Homeschooling Defined and Defended

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Why is homeschooling good? There are several reasons:

1. God commands it. Deuteronomy 6:7 says, "You shall teach them diligently to your sons 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 up." And Ephesians 6:4 says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."
2. We can teach our children what we know God wants. Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." We are to teach our children to "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut. 6:5)
3. The government schools won't be usurping our role as parents. The above verses are addressed to parents, more specifically, fathers. We cannot pass the responsibility on to someone else, be it a godly person or the ungodly state. We are responsible for whatever they are taught.

What is homeschooling?
It is educating our children. What does 'educate' mean? Educate means, according to the New Merriam-Webster dictionary, to develop mentally and morally. The Greeks had another word for educate, paideia. The word paideia is found in Ephesians 6:4, as "nurture" or "instruction". Paideia was used by the ancient Greeks to define the whole of education, the totality of life. Walking, talking, baking bread, reading, listening to music, writing, everything is education. You learn something from everything. We teach our children the fear of the Lord through everything that we do.

Our goal in homeschooling (education) is to bring our children up in the fear of the Lord. There are 3 common objections to this goal. The first is, government schools are capable, and/or I can counteract their influence. Second, I'm not equipped to teach my children. The third objection, my goal is to bring up a doctor, or a lawyer. I seek to address these objections in this thread. I ask that any who believe that they are correct to feel free to object some more. I am quite certain that truth will prevail on this issue. If I am incorrect in any area, I welcome rebuke and exhortation based on Scripture. If you cannot hold it up to Scripture, I'm afraid that I cannot accept your viewpoint as correct.

The first objection: Government ("public") Schools are Capable
Otherwise known as the "I can counteract their influence" argument, this is used quite frequently, and also with little thought. Let's set this up. Why do we have government schools? To educate children. Given: education includes everything about life. Given: government schools seek to educate. Therefore, government schools attempt to teach our children about everything. Given: the state is not Christ-centered. Therefore, the state will teach our children humanism (the religion of America's schools). How are they capable of bringing our children up in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" if they teach humanism? They are not able. The state is humanist and liberal- the proof of this is in our very own children that walk out of the school's doors to a life that is hopeless and ambition-driven. Kill the babies and the old people, they just get in our way. That is the result of a humanist indoctrination station teaching our kids that they evolved from monkeys and that human life isn't valuable. But I digress. This is an entire other paper. The point is this: government schools teach humanism, not Christ. If they teach this to our children for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, and we attempt to counteract this with Sunday school, does anyone really believe it will work? Obviously, the Holy Spirit cannot be quenched by government schools, but why would you even want to send them there? We don't want to get as close to the line of impurity as possible! It is the equivalent of saying,"Hey, kids! It's time to go play with Eminem and Brittany now! And guess what? Later tonight, we'll read this great story about Jonah!" And when they're teens, the kids'll say,"No way, old man. I'm out. I got stuff to do." Where will they be? Not anywhere safe, I can assure you of that. Some of you, I'm sure, will attempt to raise the objection that schools are a mission field. Go ahead. I don't have room to address that here. We'll have to speak to that later. And don't even try that, "you're sheltering them" stuff. All I have to say to that is, what will you accuse me of next? Feeding and clothing them?

The Second Objection: I'm Not Equipped.
This objection is quickly answered. God would not abandon us to do something that is not in our power to do. It is not a hard thing to teach a child to read. If you know how to read, you can teach your child how to read. Why do we teach our children to read? So that they can read the Bible. If reading the Bible is your ultimate goal, you are already more equipped than the government schools, since they do not seem to be able to teach reading. Reading the Bible is a necessity (foundational. Not to say that math isn't godly. Math is a side issue comparatively). Why do we teach our children to behave in a manner worthy of the gospel? So that they can be an example to others. Philippians 2:15 says, "Do all things without grumbling or disputing, so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation among whom you appear as lights in the world." Our behavior teaches our children how to behave. Behavior is a little bit harder to teach, but you have the best teacher yourself-God. This objection really goes along with the next one, which is….

The Third Objection: I'm Raising Up a Lawyer
Some take issue with this statement, saying that they want their children to be church members. You know, the ones that tithe, sing in the choir, and teach Sunday school. Isn't that the goal? May it never be! Granted, these things can be good. But the goal of home education is to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That doesn’t mean smart kids, even though they will be (the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, Proverbs 1:7). That means children who obey the law of the Lord and love Him with all their hearts, minds, souls, and strength. And that takes knowing His law, which in turn takes being able to read it.

Three things God does not say:
- "Lookee, Joe. Here's this kid. You take care of 'em. I want them to be a lawyer and go to a Baptist church."
- "I'm gonna loan you this kid for a while. Homeschool them so they'll be smarter than anyone else."
- "Put this kid in public school so that he can 'take the school for Christ'. Don't worry, it's where I want him. You couldn't do it anyway."

God has explicitly commanded parents (fathers, actually, but that's another paper too) to teach their children at home. Do not send them off on the prison bus to the church of the state!


Things related that I'd be happy to refute and/or debate:
Socialization
Curriculum (not necessarily bad)
Private schools
"Christian" schools
Feminism
Federal headship (yay!)
Culture
Why the government is teaching illegally

[Bartholomew]

Welcome to TWEB! I hope more enthusiastic (sic) posters join this thread.

For starters, I attended a Christian private school for seven years and I do not see how the verses you listed were violated in the process. Even though I spent a good deal of time at school, I also spent a decent amount of time with my parents most nights of the week at dinner and on the weekends as well. I have learned from them what I could about God, although most of my studies and spiritual life have come from Church and other Christians my age.

I don't see why it would be necessary to homeschool children, since I don't read that in any of the verses you mentioned. Must a child stay at home in order for them to receive the education that you promote (which I am not denying)?

~Matt

[Patroclus]

"You shall teach them diligently to your sons 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 up." And Ephesians 6:4 says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."

How does this negate the influence of outside forces? Do you know anything about the society at the time this was written? They would learn as a community. Paul was a man educated at the most important pharisaical school in Tarsus. These verse are about responsible parenting, not educational philosophy.

according to the New Merriam-Webster dictionary

Homeschoolers really like to use Websters, probably because Webster was a Christian, and his definitions have a Christian bent. However, that bias is what makes Websters an unreliable source. Always check definitions from Webster against the OED.

Why do we have government schools? To educate children. Given: education includes everything about life.

Always simultaneously?

Given: government schools seek to educate. Therefore, government schools attempt to teach our children about everything.

No, they seek to teach academics (a good school anyway). With this logic, everytime you teach your kid how to bake a cake, you are teaching them a little something about nuclear physics.

Given: the state is not Christ-centered. Therefore, the state will teach our children humanism (the religion of America's schools).

Humanism is not a religion. It invloves no ritual, no necessary morality, no organization and no creed.

This objection is quickly answered. God would not abandon us to do something that is not in our power to do. It is not a hard thing to teach a child to read. If you know how to read, you can teach your child how to read. Why do we teach our children to read? So that they can read the Bible.

What if you can't read? Should your children be just as illiterate as you? This is a pretty terrible way to manage a child's education. If you can't read, then you can't teach your child everything about life. If you do not know nuclear physics, you can't teach your children everything about life. That is the tricky thing with the words "totality" and "everything." If you are going to use it like you did earler Paideia was used by the ancient Greeks to define the whole of education, the totality of life. Walking, talking, baking bread, reading, listening to music, writing, everything is education. You learn something from everything.

Some take issue with this statement, saying that they want their children to be church members. You know, the ones that tithe, sing in the choir, and teach Sunday school. Isn't that the goal? May it never be! Granted, these things can be good. But the goal of home education is to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That doesn’t mean smart kids, even though they will be (the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, Proverbs 1:7). That means children who obey the law of the Lord and love Him with all their hearts, minds, souls, and strength. And that takes knowing His law, which in turn takes being able to read it.

Okay, first of all, wehn you say, "May it never be, "it sounds like you are trying to sound like Paul in his letter to the Romans.

So, you do not think that children should be smart if the parents aren't smart? Are you afraid that your children will pass you intelectually? Basically, it sounds to me anyway, you would prefer a race of people who spiraled into further and further stupidity. What do you think of college?

I don't mean any disrespect, but it is this kind of rhetoric that gives homeschoolers a bad name. I was homeschooled for eleven years, and I just graduated (yesterday, in fact) with honors, with a B.A. in English Literature. I doubt that it is against God's plan that I be educated. I know where I benefitted from homeschooling, and where it hindered me.

I know some terrible parents that should NEVER homeschool. What do you say about abusive parents?

[Eglerio_i_hir]

I will address both posts (InquisitorKind and Patroclus) in this post.

Matt:
Thanks for the warm welcome! I hope I can answer your questions sufficiently.

- How do Christian private schools violate these verses?
The model of a Christian private school is not necessarily unbiblical--but only if the parents are the primary educators. The issue is how much time is spent being taught by someone other than the parents, and whether or not the parents are wrongly delegating their authority. My personal issue with Christian schools is that most are "Christian". They are schools that are very nominal and doctrinally unsound. And the parents aren't in charge of their children's education! They give them over to Evanjellyfish "Christians" (thanks to www.highlandsstudycenter.org for this term!).
If there was a school (I know of a few) that met one or two times a week to teach higher math or science that might be acceptable. But, I'm on dangerous ground with that, considering the fact that there is no such example anywhere in the Bible.
The optimal model for education is having a community of believers close by that would be happy to teach your child (one-on-one) the things in which they show an interest.

- Why is it necessary to homeschool children?
You said, "Must a child stay at home in order for them to receive the education that you promote (which I am not denying)?"
Yes. Check out my first post.

Does that help any?

Patroclus:
Interesting logic. I have some interesting logic of my own. I realized that my argument concerning government schools and education was not argued clearly enough. I will fix it.

- "How does this negate the influence of outside forces?"
You cannot totally negate the influence of outside forces, ever. However, if your children are homeschooled according to Biblical standards, and you do not watch the idiot box, you will greatly reduce that influence.
- Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 are speaking about responsible parenting and not educational philosophy.
First, I am aware of the believing community in Acts. Also, your point concerning Paul is not valid, seeing as he was brought up to be a non-believer.
My point was and is that "responsible parenting" and "educational philosophy" go hand in hand. Part of being a responsible (Biblical!!) parent is educating your children according to Scripture. And Scripture says, teach your kids the fear of the Lord!
- Webster's Dictionary is biased
I've actually never heard this, and I didn't know until 1 week ago that he was a Christian. The only reason I use that dictionary is because it's on my desk. But, since he's "biased", here's a definition of "educate" from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "To stimulate or develop the mental or moral growth of." The goal of "education" is to make the children cultured. Culture is defined as, "Totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought." (also from the AHD). I looked online at about 10 different dictionaries (not Webster's), and the majority included morals or culture in the definition. Those that did not merely said, "to teach or train", or something like it. The question is, to teach them what? You cannot separate academics from culture or morals (more on this later).
- "Why do we have government schools? To educate children. Given: education includes everything about life." Always simultaneously?
I didn't quite understand the question. But, here's the more clear logical argument concerning government schools and education:
If: everything that is learned is learned through education,
If: everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory,
If: We see that everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory by learning,
Then: education must be God-centered.
Anyone who does not realize this cannot educate correctly. They are lacking.
- Humanism isn't a religion.
I beg to differ. From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "a belief system based on the principle that people's spiritual and emotional needs can be fulfilled without following a god or religion"
You cannot separate academics from morals. It is impossible. See logic above.
The attempt to do so is humanism, and it is a religion.
- What if you can't read?
This argument is based upon the assumption that law should be made from the exceptions. You don't go to the exception to determine the rule.
- "wehn[sic] you say, "May it never be, "it sounds like you are trying to sound like Paul in his letter to the Romans."
I wasn't trying to sound like Paul, I think it's funny and very good when Paul says that, and what's wrong with trying to sound like Paul anyway?
- "So, you do not think that children should be smart if the parents aren't smart? Are you afraid that your children will pass you intelectually[sic]?"
That is not what I said, neither is it what I believe. I hope with everything that my children will be more sanctified than I, and also that they will be more intelligent. BUT, the foundation and indeed, ultimate goal of education is to bring children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord! To teach them the mind of Christ comes first, everything else is but a side note. If I die after I teach my children the mind of Christ, then I will have accomplished my goal. If they have that, they will have a desire to learn everything they can about the Lord.
- What do you think about college?
I'm hesitant to say, only because my radical views would probably cause a side debate to confuse the issue of homeschooling that we are here attempting to discuss. Therefore, I will give my opinion, you can see if it's Biblical, and then if you want to discuss it more, you may certainly start a new thread. I do not feel that it would be best to discuss it further here.
I believe that, Biblically (not using exception to make law):
1. "Higher education" for the sake of higher education is unbiblical, whether it be man or woman.
2. Higher education for the sake of glorifying God is Biblical.
3. College is used by men as a means for gaining a tentmaking skill.
4. Girls do not have a need for college, and it only serves to impede their pursuit of purity in Christ. If a woman's role is in the home (it is--see Paul's letters), and college helps her in that role, then college is acceptable.
"For me, the honor of taking dominion and fighting this spiritual battle means having lots of beautiful babies, rocking them to sleep, changing their diapers, feeding them three well-balanced meals a day, teaching them God’s law through Bible reading, catechisms, hymn singing and church involvement, reading them lots of stories, kissing their owies, disciplining them when they disobey, teaching them to read good books, instilling an awe in them for God’s creation, teaching both my daughters and sons to cook, reminding them constantly to prefer one another above themselves, talking with them all day long about every imaginable subject, modeling obedience and love before them in my marriage to my wonderful husband and daily sacrificing my desires while serving my family. Did college teach me how to do any of these things? Nope." --Carmon Friedrich, mother of 10

- What about abusive parents?
Again, using the exception to dictate the rule is not acceptable practice. Obviously, none of this applies to non-Christians. No true Christian parent would abuse his or her child.

I trust that this answers your questions.

P.S. The problem I have with these posts is that neither one of you used Scripture to back your arguments. Could we remedy that, please? I would appreciate it.

[Bartholomew]

Yesterday @ 11:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93896#post93896)
Eglerio_i_hir:

Yes. Check out my first post.
Okay, will do. I'll check again before responding.

P.S. The problem I have with these posts is that neither one of you used Scripture to back your arguments. Could we remedy that, please? I would appreciate it.
I didn't feel that what you said was supported enough by Scripture. We can remedy that (well, I guess I could remedy that...I can't speak for anyone else). If you'd like me to discuss why I don't think those verses support your argument, let me know.

~Matt

[Socrates]

Eglerio_i_hir is correct to advocate home education, and for the right reason. "The fear of the Lord" is the beginning of true wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10). Therefore a godless State School system is flawed right at the outset by denying this implicitly even if if doesn't say so explicitly.

Actually, there is quite a good discussion on homeschooling in the thread » Main Campus » Political Science Dept. » Homeschoolers not impressed with new tv sitcom (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87664#post87664).

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Matt:
I would like to hear why you think those verses do not apply. Thanks.

Socrates:
Thank you for the support, and the link.

[Patroclus]

your point concerning Paul is not valid, seeing as he was brought up to be a non-believer.

It is absolutely valid if you are citing Old Testament Scripture. Paul was taught to Love God and live by the Torah, just like his predecessors in Biblical times.

- "Why do we have government schools? To educate children. Given: education includes everything about life." Always simultaneously?
I didn't quite understand the question.

In other words, what you were saying is that all of education occurs simultaneously (at the same time). I am asking if this is necessarily true. Must there be a moral lesson involved in car repair?

If: everything that is learned is learned through education,
If: everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory,
If: We see that everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory by learning,
Then: education must be God-centered.

Improper syllogism (http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/syllogism.html)--too many premeses.

If: everything that is learned is learned through education,

One does not learn through education. To learn is to be educated. To be educated is to learn. These are parallel terms unless you are talking about a formal or structured education. This is not a given until your terms are defined and agreed upon. I do not agree that all education must occur simultaneously.

I'll conceed to your second premise as a given.

If: We see that everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory by learning,

Ths is not very well worded. I am not sure what you are saying. The premise is not given.

I am glad to see that you are using the American Heritage Dictionary.

- Humanism isn't a religion.
I beg to differ. From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "a belief system based on the principle that people's spiritual and emotional needs can be fulfilled without following a god or religion"

Look at the the definition closely--"without following a....religion." Like I said, there is no ritual, creed or leadership, only belief. Belief is not religion. You believe that washing machines exist. But that is hardly a religion of washing machines.

You cannot separate academics from morals. It is impossible. See logic above.
The attempt to do so is humanism, and it is a religion.


The logic is currently invalid, and the statement about humanism is not proven. Therefore, I do not believe it is impossible to separate academics from morals.

1. "Higher education" for the sake of higher education is unbiblical, whether it be man or woman.

If you mean that it is unbiblical according to your previous logic, I think you need better support.

3. College is used by men as a means for gaining a tentmaking skill.

Fallacious--hasty generalization

it only serves to impede their pursuit of purity in Christ.

Also a hasty generalization

If a woman's role is in the home (it is--see Paul's letters),

The very fact that this issue is continually debated means that this is a personal opinion, whether right or wrong. I happen to find fifty percent of the following quote that you gave very distrubing. But, I do not want to get too side-tracked on this issue.

Again, using the exception to dictate the rule is not acceptable practice.

I know you made a similar point earlier. But I want to say that it is a good one. What I wanted to know is what should be done about a child in an abusive family? What if the child is a Christian? I am not trying to change the rule. What I am saying is that I think your "rule" is not universal, and therefore no rule at all. You are not saying, "In general, parents should homeschool their children." You are making an absolute statment, given that we are discussing Christian parents.

P.S. The problem I have with these posts is that neither one of you used Scripture to back your arguments. Could we remedy that, please? I would appreciate it.

So far, I have not made a positive argument. Therefore, using scripture would be impossible at best, and pointless at worst. All I have done is ask questions and debunk your logic and eisogetical interpretation of the scriptures.

Again, I am not opposed to homeschooling. However, I am opposed to this kind of marketing for homeschooling.

[Socrates]

Eglerio_i_hir

If: everything that is learned is learned through education,
If: everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory,
If: We see that everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory by learning,
Then: education must be God-centered.

Patroclus:Improper syllogism--too many premeses.Oh please. Who said this was a syllogism? A valid argument can have as many premises as it needs. So please try to deal with the logical validity or the truth of the premises, rather than counting them.

In any case, I have argued for the conclusion from Scripture.

[Vorkosigan]

Did college teach me how to do any of these things? Nope."

Was it supposed to? That's like criticizing my dog because it can't cook dinner or grade my students' homework.

Vorkosigan

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Patroclus:

Refute my arguments with Scripture, if you can. If you cannot, I have no need for your logic. We have all strayed too far from determining fact by Scripture. Human logic does not dictate truth--Scripture does. After we all agree that Scripture tells us to homeschool, then we can decide the pragmatics of that using Scripture and some logic. Until, then, no more.

[Patroclus]

Oh please. Who said this was a syllogism? A valid argument can have as many premises as it needs. So please try to deal with the logical validity or the truth of the premises, rather than counting them.


My mistake, Socrates. In the context, I thought that is what she was trying to do.

Eglerio_i_hir:Refute my arguments with Scripture, if you can. If you cannot, I have no need for your logic. We have all strayed too far from determining fact by Scripture. Human logic does not dictate truth--Scripture does. After we all agree that Scripture tells us to homeschool, then we can decide the pragmatics of that using Scripture and some logic. Until, then, no more.

You are pretensious, aren't you?

I think, then, we need to clear something up. Do you, or do you not, believe that all action requires a prior mandate from scripture?

Also, you have yet you have yet to prove how your scripture mandates homeschooling. You merely quoted them with no explanation whatsoever, and said that they mandate homeschooling.

I'll start using scripture when you start.

[John Reece]

Eglerio_i_hir,

Welcome to TWeb!

Blessings upon you, your family, and the school in your home.

Our daughters went to public school. While our youngest was in high school, we learned what she was being taught, saw the fruits of it in her peers, and as a result all our 7 grandchildren are being home-schooled.

The fruit of the latter is precious to behold.

[Patroclus]

Socrates:
Oh, please make your attributions clearer.

Sort of like that? I tend to forget.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

John Reece:

Thank you for the welcome and the prayed blessings- although the last upon the school in my home should be in future tense.
I went to government school as well, and am still reeling from the effects on my mind and conscience. It is a wonderful thing to see those who have never set foot in the door of such a school.

[John Reece]

Today @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96063#post96063)
Eglerio_i_hir:

John Reece:

Thank you for the welcome and the prayed blessings- although the last upon the school in my home should be in future tense.
I went to government school as well, and am still reeling from the effects on my mind and conscience. It is a wonderful thing to see those who have never set foot in the door of such a school.

Ah, so, blessings for the future as well!

:thumb:

[Hadassah]

Eglerio,

First of all, I would like to say I think you are doing an excellent job. :thumb: Keep it up.

Let me preface everything I say with this: we are here to discuss Scripture. In this thread, Eglerio has made it clear that the Word of God is her source. Scripture alone dictates how we think and what we do, so let it alone be the standard by which we judge the content of each other’s arguments.

What is education? Well, what does the Bible have to say?

1.“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Fear of the Lord is not part of knowledge; an important component to make sure is included in a child’s life or curriculum. That is, all that we learn is to flow from a fear of the Lord. Paul says that we are to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:5). This is not simply saying that some thoughts (e.g. sinful thoughts) are to be taken to the Lord to be handled. He says that all of our thoughts are to be prisoners of Christ alone. What we learn is intended to make us think, to engage our minds. If what we are learning is not being taken captive to the obedience of Christ, if it does not originate from a fear of the Lord, then it is not worth knowing. In short, Jesus tells us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). If we are to love the Lord with all our mind, whatever we put into it and how we engage it must be to His glory and in accordance with His truth.

2. So, exactly what knowledge does the Bible mandate parents to teach their children?
•Deuteronomy 6: 4-5:“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons 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 up.”
•Psalm 78:4-7: “We will not conceal them from their children, but tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and His strength and His wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob. And appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers that they should teach them to their children, that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they may arise and tell them to their children. That they should put their confidence in God and not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments”.
•Proverbs 4:1-5: “Hear, O sons, the instruction of a father, and give attention that you may gain understanding, for I give you sound teaching; Do not abandon my instruction. When I was a son to my father, tender and the only son in the sight of my mother, then he taught me and said to me, ‘Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live; Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth’”.
The Bible overwhelmingly commands parents to teach their children the commandments of the Lord. There is no mentioning of any other purpose or particulars of education except the one: to raise children of God. This is what they are to learn, this is why they are to learn.

3. In what manner are we to teach them? If we understand that all knowledge will come from a fear of God and is to His glory, and if we understand that the purpose of educating them is to raise up children of God, in what ways should we do that? In Deuteronomy 6, we are commanded to teach our children “diligently”. In the context, this is described as literally teaching them day and night, whatever you do, in all things.
Paul also commands fathers to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (NASB). Some versions are different: “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (KJV); “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (NIV). In any case, this is Paul telling us how to raise our children, and the Greek word that Paul uses here was chosen with intent: it was meant to strike a chord with his audience. The word paideia that he uses was a word that had evolved in Greek society. Loosely translated, it means “education”. But to the Greeks, it was much more than the modern definition of the term. In Homeric Greece, the term didn’t exist. Culture and “education” were simply passed down by means of social status; so you learned traditions and customs. The Sophists challenged this and developed the idea that culture can be passed down through learning. So, what paideia meant to the Greeks was raising up a child in the whole sense of the word; not merely teaching academics or morals, but teaching them how to think and be. It included every aspect of their life – culturally, politically, academically, physically, intellectually and spiritually. When Paul instructs fathers to raise them up in the paideia of the Lord, he is telling parents to educate their children to think and be as unto the Lord. That is, Paul is telling fathers that a child’s education is to learn how to think and be children of God. So, a child’s education cannot be found in a classroom. Parents are charged to diligently teach their children about the Lord with respect to all things, at all times during the day, doing all types of things. This is their education.

What does the modern age offer us in order to carry that out? Three options: homeschooling, public schooling, or private schooling.

Public schooling: This is easy. As Socrates said, a government school system that denies the fear of God as the beginning of knowledge is incompetent before we even look at the flawed curriculum it teaches.

Private schooling: To whom a child’s education is entrusted is explicit: the father and mother. Assuming there is an excellent private Christian school out there for our children, it would still be passing on a large portion of the educational responsibilities to a third party (some may call it a "division of labor"). This is simply not anywhere in the Bible. The Bible, does not, however, condemn outside supplemental resources for educating our children. In fact, community is stressed throughout the Bible. Each member of the body of Christ has certain valuable gifts, and if it would further our children’s understanding of Him and empower them to further His kingdom to receive some instruction from others in math, Bible, logic, history, etc., then let’s have it! What a glorious thing to see our children grow in the Lord! We desire them to be godly men and women and strong disciples of the Lord, and allowing as many resources to contribute to that as possible is an important thing. The point remains, though. Parents are the educators; everything else is supplemental, peripheral. If parents could utilize private schools within those boundaries, then wonderful. But sending children to a school Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. is in no way “supplemental”.

Homeschooling: Just looking at the nature of knowledge, the particular knowledge parents are commanded to teach and the ways in which they are to teach it, it is rather obvious that homeschooling is the method by which these things are best accomplished. Parents are with children all day, doing all sorts of things, committing their time to the children, instilling in them the knowledge that God has commanded parents to teach, raising them up as unto the Lord.

Eglerio, are there some more points to be made? (And btw, when can we start using first names?) :smile:

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Sister Hadassah,

Well said. I agree completely.

We can start using first names any time you like.

[Socrates]

Eglerio_i_hir and Hadassah are certainly starting from the right foundation, Scripture. It would be interesting to see Christians justify -- on biblical rather than ostensibly pragmatic grounds -- sending their kids to humanist-dominated government schools.

[John Reece]

Yes, that would be interesting.

[Bartholomew]

Eglerio_i_hir,

Sorry for not responding earlier, as I just finished moving out of college for the summer this week; I have been quite busy.

I'm still trying to finish up remarks for the second round in my debate on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so I will return to this thread when I get a chance. First, I want to say that I don't hold reservations about not sending children to a state school. I am primarly out to explore your reasoning behind why Christian Schools are violating your provide verses (and since you have provided some reasoning already, I will be interacting with those remarks when the time comes).

Anyway, I must go. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring you.

Sorry for the delay,
~Matt

[Patroclus]

-Hadassah
Let me preface everything I say with this: we are here to discuss Scripture. In this thread, Eglerio has made it clear that the Word of God is her source. Scripture alone dictates how we think and what we do, so let it alone be the standard by which we judge the content of each other’s arguments.


The point is that IK already questioned the validity of the scriptures that Eglerio used as "proofs." She was asked to explain, but she didn't. Also, it is quite clear that Scripture is not her only source because she continually tried to use logical arguments by piecing together concepts in assorted verses--proof-texting. It is almost like if I were to pull out scripture verses to say this:

1. Go wants us to follow the prophets
2. David was a prophet -- at least he prophesied
3. David rejoiced in smashing the children of his adversaries
4. We should also smash the children of our adversaries and rejoice.

Of course, Eglerio's proof-texting was far less rediculous, but you get the point of the problem with such a hermeneutical approach. It is not sound.

-Socrates
It would be interesting to see Christians justify -- on biblical rather than ostensibly pragmatic grounds -- sending their kids to humanist-dominated government schools.

Look at Egerio's arguments again. The verses that she gives do not mandate homeschooling per se, but they do discuss responsible parenting.The crux of her argument is, if it isn't expressly written in the Bible, she won't do it.

-Eglerio
If there was a school (I know of a few) that met one or two times a week to teach higher math or science that might be acceptable. But, I'm on dangerous ground with that, considering the fact that there is no such example anywhere in the Bible.

This is unreasonable. How many daily activities shall we not participate in simply because it is not expressly mentioned in the Bible?

Eglerio is using scripture improperly. That has been my point all along. I am not quoting scripture because I won't find one to support process, neither will she. However, there is a certain amount of logic that even she uses, and she must acknowledge it. Her scriptures do not support her points.

[Patroclus]

Once again, I am not advocating government schools. However, I am challenging what I see as an irresponsible use of scripture.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Patroclus:
If you are displeased with the manner in which I argue, then that is fine with me. However, you cannot possibly argue that Hadassah is arguing incorrectly, and she has argued well. Everything that she has said is correct and Biblical.
The problem I have with your posts is that you insist on arguing the means of the arguments instead of the conclusion, which is homeschooling. Our arguments are Biblical. Our conclusion is Biblical, too, and we want to know what you think about it. That's the point of this thread. We would like to discuss the content of our posts, not the way in which we write them.
If you would like to discuss the "Biblical way to argue", you can always start your own thread. If you are not willing to argue the conclusion and stop arguing about the way in which we argue, then please stop posting on my thread. Thank you.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Hey, Matt!
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

[Patroclus]

Well, the method by which you argue is what brings you to your conclusion. Your conclusion is not "homeschooling," but that homeschooling is the only correct method of education for Christian parents to assume.

I did not bother to comment on Hadassah's arguments because they posses the same weakness as yours. The strength of her argument, rather, is in the philosophy. The end of Hadassah's scriptural strength is point one. She makes a very good point. The rest is uncovincing proof-texting. I think that the core of Hadassah's argument is, for the most part, valid. But, I do not think it is entirely correct. The argument could be two-thirds shorter, and could avoid the proof-texting.

Her philosophy is fine if one is to assume that it is the full responsibility of the parents to educate their children. I do not believe that particular viewpoint is correct. I see the point that she is making in the scriptures she cites. But I find her reasoning unconvincing.

I am not trying to discuss "the biblical way to argue." I am merely making a point that you, personally, are doing a poor job of arguing a pre-conceived theology. It is my opinion that you are reading into the text and assuming a necessary inaction due to a lack of direct mention in the scriptures. Your method is important because it is your flawed method that leads you to your flawed conclusion. It appears that you are approaching the scripture with a pre-conceived notion of the evils of public education, and ramrodding that view through the scriptures to make them say what you want.

You are asking me to use the same methods you use to argue for or against your points. However, you do not want me to question the methods. Surely, you must know that the methods of any thesis have to be called into question.

If I wanted to criticize homeschooling, and, in my study, completely neglected to include home school families, wouldn't any conclusion that I came to be held suspect because of the method?

You are asking me to analyze your thesis, but not the means by which you came to your thesis. I am not opposed to using scripture, and I do it quite a bit. However, I do oppose innapropriate use of scripture.

[Socrates]

Socrates

It would be interesting to see Christians justify -- on biblical rather than ostensibly pragmatic grounds -- sending their kids to humanist-dominated government schools.

Patroclus:Look at Egerio's arguments again. The verses that she gives do not mandate homeschooling per se, but they do discuss responsible parenting.The crux of her argument is, if it isn't expressly written in the Bible, she won't do it.I didn't see it what way. Rather, I see that there is a positive case for home schooling and against government schooling. It's not so much that government schooling is not mentioned in the Bible, but that this is NOT founded on the "Fear of the LORD" so the wisdom and knowledge imparted is false. And parental education IS clearly mandated in the Bible.

[SinnerRedeemed]

I am sorry to say I would have to agree with Socrates here for the most part. While both Hadassah and Eglerio have fairly solid arguments for homeschooling, it is dangerous to say that because homeschooling is the only thing specifically mentioned in the Bible, everything else is unbiblical. This is similar, of course on a much more important scale, to the fact that since the use of automobiles is not specifically mentioned in the Bible we should thus not use them. Although we are not to be "of" the world, we must be "in" the world until the proper time. This is all not to say that I do not personally believe homeschooling to be the BEST method presently. My contention is with the conclusion that it is the ONLY practical and theoretical method.

[SinnerRedeemed]

What I meant to say is that I agree with Patroclus for the most part, however I think that Socrates makes an excellent point. It might be helpful if you girls cleared up the matter of whether or not you think that anything not directly stated in the Bible is unbiblical.

Thanks! Sorry for the confusion.

[Patroclus]

-Socrates
It's not so much that government schooling is not mentioned in the Bible, but that this is NOT founded on the "Fear of the LORD" so the wisdom and knowledge imparted is false. And parental education IS clearly mandated in the Bible.

I agree with this concept: so reasonable, so clear, so concise.

-SR
It might be helpful if you girls cleared up the matter of whether or not you think that anything not directly stated in the Bible is unbiblical.

Ditto

[Solly]

05-14-2003 @ 02:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95654#post95654)
Eglerio_i_hir:

Patroclus:

Refute my arguments with Scripture, if you can. If you cannot, I have no need for your logic. We have all strayed too far from determining fact by Scripture. Human logic does not dictate truth--Scripture does. After we all agree that Scripture tells us to homeschool, then we can decide the pragmatics of that using Scripture and some logic. Until, then, no more.

Just a small point, but if you look into the society in which Jesus grew up, his homeschooling would have involved learning his father's trade. His other schooling would have been the local synagogue, in which he was taught scripture by the Rabbi.

Secondly, Christians broadly invented the public schooling system, certainly in Britain, whre it grew out of the parish and charity schools.

Thirdly, IMHO, by the logic applied here, all parents must also learn medicine rather than send their children to godless doctors educated by atheist science; and then they should go on to work for a Christian company, just to avoid any more "bad" influences".

Forthly, it is interesting that in your opening post, your raison d'etre for homeschoolong comes from OT texts, while you "have a go" at doubters out of the New.

Fifthly, considering the fact that there is no such example anywhere in the Bible is a very bad principle to operate on. there are no federal governments, computers, cars, Hershey bars or much else in the bible, does this mean Christians should have nothing to do with them?

This kind of post from Hadasseh
1.“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Fear of the Lord is not part of knowledge; an important component to make sure is included in a child’s life or curriculum. That is, all that we learn is to flow from a fear of the Lord. Paul says that we are to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:5). This is not simply saying that some thoughts (e.g. sinful thoughts) are to be taken to the Lord to be handled. He says that all of our thoughts are to be prisoners of Christ alone. What we learn is intended to make us think, to engage our minds. If what we are learning is not being taken captive to the obedience of Christ, if it does not originate from a fear of the Lord, then it is not worth knowing. In short, Jesus tells us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). If we are to love the Lord with all our mind, whatever we put into it and how we engage it must be to His glory and in accordance with His truth.

Raises the issue that many have with Home schooling, that one can educate one's child to be a Christian.And I notice Hadasseh can only use OT texts also, which have a bearing on the Jewish covenant community and it's role in salvation history.

It is one thing to say, let's only debate texts, it is another things to actually find and use said texts correctly.

That being said, if you wish to home school do so, but I am personally offended when I come accross material that implies I am niether a good parent nor a good Christian because I send my children to the state schools.

[Socrates]

Solly:Thirdly, IMHO, by the logic applied here, all parents must also learn medicine rather than send their children to godless doctors educated by atheist science; and then they should go on to work for a Christian company, just to avoid any more "bad" influences".This is a caricature of the pro-home-schooling position. Neither of these specious analogies specifically deal with children. The point is that parents have a duty to educate their children, not throw them out to a place where God is excluded from the learning process for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. Working at a non-christian company is hardly analogous, especially as there is nothing in the bible against it, as opposed to the clear Biblical statements that parents and not the government are supposed to educate your children. And bad influences are far more powerful against children than adults.

Solly:That being said, if you wish to home school do so, but I am personally offended when I come accross material that implies I am niether a good parent nor a good Christian because I send my children to the state schools.Don't get so defensive! How about dealing with the Biblical issues? No one was attacking you. But it would be a shame if people on TWeb can't state their convictions that we should educate children in a system where the fear of the LORD really is the beginning of the wisdom and knowledge taught, for fear of offending parents who disagree. And it is also fair dinkum to compare sending kids to state schools with the Israelites sending the kids to the Philistine idolators for their "secular education" since they had the best metalworking.

[Solly]

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101088#post101088)
Socrates:

The point is that parents have a duty to educate their children, not throw them out to a place where God is excluded from the learning process for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.

God is everywhere. is he not with your in the place your are? Since when do we send our children out unprotected? Now who's being unBiblical.

Working at a non-christian company is hardly analogous, especially as there is nothing in the bible against it, as opposed to the clear Biblical statements that parents and not the government are supposed to educate your children. And bad influences are far more powerful against children than adults.

Firstly, what government education existed in Israel at the time. Only God, and he delegated.
Secondly -
Do you not pray? Do you not take an interest in what they teach? Do you not talk to the teachers? Do you not talk to your children? I certainly do. And what particular influences are you speaking of, besides the fact that they will be told dinosaurs lived a long time ago? And how does keeping them away from any untoward influence prepare them for going out into that world?

Don't get so defensive!

I am not getting defensive; when someone makes the statement
God has explicitly commanded parents (fathers, actually, but that's another paper too) to teach their children at home
They are, first, questioning my following of Christ.
Second, expected to back it up. Eg and the rest have not, as I have pointed out; they have relied on anecdotal evidence that "public school is a ba-a-ad thing". I certainly don't think or feel that it was a ba-a-a-ad thing for me.

How about dealing with the Biblical issues? No one was attacking you. But it would be a shame if people on TWeb can't state their convictions that we should educate children in a system where the fear of the LORD really is the beginning of the wisdom and knowledge taught, for fear of offending parents who disagree.

state your opinions by all means, but not with the fervour that implies that those who disagree are walking in disobedience. Of course we will disagree; but so far the arguments for have not been made by a long shot. a few verses from the OT is not a case.

This is a caricature of the pro-home-schooling position

And it is also fair dinkum to compare sending kids to state schools with the Israelites sending the kids to the Philistine idolators for their "secular education" since they had the best metalworking.

This is a caricature of the nonHome schooling position. You criticise my Greco-Roman rhetoric, and then use it yourself. Well done Soc, I didn't think there were any conclusive arguents for or against the position. Let each man be persuaded in his own mind.
Now, present the biblical case you keep talking about.

Fair dinkum? Strewf mate, yer got me jumpin in me strides with that one.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

The point is that parents have a duty to educate their children, not throw them out to a place where God is excluded from the learning process for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Solly:God is everywhere. is he not with your in the place your are? Since when do we send our children out unprotected? Now who's being unBiblical.Oh puh-lease! By that "reasoning", you should be quite happy for young kids to be out late at night in the seediest part of town, because after all, God is present there. Public schools are even worse in many ways. Even if the kids don't get shot by their classmates, they are indoctrinated for 30 hours a week that God has no part to play in education.

Solly:Do you not pray? Do you not take an interest in what they teach? Do you not talk to the teachers? Do you not talk to your children? I certainly do. As much as the 30 hours per week of the indoctrination they get at school? compare with the cartoon below. Even if the public schooling is not explicitly anti-biblical, it is implicitly so. In reality, there is no such thing as a neutral position with respect to Christ.

Solly:And what particular influences are you speaking of, besides the fact that they will be told dinosaurs lived a long time ago? And how does keeping them away from any untoward influence prepare them for going out into that world?Who said anything about keeping them away from it? Rather, parents should be teaching kids the truth about dinosaurs, as per www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp And the teaching that dinosaurs died out 65 million years before man existed undermines the Biblical teaching the death and disease in the nephesh chayyah is the result of Adam's sin. It also affects the teaching on morality, with "value-free" sex education.

Socrates:

Don't get so defensive!

Solly:I am not getting defensive; when someone makes the statement
“ God has explicitly commanded parents (fathers, actually, but that's another paper too) to teach their children at home ”

They are, first, questioning my following of Christ.Not at all. Rather, pointing out inadvertent shortcomings rather than deliberate flouting of His teachings.

Solly:Second, expected to back it up. Eg and the rest have not, as I have pointed out; they have relied on anecdotal evidence that "public school is a ba-a-ad thing". I have already explained this. That is, by the exclusion of any mention of God, they send a loud and clear message to the kids that He is irrelevant to their life.

Solly:I certainly don't think or feel that it was a ba-a-a-ad thing for me. Now who's resorting to "anecdotal evidence"? :whack:

Socrates:

How about dealing with the Biblical issues? No one was attacking you. But it would be a shame if people on TWeb can't state their convictions that we should educate children in a system where the fear of the LORD really is the beginning of the wisdom and knowledge taught, for fear of offending parents who disagree.

Solly:state your opinions by all means, but not with the fervour that implies that those who disagree are walking in disobedience. I never said Christians who send their kids to secular schools are intentionally being disobedient.

Socrates:

And it is also fair dinkum to compare sending kids to state schools with the Israelites sending the kids to the Philistine idolators for their "secular education" since they had the best metalworking.

Solly:This is a caricature of the nonHome schooling position.Well, please explain why. I have yet to see a government school advocate justify how the secular education system can possibly be teaching true wisdom and knowledge without fear of the LORD.

[Solly]

Today @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101171#post101171)
Socrates:

Socrates:

Oh puh-lease! By that "reasoning", you should be quite happy for young kids to be out late at night in the seediest part of town, because after all, God is present there. Public schools are even worse in many ways. Even if the kids don't get shot by their classmates, they are indoctrinated for 30 hours a week that God has no part to play in education.

Oh puh-lease! Well, if you want to play THAT comparison game, there is no reasoning with you. Public school as bad as the seediest parts of town? :doh:
Perhaps you have a different system in Oz (and those in the US too), but since religion does not raise such hackles over here as it does in those countries that have disestablished "religion" (irony of ironies), so the conflict does not rage with people seeking to "indoctrinate" either way, and make school a battle ground over Creationism, prayer, or enything else, as i see it portrayed in various threads on TWeb. We still have acts of worship in schools, that are meant to be Christian, prayer is not outlawed, the relgious education my son has had has been on a level with what he could get in Sunday School. The only thing that worries him is that all his friends have TV and we don't.
Equally, you'd be surprised how many christians go into the teaching profession over here,and establish Christian unions etc.

As for the cartoon, that just does not reflect what goes on in British classrooms.

[Patroclus]

-Socrates
By that "reasoning", you should be quite happy for young kids to be out late at night in the seediest part of town, because after all, God is present there. Public schools are even worse in many ways. Even if the kids don't get shot by their classmates, they are indoctrinated for 30 hours a week that God has no part to play in education.

What credibility do you have when you display this hyperbolic example of your bias? "If the kids don't get shot by their classmates:" c'mon, Soc, the reason these cases are so high profile is because of their infrequency. Most children make it all the way through the public school system without bullet wounds.

Perhaps that cartoon of yours could be ammended if Sunday Schools were peopled with more engaging Sunday School teachers--not that Sunday shcool is a great place to receive spititual education these days.

[sacre]

This conversation seems trivial to me compared with how the thread started. Eglerio_i_hir gave a treatise for the use of homeschooling by Christian parents, and Hadassah backed her up more thoroughly with more Biblical support. I don't think I need to mention that, anytime one seeks to be a proper Biblical exegete, they first take what the Bible says in the proper context, create general principles from it, and then apply them to various issues. If you feel that their "prooftexting" is unreasonable because they misread the Scriptures, misinterpreted them, or just plain ignored parts, then you should, by all means, point out exactly how this was done. However, that was not done even in the least scholarly way. Naturally, I know that you all (especially you, Solly--I have read some of your other posts) are able to do this when you set your minds to it, but I didn't see any attempt at all.

I am at a complete loss for why this would be a problem for anyone except if the person had conceptions that they did not want to be overturned. Other than that, it must be that you have good reasons for not agreeing with their process of induction, deduction, and induction, but just have not pointed out what exactly those reasons are. What I have heard so far are intense emotional reactions (that is, intense for a male scholar). I'd like to hear how, exactly, they are incorrect in their exegesis, or else why, exactly, you guys are seeking to derail this thread.

Naturally, these girls do not have any trouble defending their points or their methods, which is why I'm not going to try to back it up. I would like to ask for patience and kindness, however, while you discuss these points with my sisters. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[Patroclus]

Actually, Sacre, Solly did make a direct challenge:

Just a small point, but if you look into the society in which Jesus grew up, his homeschooling would have involved learning his father's trade. His other schooling would have been the local synagogue, in which he was taught scripture by the Rabbi.

as did I in regards to Eglerio's poor process:

By Eglerio:
your point concerning Paul is not valid, seeing as he was brought up to be a non-believer.

By Patroclus:
It is absolutely valid if you are citing Old Testament Scripture. Paul was taught to Love God and live by the Torah, just like his predecessors in Biblical times.

Then Solly discusses Hadassah's poor use of scripture here:

This kind of post from Hadasseh

Raises the issue that many have with Home schooling, that one can educate one's child to be a Christian.And I notice Hadasseh can only use OT texts also, which have a bearing on the Jewish covenant community and it's role in salvation history.

and only after does he indict her for it:

It is one thing to say, let's only debate texts, it is another things to actually find and use said texts correctly.

By Sacre:
I don't think I need to mention that, anytime one seeks to be a proper Biblical exegete, they first take what the Bible says in the proper context, create general principles from it, and then apply them to various issues.

Sure, that is a step to proper exegesis. However, Hadassah, and es[ecially Eglerio seem to have ignored historical context and structuralism. Both Solly and I have mentioned historical concerns (I mentioned Paul, Solly mentioned Hebrew education). I mentioned the structural concern about proof-texting, especially between the Old and New Testaments, and still have not been answered for that.

So, Sacre, except for the fact that we have not barred emotion from our posts, which I do not think is necessary, I really do not know what you are talking about.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101404#post101404)

Socrates:The point is that parents have a duty to educate their children, not throw them out to a place where God is excluded from the learning process for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. Solly: God is everywhere. is he not with your in the place your are? Since when do we send our children out unprotected? Now who's being unBiblical.

Socrates: Oh puh-lease! By that "reasoning", you should be quite happy for young kids to be out late at night in the seediest part of town, because after all, God is present there. Public schools are even worse in many ways. Even if the kids don't get shot by their classmates, they are indoctrinated for 30 hours a week that God has no part to play in education.

Solly:Oh puh-lease! Well, if you want to play THAT comparison game, there is no reasoning with you. Public school as bad as the seediest parts of town?

Evidently, neither you nor Patroclus understood my reductio ad absurdum argument. And you both forget the context, which was that Solly tried to hide the godless nature of the public school system by pointing out that God is everywhere, then had the gall to accuse me of being unbiblical. So I replied that God a also present in the seediest streets of town, but that wouldn't absolve a parents from blame it they sent their kids there. This demonstrated the fallacy of abrogating delegated parental responsibility in the name of God's sovereignty.

Patroclus also waded in:What credibility do you have when you display this hyperbolic example of your bias? "If the kids don't get shot by their classmates:" c'mon, Soc, the reason these cases are so high profile is because of their infrequency. Most children make it all the way through the public school system without bullet wounds.Lucky for them. It's still a risk I'd prefer not to take. And bullets are only the worst problems. Lower level bullying, drugs and teenage pregnancies are other dangers.Perhaps that cartoon of yours could be ammended if Sunday Schools were peopled with more engaging Sunday School teachers--not that Sunday shcool is a great place to receive spititual education these days.Exactly. And even if it were, how can one hour a week be expected to undo 30 hours where Christianity is either explicitly attacked at worst, or implicitly attacked in the name of "neutrality"? Furthermore, continuing from what Pat said, Sunday school teachers just teach "Bible stories" rather than how the Bible is the real history of the world. Alas, it's the godless public schools that teach what is usually thought of as "real world" material such as geology and biology, but this teaching contradicts the Biblical worldview.

[Patroclus]

-Socrates
Exactly. And even if it were, how can one hour a week be expected to undo 30 hours where Christianity is either explicitly attacked at worst, or implicitly attacked in the name of "neutrality"? Furthermore, continuing from what Pat said, Sunday school teachers just teach "Bible stories" rather than how the Bible is the real history of the world. Alas, it's the godless public schools that teach what is usually thought of as "real world" material such as geology and biology, but this teaching contradicts the Biblical worldview.

I bet most Sunday School teachers are parents. I am currently looking for statistics on that.

[Socrates]

Socrates

Exactly. And even if it were, how can one hour a week be expected to undo 30 hours where Christianity is either explicitly attacked at worst, or implicitly attacked in the name of "neutrality"? Furthermore, continuing from what Pat said, Sunday school teachers just teach "Bible stories" rather than how the Bible is the real history of the world. Alas, it's the godless public schools that teach what is usually thought of as "real world" material such as geology and biology, but this teaching contradicts the Biblical worldview.

Patroclus:I bet most Sunday School teachers are parents. I am currently looking for statistics on that.You are probably right, but I fail to see how this solves the problem. The problem is that most kids are merely taught "Bible stories" in Sunday school, with no connection to the real world. See More than just Bible Stories (http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/022601more_than_stories.asp) for some ideas about how the Bible provides the proper framework for history, geology, linguistics and archaeology. But even one or two hours of that per week won't be enough to counteract the 30 hours of bombardment by anti-Biblical teachings.

And a reminder of something that has yet to be addressed: even if the state schools are "neutral" about God and the Bible, in reality there is no such thing. Rather, this tells the kids that it is OK to build wisdom and knowledge without fear of the LORD.

[Patroclus]

-Socrates
You are probably right, but I fail to see how this solves the problem. The problem is that most kids are merely taught "Bible stories" in Sunday school, with no connection to the real world.

My point is that you propose that these very same parents teach their own children, seven days a week. Of course this does not answer the problem, but it certainly throws another kink in the works.

Again, I am not against homeschooling. In fact, I support it if the parents are qualified individuals: people that have a basic and critical understanding of the subject matter to which they attend. It is fine, as Eglerio suggested, for parents to teach their children up to their own level. But there comes a time when parental instruction is incapable. I can do quite a good job teaching my children about literature. But far be it for me to attempt physics beyond an extremely rudimentary level.

And a reminder of something that has yet to be addressed: even if the state schools are "neutral" about God and the Bible, in reality there is no such thing. Rather, this tells the kids that it is OK to build wisdom and knowledge without fear of the LORD.

This might be a good point, except that you fail to address a difference between spiritual and temporal. Spiritually, it is not "OK." However, I doubt that Einsteins contribution are completely without merit.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Solly:
What questions exactly do you have for me (or are you just bickering with Socrates for fun?)?

If you could present your questions in a clear, concise manner, with the Biblical proofs to boot, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.


Patroclus:
As to the Paul question (the only question I saw that you had), Paul was raised in the synagogue to be a Pharisee, whom Jesus Himself condemned. They did not worship our God, the God of Jesus. We know this because in John chapter 5, verses 37-47, Jesus speaks to these Jews:
"And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

[Socrates]

Socrates:

And a reminder of something that has yet to be addressed: even if the state schools are "neutral" about God and the Bible, in reality there is no such thing. Rather, this tells the kids that it is OK to build wisdom and knowledge without fear of the LORD.

Patroclus:This might be a good point, except that you fail to address a difference between spiritual and temporal. Spiritually, it is not "OK." However, I doubt that Einsteins contribution are completely without merit.This is an artificial distinction. The Bible intimately links spiritual and doctrinal matters with history. For example, the basis for the doctrine of marriage is the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, as Jesus quoted directly in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:6-9. The basis for the Fourth Commandment is God's creation of te universe in six days and resting on the seventh. And is the Resurrection of Jesus a matter of faith/doctrine or history? Actually, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, the faith/doctrine is totally dependent on its being a real event in history.

But the public school system is at best "neutral" towards Biblical history or downright hostile to it.

[SinnerRedeemed]

"As to the Paul question...Paul was raised in the synagogue to be a Pharisee, whom Jesus Himself condemned. They did not worship our God, the God of Jesus."

Eglerio-

I do not believe in this passage Jesus is condemning the Pharisees in and of themselves, but more He is condemning them for the fact that they had faith in the Law as their means of salvation as opposed to Jesus and His teachings. Paul was raised in the synagogue to learn the Law, which is good. The verses you have mentioned previously have all been talking about teaching the commandments of the Lord to children. Granted, some or maybe even most, of them are talking of parents teaching the commandments to their children, but here is a prime example of learning the commandments in other places than the home. However, this is not my point. I merely wanted to point out that Jesus is not condemning the Pharisees for being Pharisees, and learning the Law, but for neglecting to believe that He is the Way, Truth and Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him in ADDITION to the Law.

Jesus said:
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.'" -Matthew 5:17-20

Furthermore, no one was taught to be a "Christian" at the time. Even Jesus was a Jew. He knew the Law well, however, He also knew salvation would come only through Him.

Thank you for being fairly civil Eglerio, I know how passionate you are about this debate. ;) See you Friday! :)

L. K.

[Hadassah]

To add to what Eglerio discussed of Paul's "education":

Paul was definitely not raised in a manner that taught him to fear God (see Eglerio's post). But even if he had, we must remember that these schools the Jews had established were not ordained by God. They came into being during the Babylonian captivity, and were not orthodox by any means. Remember, the only command Jews had concerning their children was directed toward parents and it told them to teach their children God's commands and works (c.f. Deuteronomy 6, Psalm 78, Proverbs 4). Where, in OT Scripture, would the Jews have seen a command to establish schools?

Further, even if these schools had been ordained by God, and even if Paul had received a proper education from these schools, they were not state schools. The civil government did not establish them and their purpose was not to raise citizens to function in that government; rather, they were religious schools set up to teach that religion's doctrines and commands to its followers.

Also, for Patroclus:
You mentioned in an earlier post that you felt it was stated or implied that both Eglerio and I were strictly working off of Biblical example for our conclusions. That is, that unless it was explicitly prescribed in the Bible, we would not do it. That is not the case at all. Rather, we are looking at Biblical principles and examples and seeking applications from those. Both Eglerio and I attended public schools, each having different experiences. I only began to question the Biblical nature of this system after searching Scripture for teachings on education and child rearing. I did not start with a conclusion and work backwards. Eglerio and I are seeking to be more Christ-like through realigning our lives, in every way, with the Word of God.

[Hadassah]

L.K.:

"I do not believe in this passage Jesus is condemning the Pharisees in and of themselves, but more He is condemning them for the fact that they had faith in the Law as their means of salvation as opposed to Jesus and His teachings."

You're right, Jesus was condemning them for their misplaced faith, because it is by faith that we are saved. Even the Jews. "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'" (Romans 4: 1-3). It was by faith that Abraham and his people were saved. So, if Jesus was condemning them for misplacing their faith, he was condemning the Pharisees for being Pharisees. And because the Pharisees put their hope in the law rather than God, they did not know God. And if they did not know God, they certainly could not have taught Paul to fear Him. They very easily could have taught Paul the law, but it is not the law that brings righteousness, it is faith. And they had none.

And, in addition, Jesus wasn't simply condemning the Pharisees for not believing in Him, but also for not believing in His Father, the God they claimed. If they did not know One, they could not possibly have known the Other. Their lack of faith and worthless abundant knowledge of the Law was simply passed down to Paul.

"He is the Way, Truth and Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him in ADDITION to the Law."

There is no ADDITION to the Law. It is Christ's blood alone that saves. "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3:28). The Law plays no part in our salvation but revealing our need for it. In fact, the Law has no part in our salvation because it CONDEMNS us. "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:19-20).

"Furthermore, no one was taught to be a "Christian" at the time. Even Jesus was a Jew. He knew the Law well, however, He also knew salvation would come only through Him."

Eglerio was not arguing that Paul should have been taught to be a "Christian". That did not exist. Rather, she was arguing that Paul was not raised to fear the Lord because he was taught the Law apart from faith. That knowledge, apart from faith, would have as much bearing on his fearing the Lord as knowing any other piece of factual information apart from faith: absolutely none.

In those verses, it sounds to me that Jesus meant something different than what you interpreted, but I could be wrong. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom." (Matthew 5:19). So, this is the qualification. What's the example He gives of it? "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (vs. 20). Speaking to His audience, an average citizen, He says that to enter heaven, one must be MORE pious than the Pharisees? The ones known for their strict, legalistic behavior that Jesus continually rebuked as worthless in the sight of God? Jesus was not commanding the listeners to be like the Pharisees, He was conveying the impossibility of the righteousness they pursued. It's as if He is describing the impossibility of achieving righteousness. Because in the very next verse, He begins to describe the ways that they were wrong or unable to completely achieve righteousness through the Law. "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court" (vs. 21). He couldn't be describing the Pharisees as righteous because he uses them as a foil to describe the fulfillment of the Law they thought they abided in.

I say all this to support what Eglerio argued: Paul did not receive an education a Chrisitan can depend on as a reliable example to follow.

I hope I explained myself well, Lisa. (oops! Can we start using first names now?) Let me know where I was fuzzy (I'm kind of tired). See you Friday. :)

Hadassah
(I don't know if the first name thing would work too well for Eglerio and I....)

[Patroclus]

Hadassah, you are mistaken about the Pharisaeical sect. They, and their schools were not formed duting Babylonian captivity. They were established after Syrian captivity. Read the Maccabees. They were born out of a movement that emphasized righteousness and repentence according to the law. The very premise of what they were doing is that God is pleased with obedience. However, over time, it is apparent that certain pharisees--note, not necessarily all--began to confuse the reason for the work with the work itself. Certainly, teaching commitment to God is not all bad.

-Hadassah
That is, that unless it was explicitly prescribed in the Bible, we would not do it. That is not the case at all.

Yet, you also ask:

-Hadassah
4). Where, in OT Scripture, would the Jews have seen a command to establish schools?

Do you see where my confusion is? God did not command every good idea. I think that a state-funded school may be a good idea if the actual system was not so terrible.

If you want to tackle the argument that it is not good because it does not teach the fear of the Lord, then that might be viable. But looking for scriptural support for the establishment of such a school is absolute nonsense. Where is scripture for the establishment of businesses or home computer networks? Where is scripture for the establishment of a city hall or a Republic? Where is the scripture for the establisment of evangelistic/ missionary organizations? Where is the scripture for establishing colleges, Christian or not?

[Hadassah]

Patroclus:

You know, I have never heard that information about the establishment of the Jewish schools. I was taught that it occured during the Babylonian captivity. Do you have any information or documentation that I might be able to look at?

Let me clear up what I said :
"Where, in OT Scripture, would the Jews have seen a command to establish schools?" If we acknowledge that it is the Word of God alone that we stand on as Truth, it alone should be what we use to judge any ideas that we may have in order to determine if, in fact, they are "good". Where, in the OT Scripture, would Jews have found confirmation that their idea was good?

If you cannot find Scriptural support to back up any arguments you may have, then I would argue they weren't valid to begin with. And as for the list of "good ideas" you mentioned, you may have a point. If we decide, after looking to Scripture, that certain things aren't so "good" (like government schools), maybe there are others...

Hadassah

[Patroclus]

The first reference in the history of Israel to more than one sect takes place some 200 years after the close of the Biblical period, in the first century BCE. Various sources tell us of two opposing sects, the Sadducees (Zadokites) and the Pharisees. The Sadducees followed the Torah as it was written while the Pharisees believed in a second "Oral" Torah which they added to the real one. The Second Temple period saw the rise of several more sects among them another group which only followed the written Torah called the Boethusians and a sect which added several books to the Bible called the Essenes (a.k.a. the "Dead Sea Sect").
http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml

Unfortunately, I do not have my text book anymore. However, let us deduce that since the first mention of the Pharisees comes from around 200 BCE, Pharisaeic schools could not be established during the Babylonian captivity which ended roughly 200 years before that.

You might have been confused by the fact that Hillel, the founder of the branch that Saul and Gamaliel were a part of lived in a Jewish Colony in Babylon. However, since Gamailel was the grandson of Hillel, it is impossible that Hillel lived during the Babylonian captivity. That would require a span of over 400 years in three generations.

See: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/hasidim.htm

Also:
The Maccabaean war had exacerbated divisions in Yahweh worship, the two most prominent divisions being between those called Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees tended to be men from the lower classes -- including craftsmen. They accepted the newer, popular doctrines: the conflict between good and evil spirits, Satan as an independent and evil force, and resurrection. The Sadducees were aristocrats, and among them were the priests who managed Jerusalem's temple. They rejected the new doctrines and saw the Pharisees as contributing to a vulgarization of their religion. Although the Sadducees were the more religiously conservative of the two factions, they were the more Hellenized. According to the Hellenized Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-95?), the Sadducees were haughty and harsh in their opinions toward common Jews; and the Sadducees were, in turn, disliked by commoners. Supporting the Pharisees rather than the Sadducees, common Jews tended to see the Pharisees as "expounders of scripture" and scholars of Judaic law. And they saw the Pharisees as defenders of religious tradition against Hellenistic influences. This was encouraged by Pharisee insistence on a strict interpretation of Jewish law, including diet and dress, and a strict adherence to ceremony and observance of the Sabbath.

Pharisee concern with religious exactitude led them to encourage readings of portions of the Five Books of Moses every Monday, Thursday and Saturday. This led to the creation of village schools to promote that study, and it contributed to a tradition of reading among the Jews. Under pharisaic influence the synagogue became a university for the Jews, a place where they gathered to learn and read the words of sacred writings from the past, where they read from the Five Books of Moses (The Torah), studied, sang and prayed.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch17.htm

This site is a bit biased, taking certain authorial decisions for granted, but it gives, at least, a general concept.

-Hadassah
If you cannot find Scriptural support to back up any arguments you may have, then I would argue they weren't valid to begin with.

That is irresponsible dogma. So, if I say "the sky appears blue on a clear day, " and do not give scripture then my argument is invalid? I do not need another scripture to tell you that you are reading into scripture. Note: I didn't need scripture to give you a history lesson for the last several pragraphs.

And as for the list of "good ideas" you mentioned, you may have a point. If we decide, after looking to Scripture, that certain things aren't so "good" (like government schools), maybe there are others...

This is an interesting piece of rhetoric. Sure, but I still am not convinced that the way you analyze scripture is a good standard. In fact, I am quite sure the opposite is true. Until you present a qualified hermeneutic for your point, I still rest on the argument that you are reading into scripture, that you are ignoring historical concerns, that you are irresponsibly using English translations to make your point--outlined in a related thread and that you are using improper proof-texts.

I have outlined history (something that is not entirely contained in scripture); I have discussed your poor hermeneutic (also, not expressly written in the Bible); I have mentioned how I beliee you are reading-in (also not something that is expressly mentioned in scripture); I have given a general structural problem of proof-texting with scripture; I have given scriptural support for your problem with translation. Not all of these arguments required scripture. Some did.

You can't use scripture to argue that silver mines exist in Nevada.

[Patroclus]

One more thing, the whole of the verse in question is:

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Prov 1:7 (NIV)

It seems that wisdom and knowledege are almost synonymous here, due to the antithetical parallel structure of this verse.

In antithetic parallelism, the notion of the A-line is stated in opposite terms in the B-line.

YHWH protects the way of the righteous, A-line
But the way of the wicked will perish.(Psalm 1.6) B-line
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/BibPoetry.htm

This may further support my argument about experiential knowledge rather than empirical knowledge.

[Solly]

-Socrates
Exactly. And even if it were, how can one hour a week be expected to undo 30 hours where Christianity is either explicitly attacked at worst, or implicitly attacked in the name of "neutrality"? Furthermore, continuing from what Pat said, Sunday school teachers just teach "Bible stories" rather than how the Bible is the real history of the world. Alas, it's the godless public schools that teach what is usually thought of as "real world" material such as geology and biology, but this teaching contradicts the Biblical worldview.

There is obviously a clash of cultures here. Schools in England do not "attack" the Bible, and in most lesson the issue of the Bible is not relevant. what is relevant is morality and the Gospel, the former I expect to some extent in schools, and the latter not at all, that's my job, and the Church's.

Eg
Solly:
What questions exactly do you have for me (or are you just bickering with Socrates for fun?)?

If you could present your questions in a clear, concise manner, with the Biblical proofs to boot, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

No, I am not bickering. And the fact is I asked you for clarification since your own "proofs" IMHO are not up to the argument you are putting forward. The verses you posted do not make a case for general education of the child in the home (though I have nothing against it), nor do they make a case against state schooling. As Pat has pointed out, you have not taken into account the environment of the Old or New testament, nor the historical data that shows that, in Britain at least, State schools grew out of the Christian schooling system, whether the local parish schools, or the church run Universities. Were they wrong to do that? In a society such as our, division of labour is part of the way we have advanced, and ensured a uniformity of education. If home schollong became de riguer, then who would watch over it; current home schooling schemes must depend upon some sort of public education scheme for validation, so that people know what they are worth.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Solly:
Read Romans 13.
-What tool did God give the state?
-What is this tool used for?
-Can you teach children with it?

Also, check out the constitution of the US of A (I know you're not living here, but this is just a side note for "Americans"). What does it say about schools?

I do not know what else to say. I've given you all the texts, I've proven the point. God tells parents to teach their children. I don't see the need to respond to your other questions because I (or Hadassah) already have.



P.S. What is this "Eg" and "IMHO"? I do not understand them.

[Patroclus]

Eg is short for Eglerio_i_hir. IMHO means, "In my humble opinion."

Eglerio,

I just read Romans 13, and I have no idea what you are getting at. Please be specific.

I just did a word search of the Constitution, and did not find a mention of the school system. So, if you would be so kind as to point out to what section you are referring, that would be wonderful.

I do not know what else to say. I've given you all the texts, I've proven the point.

No, you have NOT proven your point, as both Solly and I have pointed out. Do you want me to list the objections all over again? I have stated them at least three individual times throughout this forum. Where is your historical analysis? Where is your structural analysis? Where is your lingusitic analysis?

You have provided absolutely no rebuttal. All you have done is continue to re-state your opinion.

[SinnerRedeemed]

Hadassah-

I am sorry I have not been able to respond to your last post directed to me. Hopefully I will be settled in here soon and will then have time to respond.

If I have not responded before June 1st, however, which it looks like I might not be able to, I will most likely post after June 9th when I return from a trip. Hopefully you'll get a response at least SOMETIME this summer! :) Sorry again.
I hope your summer is going well (and everyone else's there too for that matter!)! :)

LK

(btw: there's a Presbyterian church across the street from my dorm although I'm not certain yet if it is reformed :))

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Patroclus:

I apologize for the late response. I've been very busy and actually forgot that I had to respond! Also, the "long-time-no-bicker" comment was a sarcastic joke. I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said. It was not meant to be offensive.

Hadassah and I have discussed your comments and we feel that there has been a misunderstanding. We are attempting to approach this subject from the standpoint of the "common" Christian parent--not from a scholarly view (since we are not scholars). The Bible was written for the "common" Christian--one does not need a degree to understand and apply it. We feel that "our" (or rather, the Bible's) point would hold up to a scholar's scrutiny, but we are not able to defend it in a scholarly manner. We have neither the means nor the time to do so. All we know is that it's Biblical, and we can do it. This discussion has gone downhill-in a direction that we did not desire.

Also, our example for Biblical schooling is not what others did or do. It is what the Bible tells us to do. It is conceivable that the ones who have gone before us were wrong. The Bible cannot be wrong. We do not DEPEND on history to tell us what God wants. That does not mean that we throw history out. It does have valuable things to tell us--about who we come from, and how we got here. We do use it in Biblical exegisis at times. But in this case, we do not see the necessity of historical evidence--the Bible is enough. (I'm not attempting to debate the uses of all these evidences here or anywhere else. I'm just using history as an example.)

Now our question is: Are you saying that in order to prove our point to you, we have to provide historical, structural, and linguistic evidence?

Just so you know, this was not our original intention. We wanted to provide merely a Biblical argument for parents to follow.

[Sher]

Okay, I'm ringing in a little late in the game ... but what the hey, huh?

I've outlined in other threads my reasons for originally deciding to home educate ... and I am sad to say that they were more because of safety issues, than from Scriptural issues.

That said, the reason we remain home educators is because public schools (in our portion of America at least) are not supportive -- or more accurately, mostly opposed -- to Christian ethics. I was a very involved parent when my son was in public school ... teacher's meetings, reading the textbooks, working on the projects, added teaching at home, etc. ... even from the very beginning.

However, it never really sunk in how indoctrinated (in a bad way) my son was becoming in the humanist mindset. (This is the same complaint I've heard, actually, about students going to secular colleges as well ... the teachings are negated by the humanism in the college) I blame my lack of recognition on the fact that it was prevalent when I was in public school as well. So even when times are tough, and they sometimes are, when we annually reassess (as a family) if home education remains the best choice for us, we keep coming back to this as a major point in the "pros" column.

The problem I have seen on this thread … if you will pardon me for saying so … is that it is trying to compare the schools of today, to the education presented in the Bible. While Scripture does say specifically that parents should train/teach their children, the comparison of education yesterday and today is faulty in many aspects … and as such, neither side of this “debate” will be able to resolve the issue completely. We cannot look to a society that did not have schools run in a way that allows them to be compared to modern times. There just isn't any parallel there.

That said, we as Christians DO have a duty to our child(ren) … and this duty includes providing the best possible education we can provide … be it home education, Christian school education … or public education in a country that does not deny Christian teaching to the children nor promote atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic teachings. If Solly has children, and those children are being raised in an educational atmosphere that does not oppose Christian teachings, then we have no place to even hint at condemnation of that system. However, that system is NOT prevalent in the public schools in the US … not anywhere I have heard of from contact with other home educators across the country. Our public school system in the US stinks, frankly. And as such, coupled with the system's mindset that they know best and will not tolerate interference with their processes, we have to find an alternative to satisfy our obligation.

For our family, that is the continuation of home education. For some other families, it is a great Christian school.

But to deny that there is Scriptural backing, that tells us that we as parents are responsible for our children’s education, is to turn a blind eye, IMO.

And Pat, you know I love ya brother, but I think you are becoming a bit harsh here on the ladies … especially since they are new to TWeb. While I agree with you on several points, I think if you carefully read over the very first post again, you will see that the whole thought process behind this thread was supposed to be, IMO, a defense AGAINST those who would say that parents shouldn’t home education … NOT an attack against those that don’t ... and one last note while I'm picking on you :tongue: … with all Christian love … but being a home educator is very different than being home educated. There comes an added responsibility … an added fear that questions whether you are doing the right thing. And when you begin slamming the home educators, even if that wasn’t what you intented to do here, it is counterproductive to your “cause” … it only made them more defensive than the whole original point started out to be.

I have to be honest in saying, thought, that I missed the over-all theme of defense the first time I reviewed this thread as well. I think a slight rewording of some points would be of great assistance to prevent misunderstandings. I would suggest, respectfully, that the original premise be reworded. The title of the thread itself "Homeschooling Defined and Defended" speaks to a defense of home education. However, the overall feel of that first post degrades to a different type of article, especially with the final point ...God has explicitly commanded parents (fathers, actually, but that's another paper too) to teach their children at home. Do not send them off on the prison bus to the church of the state! ... which is counterproductive to the "defense" ... it becomes an attack of sorts. IOW, it moves from one premise, one type of article, to another in the same article. It would be fine if the two premises were somehow complimentary ... but instead it moves from defense to offense.

Do you see what I mean, Eglerio? You make some really good points, but they are overshadowed by the offensive portions better suited for a different type of article (not offensive bad, but offensive opposed to defensive :xmm:). Actually ... as I write that ... I think that is a valid point. You should consider making two articles out of that ... one that researches and presents it from an offensive position ... why public schools in America are generally rotten ... and tweak this one to be in defense of home education against those that criticize. I think that, with a bit more work ... you would have two mighty fine articles there ... you might even consider submitting them to the TWeb editor for review and possible publishing :smile: We could use some good home education editorials.

But as always, this it JMNSHO :teeth:

[Patroclus]

-Eglerio
I apologize for the late response. I've been very busy and actually forgot that I had to respond! Also, the "long-time-no-bicker" comment was a sarcastic joke. I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said. It was not meant to be offensive.

Yeah, I have been gone for the past few days as well. So, my posting has been slow. Thanks for the apology. I appreciate it. Also, I apologize where I have come across harshly.

Hadassah and I have discussed your comments and we feel that there has been a misunderstanding. We are attempting to approach this subject from the standpoint of the "common" Christian parent--not from a scholarly view (since we are not scholars).

I know, and neither am I. I know literature and criticism, not theology. However, it is my opinion that whenever somebody makes a positive statment, like: "Christian parents are instructed by God to be the educators of their children," scholarly opinion should be sought.

The Bible was written for the "common" Christian--one does not need a degree to understand and apply it.

While I do not think that a person needs a degree to understand the Bible, consulting those who have a degree before making a theological decision is wise. And, the Bible was not exactly written for the "common" Christian. Of course, by "Christian" I understand you to mean all God-fearing people throughout time. Remember that the literacy that we enjoy today is unique when compared against history. The "common" people most likely never read scriptures at all. Rather, scribes and Rabbis (scholars) were more likely to actually do the reading. Furthermore, within much of the text is an artistic level, a theological level, a human level and a practical level. All of this is not easily discerned upon hearing the scriptures. One of my New Testament professors told me that the more he reads the scriptures, the more complexity, depth and spiritual beauty he uncovers. This comes from a man who is highly respected in his field. The Bible is for scholars too.

We feel that "our" (or rather, the Bible's) point would hold up to a scholar's scrutiny, but we are not able to defend it in a scholarly manner. We have neither the means nor the time to do so. All we know is that it's Biblical, and we can do it.

The main problem that I have with your statements is that you keep calling your views "The Bible's view." As I have said before, I am not convinced by your scriptural arguments. I agree that homeschooling is not prohibitted, even that it may be encouraged to some degree. However, I will not concede to your point that it is mandated. Whenever you claim that a view is the same as the view of scripture, you are appealing to authority. You are, in a sense, teling everybody that it is pointless to disagree with you because the Bible says so. People are more willing to accept statements like "I believe the Bible requires...," or "in my opinion, the Bible..." But, to simply say that you are speaking in tandem with the Bible does not come across as a very humble approach. Furthermore, I submit, it taints your judgement because, if you truly believe that this is exactly what the Bible says, you are unwilling to listen to another point of view.

We do use it in Biblical exegisis at times. But in this case, we do not see the necessity of historical evidence--the Bible is enough.

But, I don't understand why history is irrelevant in this situation, and not all others? This seems like an inconsistant approach.

Now our question is: Are you saying that in order to prove our point to you, we have to provide historical, structural, and linguistic evidence?

Not necessarily. However, I am saying that your argument must hold up to such evidence. If I use the story of Onesimus and Philemon to support the slavery of the old south without considerring history, I might be able to make a compelling textual case. However, if I look at history, and find that slaves in the Roman Empire were often people who hired, or sold, themselves out to people to be endentured, then the corallary between Philemon and souther slavery breaks down entirely. If I am speaking about the use of "knowledge" in the New Testament without considerring the the fact that the Greek language has several different words for "knowledge," each with different emphasis, I am neglectful.

You say that you "feel" that your opinion can stand up to scholarly criticism. But, do you have anything more than feelings? I understand that this is a defense of Homeschooling. However, it may not be as representative of homeschoolers as you would like to think. There are many different, and valid reasons to homeschool. But, I believe, not everybody can agree that your opinion, is the best.

Just so you know, this was not our original intention. We wanted to provide merely a Biblical argument for parents to follow.

Remember that the Bible represents history, language, people and culture, as well as God. To say "Biblical," does not adequately mean "just what the text says."


-SherBear
And Pat, you know I love ya brother, but I think you are becoming a bit harsh here on the ladies … especially since they are new to TWeb. While I agree with you on several points, I think if you carefully read over the very first post again, you will see that the whole thought process behind this thread was supposed to be, IMO, a defense AGAINST those who would say that parents shouldn’t home education … NOT an attack against those that don’t

Maybe so. Again, I apologize where I have been harsh. I suppose that I may have been confused because, since the prolific use of scipture, I assumed that it was aimed at Christians. It seemed to be more affirmative, rather than negative.

being a home educator is very different than being home educated. There comes an added responsibility … an added fear that questions whether you are doing the right thing. And when you begin slamming the home educators, even if that wasn’t what you intented to do here, it is counterproductive to your “cause” … it only made them more defensive than the whole original point started out to be.

I know that being a home educator is different from being home educated. And, I have great respect for educators in general. I am sorry that it may have come across otherwise, but I have stated several times that I am not against homeschooling. I am only against homeschooling as dogma. Eglerio and Hadassah needed to be somewhat deffensive because their points needed defending.

Thanks Sherbear. I appreciate your input.

[Sher]

Today @ 03:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114851#post114851)
Patroclus:

Thanks Sherbear. I appreciate your input.

You're welcome Pat ... and please, understand that I wasn't :whack:'g you meanly

... just trying to get both sides to see each other's points.

I think, like politics, this gets to be a touchy subject and it was getting a bit heated in here.

:thumb: to you both for apologizing to each other :smile:


====
And I still think, with revision and a bit more scholarship ... that two good, but different, articles could be presented from the original premise. Pat has made some more very good points in this last post that should be looked in to.

:angel:

[Aravis]

05-11-2003 @ 10:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93896#post93896)
Eglerio_i_hir:

I'm coming into this discussion extremely late and dredging up points that have been analyzed to death, but hey, I felt compelled. :D My apologies.

First of all, I'd like to challenge your assertion that simply knowing how to read makes one qualified to teach one's children. Learning how to read is the foundation of academics, not an education in and of itself. Also, I do not know if you have ever taught a child to read, but unless the child is gifted, it isn't easy. My mother taught second grade one year, and from her anecdotes, I have gathered that teaching reading is far from easy.

When the child learns to read, where do you go then? By your model, the child cannot learn any more than the parent knows. This is not a problem up until the age when education becomes more specialized, which is perhaps earlier than you realize. If one doesn't have the knowledge to cover literature, history, science, languages, and math, not to mention music and art, one cannot provide the resources of a school all by oneself. One can do with with assistance. You say that God will provide the ability to do anything he calls one to do. I agree with this statement 100%. What I disagree with is the statement that God calls all parents to homeschool their children.


IIf there was a school (I know of a few) that met one or two times a week to teach higher math or science that might be acceptable. But, I'm on dangerous ground with that, considering the fact that there is no such example anywhere in the Bible.p

There are no examples in the Bible for the majority of our actions on a daily basis. Does this mean that we should not do them?

The thing is, there is not an example in the Bible for the way education should be conducted. It seems that you are taking that verse from Proverbs out of context. I agree that a Christian parent should teach a child to follow the Lord, but it does not follow that no one else may, in accordance with God's will, teach the child anything. I have a problem with basing major ideas on one's interpretation of a single, fairly ambiguous verse.

- Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 are speaking about responsible parenting and not educational philosophy.
First, I am aware of the believing community in Acts. Also, your point concerning Paul is not valid, seeing as he was brought up to be a non-believer.

I'm not sure what Acts specifically says about the education of children. I don't recall that it said anything clear, though I haven't read it in the last month.

Your point about Paul is not valid, because he was raised to be a Jewish believer, in accordance with Old Testament Law. You used an Old Testament verse as the basis of your argument that God commands homeschooling, so I think the use of Paul as an example is more than valid. Clearly, Paul was a very devout Jewish believer before he became a Christian, and during Paul's childhood, Christ had not yet died and been resurrected for our sins, so his faith was the best he could have had at the time. (Of course, once Christ had been resurrected, faith was changed.)

Also, though I am not an expert on this issue, I understand that during Jesus's time, boys were taken to the synagogue to be taught by rabbis. Jesus himself was educated thus. As already stated, Paul was educated this way, by the rabbi Gamaliel.


If: everything that is learned is learned through education,
If: everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory,
If: We see that everything is under the sovereignty of God for the purpose of His glory by learning,
Then: education must be God-centered.
Anyone who does not realize this cannot educate correctly. They are lacking.

Just because education consists of everything learned (a truism), it does not follow that everything learned is learned from formal education or from school, which you seem to imply (if not outright state). A very important part of education is the morals one learns at home from one's parents, as I'm sure you agree.


- What do you think about college?
I'm hesitant to say, only because my radical views would probably cause a side debate to confuse the issue of homeschooling that we are here attempting to discuss. Therefore, I will give my opinion, you can see if it's Biblical, and then if you want to discuss it more, you may certainly start a new thread. I do not feel that it would be best to discuss it further here.
I believe that, Biblically (not using exception to make law):
1. "Higher education" for the sake of higher education is unbiblical, whether it be man or woman.


Why? You cannot argue that higher education for education's sake is against the principles of the Bible simply because the Bible contains no clearly defined example for the pursuit of higher education. The Bible does not in any way condemn the pursuit of knowledge, which, if pure, can only lead to a greater understanding of God through a greater understanding of the world he created. (The Lord founded the earth by wisdom and established the heavens by understanding. By His knowledge the watery depths broke open, and the clouds dripped with dew. Proverbs 3:20 OR When I observe Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you set in place, what is man that You remember him, the son of man that you look after him? Psalm 8:4 - How can we understand this without understanding something of the world?)

In fact, I find Proverbs to be a very strong defense of higher education:

The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
For gaining wisdom and being instructed;
for understanding insightful sayings;
for receiving wise instruction
in righteousness, justice, and integrity;
for teaching shrewdness to the inexperienced,
knowledge and discretion to a young man--
a wise man will listen and increase his learning,
and a discerning man will obtain guidance--
for understanding a proverb or a parable,
the words of the wise, and their riddles.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:1-7

For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6

Discretion will guard over you, and understanding will guard you, rescuing you from the one who says perverse things. Proverbs 2:11-12

Learn to be shrewd, you are are inexperienced; develop common sense, you who are foolish. Proverbs 8:5

I, Wisdom, share a home with shrewdness and have knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:12

And as for your assertion that this teaching should be done by the father:

My son, keep your father's command, and don't reject your mother's teaching. Proverbs 6:20

(At the same time, this does not imply that the child is not to have instruction from any other source--such as the local rabbi. The word rabbi means "teacher"--are you attacking the validity of this institution? After all, Jesus was called Rabbi. . .)

2. Higher education for the sake of glorifying God is Biblical.
3. College is used by men as a means for gaining a tentmaking skill.

It can be a place where one learns a career skill. As a person who majors in two "pure" disciplines - English and history - I find this unfortunate. College can be a place to gain understanding of God's world through many disciplines.

4. Girls do not have a need for college, and it only serves to impede their pursuit of purity in Christ.

You are entitled to this opinion, but you haven't explained why. In fact, as a woman in college, I have found that the atmosphere of a Christian college has contributed very greatly to my spiritual growth and provided opportunities for service to God.

If a woman's role is in the home (it is--see Paul's letters), and college helps her in that role, then college is acceptable.

Well, Paul did say that a woman should submit to her husband--and I'm not going to argue how this should be interpreted at this point. However, I do not recall any place where he specifically stated that a woman does not have a role outside the home. 1 Timothy does state that Paul himself does not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. However, this could be interpreted as Paul's own personal policy. Furthermore, he did work with many prominent women in churches, such as Priscilla. Also, do not forget Paul's commendation of the "diakonos" (in the original Greek) Phoebe of the church at Cenchraea.

Finally, I refer you to selections from Proverbs 31 (what a great little book, huh?):

She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings. (16)

She draws on her strength and reveals that her arms are strong. (17)

She sees that her profits are good, and her lamp never goes out at night. (18)

She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants. (24)

"For me, the honor of taking dominion and fighting this spiritual battle means having lots of beautiful babies, rocking them to sleep, changing their diapers, feeding them three well-balanced meals a day, teaching them God’s law through Bible reading, catechisms, hymn singing and church involvement, reading them lots of stories, kissing their owies, disciplining them when they disobey, teaching them to read good books, instilling an awe in them for God’s creation, teaching both my daughters and sons to cook, reminding them constantly to prefer one another above themselves, talking with them all day long about every imaginable subject, modeling obedience and love before them in my marriage to my wonderful husband and daily sacrificing my desires while serving my family. Did college teach me how to do any of these things? Nope." --Carmon Friedrich, mother of 10

What an excellent quote from a fine godly woman. However, this cannot be taken as a rule for all women. I do not believe that it is God's plan for all women to be mothers, but even for those who are, college can be useful. My own mother did all of those things, while providing for us, in addition to my father's salary, with a job as a speech therapist that her college education trained her for.


I trust that this answers your questions.

Whom do you trust? Not yourself, right?

In fact, it really did not answer the questions for me.

P.S. The problem I have with these posts is that neither one of you used Scripture to back your arguments. Could we remedy that, please? I would appreciate it.

As already stated, Scripture cannot be used to back up a negative argument that is simply a refutation of your interpretation of particular isolated verses of Scripture. Also, I do not think that there is anything ungodly or sinful about making an argument without referring to Scripture. Jesus did it all the time--he used parables and analogies when appropriate, and referred to Scripture when appropriate. Never is it implied that Scripture must be used in all arguments, so I believe your request for a "remedy" is unnecessary; a nonproblem does not need a remedy. However, my particular argument seemed to call for some Scriptural backup, so I used it.

For the record, if I have children of my own (which I doubt), I will seriously consider homeschooling them, because I believe it is a good option. However, I think your reasons for advocating it in all cases are fallacious, illogical, and based on eisegetical Biblical analysis.

[Socrates]

Most Christians who send their kids to public schools haven't thought of the alternatives, and do it because that's what "everyone" does. And of the minority who have thought about it, the majority of these rationalize it with the facile claim their kids should be in the schools to witness to the other kids. See my post which addresses these fallacies, Dangers of public schooling: Children are NOT miniature adults (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=123699#post123699).

[Patroclus]

Aravis, thanks for your post--what a way to start your journey here.

Although much of what you said has been mentioned, I think you had some very good points.

/ot I looked at your profile. I think you and I will get along just fine.

[Little Cow]

Eglerio_i_hir,

I read through the first few posts in this thread and read the verses that are supposed to defend homeschooling as the only way. These verses apply to spiritual education and not to natural education.

"Deut 6:7
7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons 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 up.
NASU"

This verse is talking about the commandment God have given to the people that day. It does not apply to math, or science, or literature. It applies to the spiritual knowledge God had given them as explained in verse 6. I'm sorry, but you have taken that verse out of context and made it to say what you want it to. Lets stay in context here.

I am a huge fan of homeschooling. I want to homeschool my children. But I am not a fan of nitpicking scripture. Let the scripture define your beliefs, don't let your beliefs define scripture.

The next verse used...

"Eph 6:4
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
NASU"

This is also talking about spiritual things. This refers to teaching your children the principles of the Word and how to obey God. This says nothing about learning natural things.

You are a spirit, you have a soul, and you live in a body. You don't feed your body like you do your spirit. Your body eats steak and eggs, your spirit eats the Word of God. You don't exersize them the same either. Your body needs to run and do sit ups. You can't run your spirit, you pray and to other spiritual things to excersize your spirit. So you wouldn't teach them the same way either. I woulldn't want the government or even a Christian school to be my children's source for sound bilblical teaching. I want to train my own children in the ways of God with the help of a good pastor and church. There is nothing wrong with sending your children to school to learn natural things like math and science. Sure the school may not have all the right answers but if you train your children to follow God then the devil won't be able to use an unsaved teacher or carnal school system to get them off track. They will just go on serving God.

The other scriptures you used say pretty much the same thing (train your children concerning spiritual things).

You seem very passionate about homeschooling, but don't take that passion and use the Bible to beat people over the head with it :bonk: . You just do what you want with your children and let others do it their way. Neither way will be perfect.

[mrsnacks]

What are your thoughts on secular colleges ? I read an article sometime ago that stated statistics as high as 80% of christian students attending secular colleges fall away from the faith.Sounds like parents and the church aren't doing a good job EDUCATING the kids.

I was brought up in government schools and then attended college. My first year as a freshman I went from being a christian to an agnostic and then to atheism. All in one semester !Knowing the stories in the Bible is fine , but kids should be taught logic, apologetics, philosophy, and theology . And many parents and churches don't teach these subjects.

So are any of you arguing that a christian should only attend christian colleges ?? It appears that secular colleges do more damage to a believers faith than any public school could.

So if one takes the position that one shouldn't attend government schools then should a christian teach at a government school ?

One who teaches is not allowed to acknowledge God and teach about God in the classroom without being dismissed.

Another point is yes, the parents are responsible , but not all parents are responsible parents. In the world one usually has to be qualified in teaching . We drop the ball in church though. Look at the sunday schools and even at the pulpit. I attended many a church that if one wanted to teach sunday school or a class - they got to do it and usually without any credentials. Just a desire to teach or "God told me so " is all that is needed.

It is sad that we live in a world that it takes two incomes to make it today and the husband and wife are both working to make ends meet while uncle sam takes 40% of one's income away . It's not easy and parents have to put so much time into work and fight the freeway traffic that there is little time left to study and spend quality and quantity time with the family.

A lot of parents choose the easy way . Government schools are there and free. I can understand why so many christian families are not homeschooling . I don't totally agree, but I understand.