Response to Homeschooling Thread: Christian Schools Discussed

[Bartholomew]

Hi Eglerio_i_hir. I will be responding to the comments I have issue with.
05-11-2003 @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93307#post93307)
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."
Does this verse necessitate homeschooling? The problem with using this verse to support the education of all intellectual subjects is that Deut. 6:7 is, IMHO, not referring to pure factual information, but the commandments of the Lord. In all honesty, I do not see Christian schools interferring with the fulfillment of this command.
Ephesians 6:4 says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."
Again, I do not see this necessitating home schooling over all other types or forms of education. Fathers can still educate their children in Godly conduct even if they happen to be absent from the home, receiving a Christian education at a Christian school, for a portion of the day.

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)
Christian schools, albeit doctrially solid Christian schools, will not fail in at teaching Proverbs 1:7. If the Christian school community is founded on the fear of the Lord, the fear of the Lord will affect what is taught so that it will conform with Deut 6:5.

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….
I would need you to comment on 1 Cor. 12:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+12:29&language=english&version=NASB&showfn=on&showxref=on) before I could accept this. Given that not all are teachers, how can you expect homeschooling to be the only form of teaching? Although I do believe it's the parents primary concern to educate their children in the "fear of the Lord," not only do I sometimes see this goal fulfilled through Christian education/educators, but also I don't see this primary concern overlapping with the teaching of other knowledge, such as quantum mechanics, linear algebra, the history of church canon law, metaphysics, etc. The said topics do not seem (to me at least, and I could be wrong) to fall under the commandments stated in the verses you referenced, and as such, do not necessitate a parental (fatherly) figure to facilitate instruction.

~Matt

[Hadassah]

Hello, Matt.

If "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge", then all knowledge must be taught based on that fear of the Lord. All that we learn must be learned in acknowlegement of and in submission to the Truth of God found in Jesus Christ. This is the first thing the Bible says of knowledge. So far, Christian schools do not contradict with this principle. Well, as you carefully noted in your post, doctrinally solid, focused Christian schools will not fail in this area.

The Bible, though, goes further and describes the manner in which children should receive knowledge: through their parents. In fact, it is rather explicit about the identity of a child's educator. Almost every verse in the Bible that mentions "teaching" and "children" also mentions "parents". In Deuteronomy 6, it is the father that is identified as the teacher; in Psalm 78 it is the fathers who are cited as those that are responsible for imparting the knowledge a child should know; in Proverbs 4 a father reminds his son to listen to his teachings; and in Proverbs 1 a son is advised to listen to his father's instruction and heed to his mother's teaching. There is no verse, no example and no principle found in the Bible for anyone but the father and mother Biblically educating a child.

I would like to say here, though, that using the wonderful gifts and skills other members of the body have is a blessing from God to further His kingdom. If it is determined that a child would benefit from the specialized knowledge or skill of another Christian, then praise be to God for blessing us with that gift. But the parent is still the educator, the responsible and primary party for imparting knowledge.

The Bible goes further and specifies what it is we are to teach our children; what our "educational" goals are for our children. If you look in all the verses above, they all describe what the parents taught their children: the commands of the Lord and His gracious works toward His people. Our command is not raise a child learned in academics, but to raise a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Our desire, through education, is to raise disciples of Christ. That is what education IS. If all a child learns from their education is what God's Word says, then its goal is accomplished. This must be agreed upon to discern the best modern-day method by which to educate them.

This does not mean, however, that all other intellectual pursuits are discouraged or banned. In fact, all knowledge comes from God and is under His authority. So, if the kingdom of God would be furthered by your child understanding metaphysics, quantum mechanics, etc. (which, by all means, it can because all knowledge points to Christ), then have at it. It must be understood that they are not learning for the sake of knowledge outside of Christ, but rather, they are learning knowledge for the sake of Christ, so it must, therefore, be taught in light of God's Truth.

Christian schools can be a wonderful tool that parents use as part of their child's education. The problem I find with them is that by using them as the primary method of knowledge acquisition for a child (both Scriptural and academic, if you can separate them), is that the privilege and responsibility is shifted to a third party. The school is no longer a supplemental, peripheral part of the child's education, but the key player. This is not Biblical.

[Patroclus]

-Hadassah
If "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge", then all knowledge must be taught based on that fear of the Lord.

You know, if you keep using English translations, and reject historical nuances, then this works just fine. Knowledge, throughout the OT is not simply data, but a complete understanding through experience. Consider the Garden of Eden. Adam was instructed that he should not eat from teh tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, you have to ask yourself, "am I going to stick with this English translation and apply my particular circumstance to my understanding of this verse?" If you do, this is what you get.

In English, the word "knowledge" generally refers to emperical data. In other words, if Adam ate of the tree, then he would know what sin is because of some mystical froo-frau about the tree. However, this seems contradictory because Adam actuall already knows what Sin is because God has just told him, "Don't eat the fruit." The "knowledge" is actually an experiential knowledge. It is the substance of knowledge, not just the data thereof.

My roomate recently asked me why I believe in God. A few years ago, I would have regailed him on the details in my life, and God's presence, etc. However, I have come to realize that my faith in God gives substance to what I do. Eternal consequence gives all action meaning. Without it, there is not value. Knowledge is the same way. People can have data without the Fear of God (FOG). I had three years of excellent secular education at a junior college. However, because I had the FOG, my knowledge was not just data, but substantive information that would empower me in the future.

No amount of lesson-planning by parents will teach the Fear of God. That is a work of the Holy Spirit, albiet working through parents. However, this does not require the constant attention that you seem to be emphasizing. Why can't you rely on schools as the primary giver of acedemic knowledge. If the parents provide the base of the FOG, then there should not be a problem.

It must be understood that they are not learning for the sake of knowledge outside of Christ, but rather, they are learning knowledge for the sake of Christ, so it must, therefore, be taught in light of God's Truth.

First of all, this is a run-on.

I really think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. You do not teach FOG by telling children. You don't send Johnny off to college saying, "remember, your education is based on FOG." The idea is that the tools are instilled by your parenting. The ethos should not be, "we have knowledge, therefore we need substance." Rather, "we have FOG, therefore knowledge has substance."

Teaching kids biblical principles through math and literature is fine. But there comes a point when your children should be able to do that on their own.

The Bible, though, goes further and describes the manner in which children should receive knowledge: through their parents.

And in each verse it refers to moral and/or religious training. Nothing is said about reading, writing, arithmetic or physics. Again, you are reading into these verses.

Our command is not raise a child learned in academics, but to raise a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Our desire, through education, is to raise disciples of Christ. That is what education IS. If all a child learns from their education is what God's Word says, then its goal is accomplished.

Fine, but you will end-up with a generation of inarticulate children who have wonderful faith in God, but no means to communicate it. How is that going to benefit education?

This does not mean, however, that all other intellectual pursuits are discouraged or banned. In fact, all knowledge comes from God and is under His authority. So, if the kingdom of God would be furthered by your child understanding metaphysics, quantum mechanics, etc. (which, by all means, it can because all knowledge points to Christ), then have at it. It must be understood that they are not learning for the sake of knowledge outside of Christ, but rather, they are learning knowledge for the sake of Christ, so it must, therefore, be taught in light of God's Truth.

Again, the light of God's truth is already imparted through the parents. So, if the children have that base, why not let them be edcated by outsiders. I hope you plan on teaching them critical thinking as well.

Christian schools can be a wonderful tool that parents use as part of their child's education. The problem I find with them is that by using them as the primary method of knowledge acquisition for a child (both Scriptural and academic, if you can separate them), is that the privilege and responsibility is shifted to a third party. The school is no longer a supplemental, peripheral part of the child's education, but the key player. This is not Biblical.

It is not anti-scriptural either. It simply is not given.

[Bill the Cat]

My 2 daughters go to a Christian school, and from experience, they are far better off academically. We tried to put our oldest in public school in First grade after 2 years in Christian school (money shortage really) and she was tested. They wanted her to go into the THIRD GRADE!! She had the knowledge and learned math, english, handwriting, and social studies up to a 3rd grade level... starting 1st grade!! I see the academic benefit as well as the spiritual benefit of Christian schools. Hearing my 2 girls sing hymns and songs about Jesus in the back seat of our car driving down the road is so awesome. It is a sacrifice that has been well worth it.

*** edited after further contemplation**

Remember Samuel was shipped off to "Boarding School" to learn about God from Eli.

[Jade]

Today @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103920#post103920)
Hadassah:

The Bible, though, goes further and describes the manner in which children should receive knowledge: through their parents. In fact, it is rather explicit about the identity of a child's educator. Almost every verse in the Bible that mentions "teaching" and "children" also mentions "parents". In Deuteronomy 6, it is the father that is identified as the teacher; in Psalm 78 it is the fathers who are cited as those that are responsible for imparting the knowledge a child should know; in Proverbs 4 a father reminds his son to listen to his teachings; and in Proverbs 1 a son is advised to listen to his father's instruction and heed to his mother's teaching. There is no verse, no example and no principle found in the Bible for anyone but the father and mother Biblically educating a child.



You've got to remember that the culture of Israel does not mesh easily with ours.

In Israel only the the sons were taught such things things of scripture and other such education. Daughters stayed at home and learned how to care for the house. But daughters were not taught scripture directly (some might have overheard and pieced together a few things) because women were not to speak in synagogue or allowed to participate in govenmental affairs.

The son learned his father's trade beginning from an early age. The son, possibly from the time he could walk, would watch his father's work, and in time begin to practice parts himself. Since the boy was readily on had, the father could easily teach his son scripture and the things of God (and any other teaching that was necessary).

Today most fathers do not have the sort of jobs that will allow a toddler to tag along, and not much time is left for instruction when the dad is home from work. So are you saying, the father should stay home with the children and the mother should earn a living for her family? And do you endorse training and teaching only boys as the scripture says?

It's great if a person can homeschool their children. However, it is far better for parents send their children to a Christian school and compliment it with parental instruction, than it is to send them to public school (where not only are non-Christian ideals are taught, but immoral behavior is demonstrated) at such an impressionable age before they even have the skills to deal with it.

[Eglerio_i_hir]

Hello, all. Sorry Matt, been extraordinarily busy lately. I'm glad Hadassah stepped in.

Patroclus:
Long-time-no-bicker! Hopefully this round can be better, eh?

I do believe that I'll let Hadassah vouch for herself on the "knowledge" issue. I think she'll do a better job, anyway.

Your question, "Why can't you rely on schools as the primary giver of academic knowledge?" merely serves to show that you either did not read or did not understand our previous posts. We cannot rely on schools as the primary giver of academic knowlege because: one, parents are to teach their children (see our previous arguments). Two, state schools are illegal (see the US constitution). Three, you cannot separate academia from spiritual knowledge (see our previous arguments again).

Your comments about children being able to extract Scriptural principles from math or literature "on their own" will not here be answered in the manner you wish. If state schools are illegal, and Christian schools are supplemental or nonexistent, then homeschooling is all that is left and children will be practicing this concept under the supervision of a parent. How's that for a run-on sentence?

You said also, "...you will end-up with a generation of inarticulate children..." Why would we? The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. We will teach them that, then we will teach them the rest of "knowledge".

Bill the Cat:
Is that really your name, Bill? Or do you have a cat named Bill?

I just wanted to tell you that the story of Samuel is descriptive, not prescriptive (like the story of Rahab's lie). Also, I'm glad your little girls are smart and know lots of hymns. But, I have a question. How much better could it be for them to be at home and see the godly example of your wife--her submission to you, her skills in the home, her friendships with other Christian women--and to see the godly example of you leading the home?

Jade:
Hello. Glad to have you join us.

I see where you're coming from in your questions. We asked some of the same questions ourselves when we began looking into this subject. I will have to get back to you, though. This is our business computer and my mother has to do business on it. I will certainly think on your questions and answer them to the best of my ability as soon as possible.

Or Hadassah might. There's no telling.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104864#post104864)
Eglerio_i_hir:

Patroclus:
Long-time-no-bicker! Hopefully this round can be better, eh?


If you are trying to be offensive, you are doing a good job of it. I stepped in and looked at syntax and your hermeneutical approach. Both are very valid questions to be asking when somebody is trying to give a biblical definition and defense for a particular concept. It is called "cross examination." If I got upset, it was because you came off as patronizing with your "please stick to scripture" shield. I am not bickering, I am arguing. If I sound like I am repeating myself, it is because you consistantly fail to answer my questions.


Your question, "Why can't you rely on schools as the primary giver of academic knowledge?" merely serves to show that you either did not read or did not understand our previous posts. We cannot rely on schools as the primary giver of academic knowlege because: one, parents are to teach their children (see our previous arguments). Two, state schools are illegal (see the US constitution). Three, you cannot separate academia from spiritual knowledge (see our previous arguments again).

Actually, since this question has not been answered (e.g. you have not given historical, structural, or linguistic evidence--you have proof-texed yourself into a neat little construct that relies on English translations), I think the question is still valid. Furthermore:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Constitution I.viii.1

State schools may not be specifically included in the Constitution, but that is by no means legal force against them. How many other ammenities do we live with outside of direct constitutional mention? Basically, Congress can do whatever it passes laws to do. Furthermore, education easily falls under "general welfare." Not only are educated people better equipped, but education also provides resources for people such as doctors and pastors who promote physical and spiritual welfare, respectively.


Your comments about children being able to extract Scriptural principles from math or literature "on their own" will not here be answered in the manner you wish. If state schools are illegal,

Unproven

and Christian schools are supplemental or nonexistent,

Well, they may be supplimenting academic education that parents cannot give. As far as nonexistant, I do not know what you mean.

then homeschooling is all that is left and children will be practicing this concept under the supervision of a parent. How's that for a run-on sentence?

Well, since your premises aren't proven, then I suppose your conclusion does not follow. And, it is not a run-on sentence, it is a complex sentence: a sentece with two or more dependent clauses. A run-on sentence is a sentence that has two ore more independent clauses without proper punctuation.

You said also, "...you will end-up with a generation of inarticulate children..." Why would we? The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. We will teach them that, then we will teach them the rest of "knowledge".

But, that is not what you and Hadassay were saying. You were saying that it is okay if a parent is not equpped to teach his or her children so long as the parent can teach the fear of the Lord.

[SlaveofChrist]

I thought I might be of some help...
I got to a Christian High School and have analyzed it pretty carefully so if you all have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.
My experience there has been excellent and I'd recoomend it for basically anybody. I still have my general discontentions with the schooling system but unfortunately state law requires certain things.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104864#post104864)
Eglerio_i_hir:

Bill the Cat:
Is that really your name, Bill? Or do you have a cat named Bill?

I just wanted to tell you that the story of Samuel is descriptive, not prescriptive (like the story of Rahab's lie). Also, I'm glad your little girls are smart and know lots of hymns. But, I have a question. How much better could it be for them to be at home and see the godly example of your wife--her submission to you, her skills in the home, her friendships with other Christian women--and to see the godly example of you leading the home?

My name is Bill, and I love Bloom county and X Men. I have Bill the Cat tatooed on my arm (very drunk 13 years ago :no: )

My wife is a stay-at-home mom. She keeps and teaches our children until they are the age for school. That's one of the reasons why my 2 year old son (see me and him in the gallery) can match blocks in shape holes perfectly. My wife takes the time to teach him, as she did with my girls. The only problem is that they ALL need time away from each other. Before my oldest started school, and my wife had both girls, she lost who she is and just became "mom" and "honey" She needed time to herself to explore who she was. We are so much better off now that she has a life other than her "duties as a wife and mom" in her words. Make no mistake though, she relishes the ability to stay at home. Our daughters get the distinct pleasure of interacting with other kids their age, away from Mom's eyes. We try to lead a Godly example with our family time. Our oldest is 7 and has her own devotion book that she reads every night before she goes to bed and we discuss it the next evening. We are very active with each others' lives, but we are also still individuals. My children are learning to love God because they want to, not because we make them.

[Hadassah]

Hello, all. I am so sorry for not replying sooner. Both Eglerio and I have been busy this past week and weekend.

Patorclus:
"People can have data without the Fear of God (FOG). I had three years of excellent secular education at a junior college. However, because I had the FOG, my knowledge was not just data, but substantive information that would empower me in the future."

As you implied, I find it true that substantive knowledge is what will benefit us and what God desires us to know. I also think Scripture tells us that this knowledge can come only from Him (Prov 1:7). It is true that someone can know that the sky is blue without fearing God, but what meaning is there in that knowledge? As you said, the fear of God gives purpose and meaning to knowledge, which will give you true knowledge, an ability to do something with it. We do not desire to learn as the pagans do: acquiring fact after fact to apply it to another fact. We desire to learn more about God Himself and His creation in order to bring glory to Him and to further His kingdom.

"No amount of lesson-planning by parents will teach the Fear of God. That is a work of the Holy Spirit, albiet working through parents. However, this does not require the constant attention that you seem to be emphasizing. "

Your first point rings so true. Parents cannot, as hard as they might try, make their children godly through a curriculum. Neither can they make them "smart". All that a child becomes is by the grace of God. So to depend on a certain curriculum or system or rule book is absolute foolishness. Yet, the Bible does speak to parents. When you say that instilling knowledge of God and a fear of Him in our children does not require the "constant attention" I emphasize, it seems very unclear where you're drawing this from. Could you please explain? I find that the seriousness of God's commands to parents, and the practical ways His people carried them out displayed a lengthy time committment to their children. (For more explanation or Scripture, see our past posts, or, if you'd like me to explain, just ask.)

"The ethos should not be, 'we have knowledge, therefore we need substance.' Rather, 'we have FOG, therefore knowledge has substance.' "

I'm not quite sure where we disagree here. It's possible (actually, it's likely) that my wording created a poor representation of what I was trying to say. All that a child learns must come FROM God and be set aside FOR God. That's what I was trying to point out. We know and fear God, therefore we have real, substantive knowledge. We acquire this knowledge for the purpose of glorifying God and furthering His kingdom.

"And in each verse it refers to moral and/or religious training. Nothing is said about reading, writing, arithmetic or physics. "

If we see knowledge as God has told us to see it, and as Jews saw it, there would be no separation of "moral and/or religious training" and "reading, writing, arithmetic or physics". God is in all and through all. If I teach my child math and they don't learn something about God, I am not instilling that "substantive knowledge" we both agree is necessary. In everything we teach them, we teach them about God and His laws. Didn't you say that "Teaching kids biblical principles through math and literature is fine"? That is what I am proposing: that whatever they learn (math, writing, Physics, OT law, the Ten Commandments, or their ABC's), that it all reflect God and His character for the purpose of raising godly children.

"Fine, but you will end-up with a generation of inarticulate children who have wonderful faith in God, but no means to communicate it. "

How will they end up inarticulate? We've already discussed that knowledge is not bound to simply hearing or learning God's law - it is learning everything in light of Him for a purpose set aside for Him. Why wouldn't this compel every Christian parent to ensure that their children have a thorough understanding of whatever they learn? If a parent was raising a child to fear God and further His kingdom, why would they discourage using that child's mind to the fullest extent possible? It would seem that knowledge without substance (as is learned apart from God), rather than the substantive knowledge our children will learn, would lead to an inarticulate generation.

I hope it's also clear that Eglerio and I are not saying that all a parent must know is the fear of God. Not at all. But the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. If a parent does not have that, they have nothing. They must remember their purpose in raising children: to glorify God. They can do this by fearing God and teaching that fear of God to their children.

Hadassah

[Patroclus]

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109215#post109215)
Hadassah:

<snip>
As you implied, I find it true that substantive knowledge is what will benefit us and what God desires us to know. I also think Scripture tells us that this knowledge can come only from Him (Prov 1:7). It is true that someone can know that the sky is blue without fearing God, but what meaning is there in that knowledge? As you said, the fear of God gives purpose and meaning to knowledge, which will give you true knowledge, an ability to do something with it. We do not desire to learn as the pagans do: acquiring fact after fact to apply it to another fact. We desire to learn more about God Himself and His creation in order to bring glory to Him and to further His kingdom.

My point is that it is not necessary to monitor your children throughout the day. In fact, it is impossible, especially in the older ages. What I am saying is that if the parents instill the FOG in their children, where that child goes to school is irrelevant. Throughout my time in my junior college, I never forgot what my parents taught me while I was growing-up. I had doubts from time to time, but those doubts only increased the profundity of my ever returning choice in God.


Your first point rings so true. Parents cannot, as hard as they might try, make their children godly through a curriculum. Neither can they make them "smart". All that a child becomes is by the grace of God. So to depend on a certain curriculum or system or rule book is absolute foolishness. Yet, the Bible does speak to parents. When you say that instilling knowledge of God and a fear of Him in our children does not require the "constant attention" I emphasize, it seems very unclear where you're drawing this from. Could you please explain? I find that the seriousness of God's commands to parents, and the practical ways His people carried them out displayed a lengthy time committment to their children. (For more explanation or Scripture, see our past posts, or, if you'd like me to explain, just ask.)
Emphasis Added
Again, let me state that the scripture references you gave are less than convincing. Parents are responsible for instilling the FOG. But, they are not responsible for teaching them about physics or Shakespeare. Both these subjects have great value in life, but it does not matter from where children learn about these subjects as long as the parents are doing their job of spiritual training in the home.

The scripture you give is unconvincing because they do not say anything about lessons lower than those that are spiritual. You see the (English) word knowledge, you proof text at a few places, and you come-up with this grand philosophy of education that you call "Biblical." You have this wonderful notion that you must teach everything along side spiritual principles. But, when confronted with the fact that you cannot teach everything, rather than concede that outside schooling may be a good idea (i.e. College), you suggest that the kids probably do not need whatever the parents don't have.

You are right; I am not pulling from scripture, because it simply isn't there. And what you are claiming, that a Christian child's education must be in the home, does not come through scripture without some textual acrobatics. I am speaking, rather, from experience as somebody who has been homeschooled for quite a long time, and has also gone through a form of the public school system.

You can learn things about God without, necessarily, going to scripture. How many times are we encouraged to ask the birds (Job 12:7), or taste and see (Psalms 37:4)? I submit it is possible, in part, to learn God's will by searching our reason. After all, he gave it to us.

<snip>
If we see knowledge as God has told us to see it,

Correction, as you suppose God has told us to see it.

[/quote]and as Jews saw it,[/quote]

You, thus far, have not given one scrap of historical evidence. Although I am not necessarily inclined to disagree, since I did my homework on the Pharisees, why don't you look-up your info about Jewish education and let us know what you found?

there would be no separation of "moral and/or religious training" and "reading, writing, arithmetic or physics".

The point is, that if parents give the spiritual training at home, that is the foundation for what they get at school. I guarantee that a child will doubt from time to time. But, I also believe, very firmly, that doubt is essential to building faith. I submit that before a child doubts, his or her faith is in the parents, not necessarily God. My faith in God was not faith until I actually had to step outside of my childhood reality into a choice to believe in God.

God is in all and through all.

That sounds just a bit pantheistic, doesn't it? I don't think that is what you meant to say.

If I teach my child math and they don't learn something about God, I am not instilling that "substantive knowledge" we both agree is necessary.

You are missing the point. If the child's point of reference is the FOG, then the math lesson has already taught the child something about God. The challenge is for parents to make their voice better than the world's. That is accomplished in healthy and godly family relationships, not in lesson plans--not in applying a Bible verse to arithmetic.

In everything we teach them, we teach them about God and His laws. Didn't you say that "Teaching kids biblical principles through math and literature is fine"? That is what I am proposing: that whatever they learn (math, writing, Physics, OT law, the Ten Commandments, or their ABC's), that it all reflect God and His character for the purpose of raising godly children.

Yes, it is fine. But you need to let your kids go. There comes a time when they are going to be out in the world, and all they will have to stand on is their principles. They may not have a Bible verse for every situation, because there isn't one. It is faith that will bring them through, not just lesson plans that have some biblical principle tied to it like a fancy ribbon. Our faith is not in the Bible, it is in God. If all your Bibles were burned-up, you would not be without faith. That is for what we are responsible, as parents. We do not live in the same society as the Jews. In biblical times, most people never traveled farther than five miles from their hometown. Mom and Dad were always there. However, there is a good chance, today, that your son or daughter will marry and move across the continent. Our job is to give our children the basics of God, and His love for us--not the whole kit-and-caboodle.


How will they end up inarticulate? We've already discussed that knowledge is not bound to simply hearing or learning God's law - it is learning everything in light of Him for a purpose set aside for Him. Why wouldn't this compel every Christian parent to ensure that their children have a thorough understanding of whatever they learn? If a parent was raising a child to fear God and further His kingdom, why would they discourage using that child's mind to the fullest extent possible? It would seem that knowledge without substance (as is learned apart from God), rather than the substantive knowledge our children will learn, would lead to an inarticulate generation.

Of course, you know that your last statement is hyperbolic because there are many articulate atheists. But, it is a good point that people may be spiritually inarticulate.

My comment was made based on statements that suggest that children only need to learn as much as the parents know. So, perhaps I misread you. But, if I may re-quote you:

If a parent was raising a child to fear God and further His kingdom, why would they discourage using that child's mind to the fullest extent possible?

This seems to suggest that you do not have a problem with parents allowing their children to be educated outside the home where a parent's education may be limited. Is this true? I, honestly, do not have a problem with homeschooling, per se. However, I do have a problem when parents are so dogmatic about homeschooling their kids that they actually hold their kids back, intellectually, by not letting them pursue education outside of the home where information exceeds the scope of the parents.

I hope it's also clear that Eglerio and I are not saying that all a parent must know is the fear of God. Not at all. But the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. If a parent does not have that, they have nothing. They must remember their purpose in raising children: to glorify God. They can do this by fearing God and teaching that fear of God to their children.

Hadassah

We agree there.

P.S. I am assuming that you are from the United States. In the US, punctuation is placed within quotation marks at the end of sentences ( …the end.”—not …the end”.). In the UK, it is not; but they are working with different style systems.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109716#post109716)
Patroclus:

I am assuming that you are from the United States. In the US, punctuation is placed within quotation marks at the end of sentences ( …the end.”—not …the end”.). In the UK, it is not; but they are working with different style systems.

Picky, picky. Actually, if the UK is anything like Australia, they would put the punctuation inside the quote if it actually pertains to the quoted part. I.e. if we cite something right to the end of a sentence, we would put the punctuation inside the quotes. But if the the part we quote does NOT end where the original sentence did, then the punctuation would be outside the quotes. There is a clear distinction which the Yankee rigid system obliterates. A simlar rule applies to clauses.

For example: consider if the original sentence is, "This is impossible; let's go home."

It could be quoted as:
"This is impossible," she said, "let's go home."
Here, the comma is inside because the original quote had a semicolon inside. The period is also inside, because it corresponds to the period in the original.

However, consider what would happen if the original was "Crawl back into your hole." Then it would be quoted as:
"Crawl back", he said, "into your hole."
Note that the comma is outside, because the part quoted had no punctuation in the original after the word "back". But there is a period after "hole" because that matches the original.

Extending this, it could be:
"Crawl back", he said, "into your hole," and glowered menacingly.
Here, there is a comma after "hole" and before the quote, because it corresponds to the end of the sentence in the original.

[Patroclus]

Looky there! My knowledge of the UK is broadened. That will be useful when I go to Oxford. I think the UK system works better anyway. It is more clear, and reasonable.

Of course, there is a point to correcting her grammar. I wouldn't just do it to be a pain in the butt. I am saying that people outside the home can be a valuable resource. I am well versed in American style (particularly MLA), with only a cursory knowledge of UK style. However, as Socrates demonstrated, one can learn from a person other than one's parents without necessary moral compromise.

Thanks, Soc! :thumb:

[Sher]

Today @ 03:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109726#post109726)
Socrates:

[...] they would put the punctuation inside the quote if it actually pertains to the quoted part. I.e. if we cite something right to the end of a sentence, we would put the punctuation inside the quotes. But if the the part we quote does NOT end where the original sentence did, then the punctuation would be outside the quotes. There is a clear distinction which the Yankee rigid system obliterates. A simlar rule applies to clauses.

:thumb: YES!

It has always annoyed me to no end that we (US) do it "wrong".

It makes absolutely no sense to me to place the puncuation for a quote in the midst of a sentence after the period, if the sentence itself isn't the quote.

~ Sher, who is proud of herself for resisting the Librarian urge to correct the duplicated the the and misspelled similar in your quote, Soc ... especially after picking on me about irregardless the other day :lol:

[Socrates]

:eek: :hrm: :shocked: :bow: :shy:

[Sher]

:teeth: :lol:

[Hadassah]

Hello, Patroclus. I hope you've been well. And I apologize for the long delay. With summer classes and visiting friends, I haven't been able to respond.

I'm not quite sure where to start, because I feel that I've been misunderstood in many respects. (And, as I've mentioned before, it's most definitely due to my inability to clearly communicate ideas.)

Let me first just summarize my view of education and the raising of children. I believe they are one and the same. What my God has said in the Bible concerning children is to pass on my faith to them, and so that will be my primary goal. I believe that my faith will be their faith until they mature enough to have their own. I do not believe that "education" is in the Bible, and so, because of that, I must form the idea of one from what the Bible says. (Because I will not take for granted that what this world calls education is, in fact, what the Lord God intended covenant children to receive.) What should I teach them? What should be the purpose of their learning?

I will raise my children with the knowledge that their purpose on this earth is to glorify God, enjoy Him forever and build His kingdom. In accordance with that purpose, I think that the most important thing they need to know is Who God is. (And, in fact, that's the only commandment God gives to parents concerning what to teach our children. So, because of that, shouldn't it be our primary goal?)
This is all God has asked of parents in the Bible:
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”.
That is the real success in a child: keeping the faith and commandments of the Lord God that their parents passed to them.

Is "learning Who God is" the extent of the education or upbringing my children will receive? Yes and no. It is their purpose, their heartbeat. But it also includes being able to know things (as much as they can!), to think clearly and critically (as best they can!), and to master the art of rhetoric (as best they can). I have the responsibility of seeing that a child knows Who God is and giving them what they need to be effective members of the kingdom of God. The more things my children know, and the better they think and communicate, the more effective kingdom-builders they will be. That is my goal.

Now, to respond to your post:

"My point is that it is not necessary to monitor your children throughout the day. In fact, it is impossible, especially in the older ages. What I am saying is that if the parents instill the FOG in their children, where that child goes to school is irrelevant."
How do you suppose that a parent can "instill FOG" in a child without being with them for the majority of the time they are awake? Or, a better question, how could a parent "instill FOG" in a child if that child is gone most of the day with other adults?

"The scripture you give is unconvincing because they do not say anything about lessons lower than those that are spiritual."
I think we should take this as a huge clue as to what we should be teaching! You're right: they do not say anything about lessons lower than those that are spiritual, so why do we make those the cornerstone of education?

"...when confronted with the fact that you cannot teach everything, rather than concede that outside schooling may be a good idea (i.e. College), you suggest that the kids probably do not need whatever the parents don't have."
Not at all! I am so sorry to have given you that impression. When (not if, because it IS inevitable), as a parent, I find myself confronted with a subject my children need to learn but that I cannot teach, I will find a Christian that, in the context of that same purpose (knowing and glorifying God), will teach it to them.

"Although I am not necessarily inclined to disagree, since I did my homework on the Pharisees, why don't you look-up your info about Jewish education and let us know what you found?"
Well, I hate to broach this "historical evidence" topic again, but I'll tell you what I found. The Jews (specifically, the Pharisean sect) first established schools around the first century a.d. They were first elementary level schools, and then higher level education schools were established. I don't believe this really helps either one of us because: 1) they only taught Scripture (so it does not benefit you) and 2) they were Pharisees who I don't believe were teaching God's truth (so I won't recognize them as a sect we should follow). What else do you think about it that might be relevant to our disucssion?

"I guarantee that a child will doubt from time to time. But, I also believe, very firmly, that doubt is essential to building faith." I absolutely disagree with this statement. First, children are not known in the kingdom for their "doubting" (and they shouldn't be!), but for their questioning. When I say to a child, "God made everything" and they ask me all the why's and what's that could possibly follow that statement, that is not a display of doubt, but of curiosity. That should be encouraged. Doubt, however, is the antithesis of what God has directed us to instill in our children. It is the opposite of faith. I believe it should never be encouraged or expected!

" 'God is in all and through all.' That sounds just a bit pantheistic, doesn't it? I don't think that is what you meant to say."
No, that's really what I meant to say. "There is...one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6). He is sovereign. We should teach our kids with respect to that.

"If the child's point of reference is the FOG, then the math lesson has already taught the child something about God."
My point here was that we must teach our kids all the time for their "point of reference" to become "the FOG". If they are a child, whatever they are doing, I think they need to be constantly learning about God for Him to later be established as their point of reference. Their point of reference won't be shaped until much later in their childhood/adolescence, but until then, we must constantly shape it. And THEN let go.

"This seems to suggest that you do not have a problem with parents allowing their children to be educated outside the home where a parent's education may be limited. Is this true?"
Yes, sir, it is! I hope I've made that more clear. Until my child's faith (or point of reference, as you called it) is strong enough to stand on their own, I will not let go. I will constantly teach and shape them until they are ready. Send them college? Maybe. It depends on the child's faith. But their "education" is in my hands, and, until they know enough about God and Who He is to stand on their own, they will be mine and mine alone.

And btw, thanks for the grammar correction. Keep 'em coming!

Hadassah

[Patroclus]

Today @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123897#post123897)
Hadassah:

Hello, Patroclus. I hope you've been well. And I apologize for the long delay. With summer classes and visiting friends, I haven't been able to respond.

No problem. I have been busy as well. I think I am going to skip over your philosophy as we have already been through that.


Now, to respond to your post:

&quot;My point is that it is not necessary to monitor your children throughout the day. In fact, it is impossible, especially in the older ages. What I am saying is that if the parents instill the FOG in their children, where that child goes to school is irrelevant.&quot;
How do you suppose that a parent can &quot;instill FOG&quot; in a child without being with them for the majority of the time they are awake? Or, a better question, how could a parent &quot;instill FOG&quot; in a child if that child is gone most of the day with other adults?

Don't you think you are being a bit mathematical about this? God is bigger than your idea of how much time you should spend with your children. I know plenty of people, educated in public and private schools, who regard their parents as their spiritual leaders during their childhood.

&quot;The scripture you give is unconvincing because they do not say anything about lessons lower than those that are spiritual.&quot;
I think we should take this as a huge clue as to what we should be teaching! You're right: they do not say anything about lessons lower than those that are spiritual, so why do we make those the cornerstone of education?

Who said anything about cornerstones? Faith is not only the cornerstone of a fully developed education, but of life in general. What I am saying is that as long as parents provide that cornerstone at home, whoever teaches them about The Illiad is not altogether relevant.

&quot;...when confronted with the fact that you cannot teach everything, rather than concede that outside schooling may be a good idea (i.e. College), you suggest that the kids probably do not need whatever the parents don't have.&quot;
Not at all! I am so sorry to have given you that impression. When (not if, because it IS inevitable), as a parent, I find myself confronted with a subject my children need to learn but that I cannot teach, I will find a Christian that, in the context of that same purpose (knowing and glorifying God), will teach it to them.

I hate to break it to you, but your children are not going to grow up believing that you will always have the final say on their decisions, especially once they are adults. What if one of your children wants to go to a secular college?

You cannot rely on teachers to impart spiritual truth. They will have many informal teachers in life (employers, business people, doctors, etc.). Your job will be praying that you can maintain yourself as an example of the Christian principles that you are trying to teach so that when they get their secular educations (which they WILL), that they will be able to look at you. Nobody's faith is completely ready for everything. That takes the strength of the Holy Spirit on a case by case basis. But, I will tell you this: my faith has never been stronger than when I began to live away from my parents.

&quot;Although I am not necessarily inclined to disagree, since I did my homework on the Pharisees, why don't you look-up your info about Jewish education and let us know what you found?&quot;
Well, I hate to broach this &quot;historical evidence&quot; topic again, but I'll tell you what I found. The Jews (specifically, the Pharisean sect) first established schools around the first century a.d. They were first elementary level schools, and then higher level education schools were established. I don't believe this really helps either one of us because: 1) they only taught Scripture (so it does not benefit you) and 2) they were Pharisees who I don't believe were teaching God's truth (so I won't recognize them as a sect we should follow). What else do you think about it that might be relevant to our disucssion?

Don't miss the gems for the rocks around them. Follow the links that I gave. There were Pharisees who earnestly strove to please God because of the love that they had for him. Just because you see Jesus humbling a few of them in Jerusalem is no reason to believe that all Pharisees were hypocrites and liers.

Some source references for your finding would be nice.

&quot;I guarantee that a child will doubt from time to time. But, I also believe, very firmly, that doubt is essential to building faith.&quot; I absolutely disagree with this statement. First, children are not known in the kingdom for their &quot;doubting&quot; (and they shouldn't be!), but for their questioning. When I say to a child, &quot;God made everything&quot; and they ask me all the why's and what's that could possibly follow that statement, that is not a display of doubt, but of curiosity. That should be encouraged. Doubt, however, is the antithesis of what God has directed us to instill in our children. It is the opposite of faith. I believe it should never be encouraged or expected!

Curiosity is the child of doubt. If there are no questions, there is no doubt. For instance, I went to buy a cell phone today. The salesman presented me with a couple of options. I had to ask questions because I knew that picking one of the choices at random would not benefit me.

In the same way, you may tell a child that Jesus loves him. He may ask, "even if I tell a lie?" The child is asking this out of a curiosity that is based on a doubt: "I am not as lovable when I lie. So does Jesus love all the same?" These are not faith-shattering doubts; they are doubts that aide growth.

Doubt is not disbelief. Disbelief seeks no answers for all decision is foreclosed. Doubt actively seeks answers.

&quot; 'God is in all and through all.' That sounds just a bit pantheistic, doesn't it? I don't think that is what you meant to say.&quot;
No, that's really what I meant to say. &quot;There is...one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all&quot; (Ephesians 4:6). He is sovereign. We should teach our kids with respect to that.

Okay.

&quot;If the child's point of reference is the FOG, then the math lesson has already taught the child something about God.&quot;
My point here was that we must teach our kids all the time for their &quot;point of reference&quot; to become &quot;the FOG&quot;. If they are a child, whatever they are doing, I think they need to be constantly learning about God for Him to later be established as their point of reference. Their point of reference won't be shaped until much later in their childhood/adolescence, but until then, we must constantly shape it. And THEN let go.

And how, exactly, are you going to know that your child's faith has matured beyond your faith? Will it be when you are convinced that they believe just as you, or when you are able to respectfully disagree on fine points? Or, will your assurance come from some other circumstance?

I am glad to finally know that you are not a parent; I was concerned for a bit. I was not concerned that you would lack any love for your future children--I blieve that you will love them wholeheartedly. However, I was concerned because it seemed that you had generated a whole philosophy with general answers that do not probe possible outcomes. In short, it seems that you have not thought things through, and that you have not yet accepted that you have not thought things through. No parent is totally ready for what is ahead of them when their first child comes. It seems to me that you have a great amount of faith in this philosophy that you have constructed, and are not yet willing to see its weaknesses in the unforseen.

&quot;This seems to suggest that you do not have a problem with parents allowing their children to be educated outside the home where a parent's education may be limited. Is this true?&quot;
Yes, sir, it is! I hope I've made that more clear. Until my child's faith (or point of reference, as you called it) is strong enough to stand on their own, I will not let go. I will constantly teach and shape them until they are ready. Send them college? Maybe. It depends on the child's faith. But their &quot;education&quot; is in my hands, and, until they know enough about God and Who He is to stand on their own, they will be mine and mine alone.

And what if your nineteen year-old son (a legal adult) decides to go to Stanford Universtiy in California, and you are not sure that his faith is ready?

There is a lot of uncertainty when a child leaves the home. There are more variable than you can count, or account for with your philosophy.

And btw, thanks for the grammar correction. Keep 'em coming!

Hadassah

The grammar correction was to prove a point that useful instruction is possible without directly incorporating a spiritual lesson. For instance, if a child already knows that as a Christian, he or she should strive for excellence, restating that lesson for correcing grammar is not necessary.

Good luck with your classes. Are you a High School or College student?

[Hadassah]

Patroclus,

Hello again. I'm not sure what you know about my doctrine, but it is the foundation of my beliefs about child-rearing. I believe that Christian children are part of God's holy covenant community, and that their purpose is to be raised to be effective citizens of His kingdom, so as to glorify Him. I believe in biblical federal headship in the home, and this means that a child belongs to his parents, and they alone have the honor and responsibility of raising that child. I believe God cares nothing for the mainstream goals of academic achievement and success, and so I do not either. I think that this discussion, then, is more about doctrine and/or theology. If you would like more information on my particular beliefs, you can find them here:
http://www.gcc-web.org/wcf.htm
http://www.gcc-web.org/pe181.htm
http://www.gcc-web.org/pt148.htm
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
http://www.reformed.org/christian_education/
http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/
www.highlandsstudycenter.org (read the back newsletter articles)
http://www.canonpress.org/pages/education.asp

And some books:
Almighty Over All - R.C. Sproul, Jr.
The Family Series - Doug and Nancy Wilson (Including Reforming Marriage, Standing on the Promises, Federal Husband, The Fruit of Her Hands and Praise Her in the Gates)
Postmillenialism - Keith Mathison
Back to Basics - Edited by David Hagopian
To a Thousand Generations - Doug Wilson
All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes - Ken Meyers


My beliefs about God and His covenant with us, His children, are the origin of my thoughts on education. It seems fruitless to discuss such a highly important issue without first having a common perception of God's children. This degenerates a discussion of Truth to mere experience, philosophy or pragmatics.

God be with you,
Hadassah

[Patroclus]

This degenerates a discussion of Truth to mere experience, philosophy or pragmatics.

Mere? My dear Hadassah, if truth actually has verity, then it stands up to experience, philosophy and pragmatics. That is like saying you just want to be a Christian, but you really don't care what the Bible has to say about it.

So, you believe that your children are your possession. I do not necessarily agree, but let's run with that.

What if your child disagrees?

You can only give so much. Give them Jesus, give them love and let them work out the dogma. If you train your kids up right, when they are old, they won't depart from it--that isn't to say that they won't shake a bit when they are young.

When your kids stand before God, is He going to care more that they believed in Jesus as their savior, or that they believed that you owned them?

One of the biggest problems that I have with Homeschooling as a dogmatic principle is that it sets itself up as the hope for social-cloning.

[Socrates]

06-18-2003 @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126194#post126194)
Patroclus (to Hadassah):

When your kids stand before God, is He going to care more that they believed in Jesus as their savior, or that they believed that you owned them?

A false dilemma. God does care about building kids with a biblical foundation where fear of Him is paramount, and not sending them off to canaanitesque places where the quasi-parental figure says that the Bible is a myth and sex outside marriage is OK.

One of the biggest problems that I have with Homeschooling as a dogmatic principle is that it sets itself up as the hope for social-cloning.

If you want to see dogmatism, just look at public schooling parents. Most haven't even thought about it--they just send their kids there because that's the thing to do. And if they are Christian and want to rationalise it, they nearly always bring up the dogmatic claims "public schools are essential for socialization" and "someone has to witness to the public school kids".

[Patroclus]

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131982#post131982)
Socrates:



A false dilemma. God does care about building kids with a biblical foundation where fear of Him is paramount, and not sending them off to canaanitesque places where the quasi-parental figure says that the Bible is a myth and sex outside marriage is OK.

Perhaps, but this is not what is before us. What is before us is the notion that parents must homeschool their children.

If you want to see dogmatism, just look at public schooling parents. Most haven't even thought about it--they just send their kids there because that's the thing to do. And if they are Christian and want to rationalise it, they nearly always bring up the dogmatic claims &quot;public schools are essential for socialization&quot; and &quot;someone has to witness to the public school kids&quot;.

Well, it is a good thing, then, that people like you and I are thinking individuals. I have heard the argument about witnessing being used, and I think it is flimsy. As far as saying that public school is "essential" for socialization, I have never heard that. Though, I do think that it provides a good socializing environment.

From personal experience, the socialization at college was much better than the socialization at church--ever. Perhaps I just had a bad run of churches, though.

[Sher]

06-24-2003 @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132036#post132036)
Patroclus:

Though, I do think that it provides a good socializing environment.

From personal experience, the socialization at college was much better than the socialization at church--ever. Perhaps I just had a bad run of churches, though.

Hi Pat,

I'm curious ... what do you think is *good* about the environment in public school ... appropriate for socialization?

I've rung in previously on my take ... but I'd be curious to hear yours.

~Sher~