

But...If I need to prove my conviction...I will.

Is this the thread for such?

I don't think so...but I will start a thread defending the truth of God's law in regards to covenant education.


----------



## staythecourse

*Your intellect will be amazing Moses*

I eagerly await.


----------



## MOSES

*Please nobody take this the wrong way.*

We currently live in a nation/world that we have to prove to others that sin is actually sin. . . .we have so fallen from the word of God that we have to prove elementary truths of the scripture to get someone to even think about the sin which they support.


----------



## MOSES

staythecourse said:


> Your intellect will be amazing Moses ...I eagerly await.


----------



## staythecourse

Glad you laughed!


----------



## HaigLaw

MOSES said:


> ... Could we then argue, by way of PRAGMATISM, that a single mom, who is a prostitute, can still continue to be a prostitute after becoming a Christian because that is her only option to earn a living.
> Should this prostitute be allowed to be a member of a church, even though she continues in prostitution because that is her only way to earn a living and she *has to *do it to get by?
> 
> All these pragmatic "have to's" are irrelevant to the law of God.



Dragging prostitution into this discussion adds nothing to the merit of the argument. 

I remember attending a home-school defense hearing back in the 80's where the prosecutor argued -- "what if the black prostitute down the street wants to home-school her kids? We have to draw the line!"

Thankfully, racism and distaste for prostitution did not prejudice my home-school client's case that time, and hopefully never will.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

seems as odd to me as those who insist that if children arent home schooled the parents are sinning.

idk. seriously id aggree that homeschooling and private "covenant" schools are better than public 98% of the time. Private schools are expensive. SO unless covenant kids get free tuiton- how are the parents gonna afford?


----------



## ModernPuritan?

i dont adhere to any book of church article, creed, confession, or even calvin simply because my daddy or my pastor told me it was true. I do my best to scrutinize every work of man according to scripture. so far ^ the above hold up extrodinarily well.
but in the end. what matters is not the words of mortal men, but what God says period(.) 

so If one can not find a direct command in scripture to send kids to a Christian School. and If one can not find a reasonable, non stretched, forced, or mis applied inference to send them to Christian school then we have NO business mandating that,


----------



## satz

MOSES said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question to you is:
> Do you know the word of God so thuroughly, that you know evey command of God, have studied every doctine (i.e., teaching), and you know without a doubt that "covenant education" is not commanded by God in scripture for his "covenant people'?
> 
> If I pasted a scripture right now, a clear and precise bible command, would you even believe it?
> (yes...I'm sure you would)
> 
> My point is:
> Just because you have not learned, studied, and seen the commands from scripture concerning "covenant education" does not make "state schooling" ok...
Click to expand...


I certainly hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I perfectly understand everything the word of God has to say. I have been wrong on subjects before and had to change my position, and I am sure I will have to do so again in the future.

That said, someone asking me ‘Are you sure….?’ is hardly a reason for me to doubt my position, especially since you declined to provide any bible verses. I have no doubt you will be able to prove the christian’s duty to make sure his or her children are brought up as Christians. I am not so sure you can prove that it is always a sin to use state schools, regardless of the circumstances of the family. I have read some other arguments by Christians on this subject, and am unconvinced.


----------



## satz

MOSES said:


> YES I KNOW...I openly admitted that in my last post, and others. I am operating in this forum on the presupposition that it IS SIN.
> The same way I operate with an un-believer that there is a God...I don't stoop to the fool's folly, I operate on my own biblical convictions.
> 
> But...If I need to prove my conviction...I will.
> 
> Is this the thread for such?
> 
> I don't think so...but I will start a thread defending the truth of God's law in regards to covenant education.



Comparing believers on this forum to unbelievers and fools is surely a little harsh when by your own admission you have not supported your position from the bible. If you have not backed up your presupposition from the bible, why exactly is it so wrong to disagree with you?


----------



## LadyFlynt

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)


----------



## MOSES

*Clarification*

*I never meant to infer that NOT homeschooling your children was a sin.* In fact, I don't think I have even been advocating homeschooling only on this thread.

I make no judgment upon anyone for *not* homeschooling their children ..."Love God and do what you want"

The clarification is this:
I am against STATE SCHOOLING...I am *not* pro homeschool only...I am anti-state schooling. I am pro covenant education.

Please don't frame me in the box of being one of those "home school fanatics"...
Again...I have not even advocated homeschooling only on this thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> 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.

Frankly, if you don't, I'll dogmatically censure you for your brash assertions in this thread and I won't back it up with a single Scripture. It will just come with the sweeping click of a mouse and all the delicateness and maturity you've demonstrated thus far.


----------



## MOSES

Semper Fidelis said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You have failed to demonstrate that your scruple is a sin for all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

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

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







against the public schools.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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

LadyFlynt said:


> 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.


----------



## LadyFlynt

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

Semper Fidelis said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

LadyFlynt said:


> 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

calgal said:


> 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.


----------



## calgal

HaigLaw said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Take a look at their website with special attention paid to education for their kids.  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.


----------



## yeutter

*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

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> 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".


----------



## LadyFlynt

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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?


----------



## RamistThomist

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

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

fredtgreco said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## fredtgreco

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

fredtgreco said:


> 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

fredtgreco said:


> 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

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

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.


----------



## RamistThomist

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

Ivanhoe said:


> 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

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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.


----------



## RamistThomist

Answerman said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## RamistThomist

> 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

MOSES said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I attend a private college, and *I am an adult - not a child* - so your comments are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Stephen said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Stephen,

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings!

Rich


----------

