Monday, April 23, 2012

College for Church Kids, pt. 2

I'll be continuing with the actual history of one Bible onlyism, also known as KJO, and why I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm busier than usual, ready to leave for a few days, so I'll move ahead with this series, because it's easier right now to write about.  Stay tuned.  There is a part one to the below post.

*********************

All four of my children have spent every year of their primary and secondary education so far at Bethel Christian Academy, a ministry of our church.  I do not believe that an elementary and primary aged young person should go to a public school.  It's not because it would be wrong to attend a public school.  Moses and Daniel both went to public school.   They didn't divide over the school, but over disobedience to the Word of God.   I wouldn't want to risk these children and young people to the influences of the public school.  It's too much for almost all children and young people.

For many years, we recommended all of our high school graduates to some Christian college.  Ultimately, it could only be a college the ministry of a church.  It turned out OK for our young people.  But here's what happened---mainly three things.

First, the nature of the Christian college is such that few to none believe and practice like our church.  That's where the conviction of 1 Timothy, two texts in particular (1:3b, 4a; 6:2b, 3, 5b), enters the decision:

....that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed.... 

These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;....from such withdraw thyself....

On the basis of these texts, within the context of a church or an ecclesiastical institution (one that claims to teach doctrine and practice with authority, like a parachurch organization), I don't believe we should be exposing our own young people to doctrine and practice other than what our own church believes and practices.  I don't see how to obey these passages in God's Word and recommend young people to any Christian college that doesn't believe and practice identical to our church.  There is one doctrine and practice.  Our young people should continue believing that.  We are not to give heed to any other doctrine.

Every Bible college our young people attended, they were being taught a doctrine and practice other than our church's.  I don't blame that on the colleges.  I blame it on us for recommending and even sending our young people to those places.  These places believed and taught their doctrine before our young people arrived.  And then when they did arrive, they were in for a regular battle over what they were taught at our church.

This all makes sense, because these college-aged students should be learning their doctrine and practice in their own church.  The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), not a college.  Before or shortly after I was born, churches became convinced that their young people had to go to college to get their doctrine.  So much goes wrong in doing it this way (that I will discuss in a future part to this series), and mainly because God didn't design this as the way for doctrine and practice to be promulgated.  I'm sure that they thought that a person could no longer be prepared for this complicated world by a mere church.  And churches agreed to this extra-scriptural arrangement.

I can't recommend our high school graduates to a place that teaches something different than what we believe or practice.   It's because of those verses in 1 Timothy.  I found it difficult to oppose when they learned something different, without coming into sharp conflict with the place where they received it.  I didn't want to have that kind of conflict, but I really brought it upon myself by recommending it or sending them there in the first place.  And again, it wasn't the fault of that institution.  They were probably doing the best job they could with the ideas they already held.

Many Christian colleges are a worse influence than a state college.  Why?  One, your young people are exposed to the wrong belief and practice.  The kids are often peddled a worldly version of Christianity that is more damaging to your young people's affections for God.  Their guard is down.  They become accustomed many times to a view that diminishes what they received from their church.  Some watered down version of Christianity, I believe, is more dangerous than what you know is in and of the world.  That's easier to distinguish and dispense with.

So church kids should learn their doctrine and practice from your church.  The only other alternative is to learn it at a church that teaches exactly what you believe and practice.  That's not superior to your own church, but I believe it is acceptable, because it doesn't come into conflict with 1 Timothy 1 and 6.

I believe that your church kids are better off going to a local community college or something better (the latter in part depending on the financials) and staying home with their family and their church.  Their family and their church are what should be teaching those most important doctrines, practices, and character traits.  That's what we're doing and I'll break that down a little bit more in a future part to this series.

Second, I noticed that young people who graduated from a Christian college were ill prepared to support a family.  Now, you may say, sure they do:  pastor, missionary, and Christian school teacher.  None of those gives much hope of financial support, especially for a twenty-two year old young man, who needs to support a wife and family.  Generally, each of those require someone else to do something to support one of those young people.

This is where I began rethinking the point of college.  Why do we send our young people to college?  Is it to get Christian instruction?  I send you to number one again for that point.  I think it is to prepare them to earn a living, essentially to fulfill their God-given roles, which for a man is to support a wife and children.  Part of being a good parent is training your sons to earn a living.  Do Christian colleges do the best job in preparing a young man to do that?  At this point, I don't think so.  I'm not convinced that they even do a superior job of educating our college-aged young people.  I'm talking about preparing them to make it in the world in the most basic way possible.   Christian colleges try.  They very often do their best.  My observation is that as a whole they're inferior, in part because they lack the resources.

Our first tier of education responsibility is to fulfill the basic responsibility of earning a living.  That is a godly task.  It should be fulfilled.  Christian kids can make it in the world after high school if they have Christian character.  They'll be able to hold a job.  They might even do more.  If we're talking about the advantage of college, we want more than merely holding a job.  We want to offer a greater advantage of a better job---for instance, the kind of job that allows the wife to stay home with the children.  In many instances, you've got two Christian college graduates, who both, man and woman, must earn an income to make ends meet.  They're done with college, back in your church, and now what?  They're not the responsibility of the Christian college.

Third, Christian colleges have a difficult time competing with state or other private colleges in the quality of education.  They can't usually get the experts in the field that can compete even with the community college.  This year my daughter, a senior in high school, took Chemistry in a local community college and her teacher was a PhD in Chemistry that was an excellent teacher of Chemistry.  By the way, the class cost her and us (as taxpayers in this state) one dollar.   I understand that you'll have some bad influences from them here or there.  We can debate that if you wish.  Math really is math.  Much of science really is science.  English is English.  Writing is writing.  And when they are in those classes, they'll be at home and with their church, or at least with their church, the right church, to guide them through those times.  They're going to face them in the real world anyway.

I'll be breaking down how this has worked and is working with us in future parts to this series.

17 comments:

Gary Webb said...

Brother Brandenburg,
Amen. I am in agreement with these points. We keep our kids at home while sending them to local universities. But ... I would definitely NOT say that "...English is English ..." English in the public university is watching movies & reporting on it online & talking about some of the vile elements in class. Some may make it through college without having to face this, but it is highly unlikely.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Bro Webb,

Thanks. Is that in a grammar class that they faced this? I agree that literature isn't literature, and that's what I was thinking. When I was in college, that course was English and American Masterpieces.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

Greetings! I had the following comments, testimony, and questions.

I am glad that in the public grade school you went to as a little kid
you didn't have that much evil there. When I was in a public school,
up through second grade, the kids sang sexually explicit songs during
recess, and taught them to each other. Yes, this is K-2nd grade.
There was also violence.

Furthermore, when I was in a non-Christian school, before eighth
grade, there was freely flowing alcohol, all kids of sexual influence,
a pounding influence in favor of sodomy that was like a tidal wave in
strength, (it was so strong that after I got saved, for a good while,
I was ashamed or could barely utter opposition to sodomy under my
breath), explicit sex ed classes where fornication was encouraged and
described, etc. We were also biased so heavily in favor of evolution
that we all thought that anyone who thought anything else was one of
the most idiotic fools alive. My friends in high school were the
"nerdy" people, not the "cool" ones that were even more wicked, but
these people were engaged in vile filth. There would be people making
out in the hallways in high school. The large majority of people
committed fornication, because we were actively encouraged to do so,
given condoms to do it, etc.

I am glad that you affirmed: "I do not believe that an elementary and
primary aged young person should go to a public school."

However, I was concerned about the affirmation that to do so was
potentially Scriptural. Yes, Moses and Daniel went to a public school.
Why? Was it voluntary? No. With Moses, it was because he did not
get executed like all the other boys were his age. It was public
school or food for the crocodiles in the Nile river. With Daniel, it
was because, probably, the rest of his family was executed or deported
and he was made a eunuch. He stood for God, with his three friends,
while the overwhelming majority of those who went to the Babylonian
school turned to idolatry. Furthermore, he would have been executed
also, with his three friends, if the Son of God had not delivered them
by a miracle from a burning fiery furnace and from lions. Perhaps
Daniel and Moses give support for a kid surviving in a public school
when both his parents are unsaved and he is forced to go there, but I
see no support whatsoever from Moses and Daniel for believers choosing
to send their beloved children into the hell-hole of pagan education.
Are there any examples, anywhere, in Scripture where believers
VOLUNTARILY sent their kids to a pagan school? How can we say that no
corruption will take place when "evil communications corrupt good
manners?" Can we really say we are not having any fellowship when we
are requiring children to learn from the heathen for hours upon hours
upon hours, day after day after day after day?

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

Greetings! I had the following comments, testimony, and questions.

I am glad that in the public grade school you went to as a little kid
you didn't have that much evil there. When I was in a public school,
up through second grade, the kids sang sexually explicit songs during
recess, and taught them to each other. Yes, this is K-2nd grade.
There was also violence.

Furthermore, when I was in a non-Christian school, before eighth
grade, there was freely flowing alcohol, all kids of sexual influence,
a pounding influence in favor of sodomy that was like a tidal wave in
strength, (it was so strong that after I got saved, for a good while,
I was ashamed or could barely utter opposition to sodomy under my
breath), explicit sex ed classes where fornication was encouraged and
described, etc. We were also biased so heavily in favor of evolution
that we all thought that anyone who thought anything else was one of
the most idiotic fools alive. My friends in high school were the
"nerdy" people, not the "cool" ones that were even more wicked, but
these people were engaged in vile filth. There would be people making
out in the hallways in high school. The large majority of people
committed fornication, because we were actively encouraged to do so,
given condoms to do it, etc.

I am glad that you affirmed: "I do not believe that an elementary and
primary aged young person should go to a public school."

However, I was concerned about the affirmation that to do so was
potentially Scriptural. Yes, Moses and Daniel went to a public school.
Why? Was it voluntary? No. With Moses, it was because he did not
get executed like all the other boys were his age. It was public
school or food for the crocodiles in the Nile river. With Daniel, it
was because, probably, the rest of his family was executed or deported
and he was made a eunuch. He stood for God, with his three friends,
while the overwhelming majority of those who went to the Babylonian
school turned to idolatry. Furthermore, he would have been executed
also, with his three friends, if the Son of God had not delivered them
by a miracle from a burning fiery furnace and from lions. Perhaps
Daniel and Moses give support for a kid surviving in a public school
when both his parents are unsaved and he is forced to go there, but I
see no support whatsoever from Moses and Daniel for believers choosing
to send their beloved children into the hell-hole of pagan education.
Are there any examples, anywhere, in Scripture where believers
VOLUNTARILY sent their kids to a pagan school? How can we say that no
corruption will take place when "evil communications corrupt good
manners?" Can we really say we are not having any fellowship when we
are requiring children to learn from the heathen for hours upon hours
upon hours, day after day after day after day?

Thomas Ross said...

Can one avoid "giving heed," in the words of 1 Timothy, to what is
taught in a pagan college, and actually pass the classes and do well?
Aren't perpetual brainwashing in anti-Chrstianity a core part of pagan
college? Do pagan colleges really claim no authority to teach?

It was stated:

Many Christian colleges are a worse influence than a state college.
Why? One, your young people are exposed to the wrong belief and
practice.

A pagan, state college has reams more of wrong belief and practice
than a Christian college. When I went to U. C. Berkeley, I tried with
all my might to avoid everything bad that I could. I still had entire
classes that were essentially there to do nothing but indoctrinate me
in Marxism and atheism. I was forced to read sexually explicit books
with cursing, blasphemy, etc. That was even after I asked to avoid
reading such books because of religious objections to them. I had to
read such regardless. We were assigned books about lesbian lovers and
what they did with each other. My grades were negatively affected
because in papers I did not actively promote socialism and filthy
pro-sodomy trash. Note I did not say "because I defended the
truth"--no, for simply not expressing a positive opinion of sodomy my
grades were negatively affected.

At Christian schools, are kids forced to read pornography and about
lesbians engaging in sodomy?

Furthermore, even though I was fighting it all tooth and nail, I was
still negatively affected--for evil communications always corrupt good
manners, period.

In fact, at the state school, the first week I was there, a girl who
was not a harlot type, but a normal, typical student, probably better
than the average, offered to sleep with me. She wasn't kidding. This
was the first week I was there. I also had times when people around
me all started busting out with their drugs and starting doing drugs
all around me. I am thankful that I didn't join them in the drugs,
and I thank God I turned down the offer of an attractive girl who
asked me to sleep with her, but I must confess that I would never want
a child of mine to have such things happen to him or her at 18 years
of age--especially when the Biblical age of responsibility, as seen in
the wilderness with Israel, is 20, anyway. That is not to mention the
people who got raped. Where are you more likely to have your daughter
raped--at the state college, or the weak fundamentalist college?
Which is worse, to have to read a neo-evangelical book at the weak
fundamentalist school, or to have a high risk of getting raped, have
people offer to have sex with you, do drugs all around you, and be
forced to read pornography?

Thomas Ross said...

How qualified one is to make a certain amount of money depends upon
what one's major is. I don't see that as the best argument for making
kids defile their minds by reading pornography in the state college.
One can make more than the average graduate from Harvard by being an
prison guard with a GED at a California prison.

By the way, oftentimes the state college is so much into
indoctrination into socialism that it doesn't educate at all. People
graduate from state colleges with, generally, as documented by the
intercollegiate studies institute, a worse knowledge of basic history,
etc. than when they left high school. Berkeley was supposed to have
the top English program--it was #1, and I was an English major there.
But did I learn about English grammar? No. Did I learn to diagram?
No--the first time I ever had to diagram a sentence was when I took
Greek at Fairhaven Baptist College. Did we at least read good
literature? Oftentimes, no--we couldn't read too many dead white
males, so we had to read books by women and minorities, even if the
books were trash, poorly written, and not worth the paper they were
printed on. When we did read classic authors--dead white males--we
emphasized whatever was base and vile in their writings, in accordance
with an emphasis upon race, class, gender-queer studies, etc. And note
that I was trying with all my might to get out of that trash--but it
could not be done. So, apart from being defiled, I also had to waste
hours, weeks, months, and years on what was useless. Is this really
the way to get a good education?

In my view, while I can see an individual church training its own
people for the ministry, I would also point out that Paul took Timothy
out of his own church to train him. Furthermore, many of those who
are trained in their own churches to be pastors, etc. don't know the
Biblical languages, which greatly hinders their ability to preach
expository messages. Many have only a shallow knowledge of Scripture,
so that they don't have a theology of sanctification, don't know what
it means that the Son of God is eternally begotten or have a good
knowledge of the Trinity, and don't know how to carefully exegete
Scripture. Exegetical fallacies too often abound. If Paul took
Timothy out of his own church so he could get better trained for the
ministry, is it unreasonable to say that a church that has people who
are well trained and gifted to teach at a very high level can help
other churches that don't have that level of people who are well
trained and able to teach things such as Biblical langauges?

Furthermore, for those who are not called into ministry, why can't
they view a school such as a Bob Jones University, with its very
serious weaknesses, as a place to have one's guard up? Why would the
guard be up in the state college but not up in the weak fundamentalist
school, where at least they won't have to read pornography, have
people offer to sleep with them, and have a consistent, pounding,
constant indoctrination in socialism and atheism? I sought to improve
my history and Biblical language knowledge at weak fundamentalist
schools such as Baptist Bible College in Clark's Summit, PA and
Calvary Lansdale in PA, and my guard was up, and the experience was
incomparably better than Berkeley. Nobody offered to sleep with me,
and I didn't have to read pornography.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thomas,

I was wondering if you might comment here on this one. I'll be answering more thoroughly later, but a question for you before I do: would you church discipline a family for sending their children to public school? It would seem that you would need to do that if you believe sending kids to public school is disobedience to scripture. I'll await that answer. I've asked you the question before.

As for the rest of this, I had planned to answer the type of points that you made here, so be assured that I would answer them.

What I will say now is that I would be more afraid for my kids at BJU or Pensacola than I would having them living in my home, attending our church, and going to a local college.

Gary Webb said...

Thomas,
I also went to a state school & was saved but untaught. I lived in the dorm ... but I believe that you are a few years younger than me, and I know that it has gotten much worse since I was in school. After I got into an independent Baptist church & I grew in the Lord, it became unbearable to live in the dorm. I am think that, probably, you were in a dorm. Is that right? I understand all your points. I have come to the conclusion that any college situation where the young person gets 24/7 influence from his peers & teaching away from his parents & church is the most dangerous ... whether it is a "Christian" college or the typical pagan college. Quite frankly, IF I lived near a school like Bob Jones & my children could stay at home & attend all the services at our church, most likely I would send my kids there.
One problem is that (at either the Christian or pagan school), the schools think that the students belong to them & are under their oversight. Both do not seem to want the parents to "interfere" with the training the school is providing. Fortunately, when my kids went to Christian schools, the device called the "cell phone" was already developed. My wife & I talked almost daily with our kids, answered questions, & gave advice.

Jon Gleason said...

"One problem is that (at either the Christian or pagan school), the schools think that the students belong to them & are under their oversight."

I have personal direct knowledge that with BJU this problem, at least, is improving, at least somewhat.

The question of higher education is very difficult for missionaries for reasons that others might never think about.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

In theory, any unconfessed and unrepented of sin can bring church discipline, so in theory parents sending their kids to a public grade school, etc. so that their kids get devoured could be a church discipline matter, but so could not being consistent in spanking, etc. I don't think that inconsistency in spanking or sending a kid to a public school, while both likely to lead to serious problems in a child's life, are going to get disciplined with anything more than a very snail-like pace with lots and lots and lots of time to improve, vs., say, committing adultery.

Pastor Webb,

I was in a dorm my first two years at a secular college in MA. I then was at my mom's house for almost a year in San Francisco while going to City College of San Francisco and then UC Berkeley. My mom, who is not saved, told me I needed to move out if I didn't "cool it" by stopping going to church for every service, tithing, etc., so I then moved in with a Christian fraternity house in Berkeley, where I stayed the rest of my time there. It was a neo-evangelical house, but there were probably some true believers there mixed in with some unconverted people. So, during much of my time at Berkeley, I was with at least neo-evangelical Christians.

Gary Webb said...

Brother Brandenburg,
I wanted to contribute some more to this topic since I believe many pastors & parents are probably interested in it. Of my 3 children, 2 are currently in state universities, & one is working after having attended a local church Bible college for one year, then attending a community college to become a registered nurse (currently works at Duke University Hospital).
The experiences my children have had at state schools has been mixed. At one point my son complained to a female English professor because of the discussion she started in a class concerning sexual content in movies. [By the way, if state schools teach ANY grammar, I am not aware of it. I did not have it in the late 1970s & none of my kids have had it.] On the other hand, my son (who regularly participated in class discussion in a history class) was asked by the professor if he believed in "absolute truth." He was then allowed several minutes to give a defense of his faith & of the resurrection of Christ in particular.
My youngest daughter goes to a different state university which has a more conservative environment. At the beginning of the year one of her professors encouraged the class that they should attend church while they were in college. She has had heard students talking with each other about what they had read in their daily devotions while walking across campus. She has not met any students who attend a church with the same beliefs & stands like ours, yet.
Since neither son or daughter live on campus, they have not had any of the experiences that Thomas mentioned. They come home every day, eat at our table, & discuss what is going on in their lives. This is really no different from someone going to work on any job. They have to deal with the world & unsaved people, but they do so while attending our church & living in a Godly environment. As far as I can see, this is the NT pattern.

Steve Rogers said...

Bro. Ross,

You said,

"many of those who are trained in their own churches to be pastors, etc. don't know the Biblical languages, which greatly hinders their ability to preach expository messages. Many have only a shallow knowledge of Scripture, so that they don't have a theology of sanctification, don't know what it means that the Son of God is eternally begotten or have a good knowledge of the Trinity, and don't know how to carefully exegete
Scripture. Exegetical fallacies too often abound."

And the parachurch fundamental Christian colleges are the place where these insufficiencies of God's church are corrected? Seems to me that many that train and are trained in them know Biblical languages but yet can't define "ecclesia" properly, even though the Biblical language itself is clear. They can expound a text, just not preach it with application. They know and teach the Greek NT, just the corrupt Greek Texts, and thus, promote the use of corrupt translations. They have a good knowledge of the Trinity alright, God the Father elects some to Heaven, others to Hell. God the Son only atones for those elect, didnt really mean every jot and tittle, and stopped building his church from the 300s to the 1500s. Oh, and God the HS baptizes believers into some mystical invisible ecumenical church and body of Christ. Talk about exegetical fallacies, can anyone say 1 Cor. 12?

I for one, find that just as many local church trained men, are just as qualified for ministry, as those that got real "higher" education in a Christian college outside their local church. Both groups need to continue to grow, as do we all, including active pastors and professors who teach Biblical languages in Christian colleges. I find the latter sometimes only see the inadequacies of others' training and feel they have arrived since they can parse.

Local church trained men typically have much stronger convictions on the primacy and centrality of the local church and preservation of scripture. They are less loyal to a transdenominational Protestant movement called fundamentalism and more loyal to the Baptist distinctives, particularly the whole NT as the authority, not just 5 essential doctrines. They are much more knowledgeable about Baptist history as opposed to Protestant history. They may not be fluent in Greek and Hebrew, but most active pastors are not either after a couple years out of the Christian college. I may reference a particular greek word from the TR, or perhaps the tense used that is not seen in the KJV, but I don't lead people to Christ with Greek and Hebrew, and I don't ask them to open their TR on Sunday mornings. I agree that ALL men need to continue to study the languages that God gave His Words in, but that can be done in the local church and will be an ongoing study throughout life. Thats where language training resources from as simple as Strongs to as detailed as BibleWorks come into play. To say that to be REALLY qualified, one has to go beyond the local church is dangerously close to intellectual arrogance. I've never sensed that in your previous posts or online material. I find your writing quite a blessing. This post struck a chord, perhaps I am misreading your tone.

Regarding Paul & Timothy, Paul was an Apostle who was being given special revelation from God, because the Bible was not yet completed. I don't think equating Paul's instruction of Timothy with the Christian college professors of our day and their "expertise" is wise or valid.

An honest question, is the combination of the local church, Word of God, and HS sufficient to train men and women to serve God in this dispensation?

Steve Rogers said...

A few more thoughts...

If Christian colleges simply taught English, Math, Science, Trades from a Christian perspective and left the theology and ministry philosphy to God's ordained institution for this dispensation, the local church, I might not have a problem...but they don't!

You might say, "they are just trying to help the local church." My experience is that is talk only. As was mentioned earlier, the parents and pastor are to bow to their doctrine. Most operate with budgets many times larger than local churches, which are funded by, you guessed it, local churches and their members. Most are more concerned with building plush dorms, huge auditoriums with high end audio/visual equipment and screens, that easily convert to theaters for dramas, Catholic art museums, bowling allies, skating rinks,gymnasiums, tanning facilities and indoor water parks.
Here is a test if they really want to be a servant to the local church. Ask them if they would offer online video courses, like Biblical languages, through local churches under the oversight and direction of the pastor. The answer you'll get is NO. "We feel that the student needs to be HERE, so they can be impacted by OUR philosphy and environment. They need to hear OUR chapel speakers, etc." If they wanted to function as a true helps ministry to the local church, this would not be the reaction.

Pastors and parents, am I right?

Thomas Ross said...

By the way, I believe all Biblical teaching should be under the authority of the church, the real, local and visible kind.

David Barnhart said...

I'm pretty much in agreement with Pastors Brandenburg and Webb on this topic, although I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns presented by Thomas. I went to BJ for my B.S., and attended a secular university (Clemson) for my M.S. In my program (computer science), I didn't have to deal with a lot of the things that would be discussed in other fields of study, so I was still reasonably insulated from a lot of what Thomas experienced. I stayed away from the social scene at Clemson, and had my own apartment, and attended independent, fundamental churches. My experience overall was not bad, and I was going to have to deal with the world eventually, but I had the support of good churches.

I pretty much thought my kids would follow a similar path (Christian school first), but I have come around pretty much to the thinking in this post. My oldest is in her first year of college, and she is attending a secular school in Europe, but lives and attends church with family. Plus, because of things like Skype, we speak with her for hours each week. She did have to bail out of one shared writing assignment with a group because of the topics they were writing about, and that probably cost her in the grade department, but I'm glad she was able to explain why she did what she did. (From what she told me later, only one group in the class ended up with the assignment being not R-rated or worse, and that was not her group.) However, even with this experience, which she would not have had at a place like BJ, I prefer that she have the support of Christian family and a good church in a state school rather than being part of a school like BJ where they control a lot more and act "in loco parentis." Kids have to go into the world eventually, and it's a bigger shock when they haven't been let into it gradually with parental and church support.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Bro Rodgers,

In addition to the fact that the church is the one to teach the truth, I would also think that someone who is committed to transdenominational Protestantism, a corrupt Bible, and the other errors you mentioned, has without question had severe failures in his training for the ministry. I don't believe the alternatives are parachurch Bible college or secular school, and one must pick the one or the other.

Thomas Ross said...

Also, someone who teaches Greek properly will teach the students to both carefully and painstakingly exegete the Scriptures and also powerfully and experientially apply them. In my second year and third year Greek classes the men have to take a passage they have diagrammed in Greek and preach a message from it, and as we go through passages, not only interpretation and exegesis, but also application, is made a model and taught. Students of Greek should be closer to the Lord after taking the class and stronger Christans and Baptists as a result, not the other way around--and careful study of God's Word tends that way (John 17:17).