Yesterday we dealt with the first of 3 reasons that Bill, a public school principal, gave us to homeschool. Read Part 1 Here.
Not everybody has money to spare, Bill tells us that’s just fine if you’d like to homeschool—it’s not hard on your bank. “Homeschooling,” he begins, “is the best value.” And then he relates, “I remember the first time I walked through a homeschool convention. I had been an administrator for a few years already and my wife and I were getting ready to start training my oldest. I remember seeing the families in the booths, the families throughout the convention in the pull-out sessions, and having the feeling that I have been completely robbed!” Robbed of more than money too, he had seen “the accomplishments of the young people in this setting and was amazed, and sickened at what our society has come to accept as ‘a great education’.”
I’ve talked to many people my age who are going to public school, and for the most part, I see a bit of jealousy. There are so many things about homeschooling that are just so much more enjoyable—but not just that, as a statistic, we homeschoolers get to ride the score sheets. Why wouldn’t you feel cheated? Imagine somebody saying, “I spent all day in school, and just think I could have done it at home in a couple hours, and I could have been smarter for it, and had a whole lot more fun doing it.”
But instead, society has come to accept that public education is good education. Actually, here in Canada we’re supposed to have one of the best, but one look at the average score in my county sends me wondering. In the words of Bill, “I’m sorry, but, BARF! OK, not a professional term for a public school administrator, but it really works here.”
So we choose something better, that’s home education. And it’s not only better on the spiritual and financial levels, Bill gives us the final scoop, “It’s practical.” From an administrator’s perspective he sees and hears of almost everything that goes on at the school. The more serious the incident, the more he is involved. Then Bill tells us, “It was a complete no-brainer that I would not want to send my kids to school because of the peer influence and “socialization”. I would just as soon bathe my children nightly in a cesspool.”
Now, that’s pretty strong, but you know I think that more parents might hold that opinion if they were to take a week in his shoes. What really does go on at the school where your kid is going? If he’s homeschooled, you know full well, if not, it would be good to know. For Bill, he knows too much—too much to risk putting the children he has borne, has loved, and is raising into public school. “I would move,” he says, “to another community, state, or country if I had to in order to avoid placing my children in the state system.” Wow, we think, he must really be in a low school or something, but listen to this, “I am in a “great” school with test scores to die for and wonderful “safety” record, and I wouldn’t touch it.” Does that mean that even the best aren’t good enough? I think that’s precisely his point. And he’s not the only one, as he says, “Even the teachers I serve know I homeschool and have expressed that if they had the chance they would also homeschool.”
And in this case, the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence. But unfortunately, most people would like to live a lifestyle that just doesn’t support a homeschool environment.
And that’s the end of our reasons for homeschooling.
In another question, Oneway Purpose asked Bill what ages he thought children would be hurt most by the system. He replied, “The younger the child and/or vulnerable the child, the more potential there is for long term damage to the young one’s being.” And I totally agree, in Canada’s recent federal election one of the issues at stake was government funded childcare. In relation to that, my brother Isaac wrote, “History bears record that any time when a government or any agency other than the family assumed the primary role of raising children, societal disaster, corruption, and destruction followed close.” Fortunately the Conservative government elected squashed the deal.
But Bill says he wouldn’t let his kids go to public school until they’re fully capable of entering the world—and standing firm. I think Bill would agree with this other statement Isaac made,
“As Canadians (or Americans) we believe that children are to be raised by their parents. Not by a government, not by a government system, not by a government agency. We believe it is our right, and our responsibility, and we will retain and defend that with the integrity of citizens against a socialist scheme designed only for political gain, and destined for ultimate corruption. We will not give one inch of our responsibility and right to any government system, federal or provincial. We stand firm to maintain the core of society.”
Oneway Purpose also asked Bill to list three areas where he believes his children are excelling most above their public schooled counterparts, and also asked whether he thought his children were lacking in any areas where public school students are not.
He listed: a) Learning and understanding God’s Word. b) Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self control, commonly known as the Fruit of the Spirit. c) Discipline (the kind that “is sorrowful for the moment but in the end is the peaceful fruit of righteousness” Hebrews 12:11
He also says, “When it comes to excellence and lack we are comparing the Fruit of the Spirit to the fruit of the world, otherwise known as Life and death. The rest is mere academics. Limiting the comparisons to the realm of academics alone is fighting the argument in terms dearest to the world.”
I want to be careful here, because the fruit of the Spirit is given by the presence of the Spirit. It’s not the fruit of homeschooling. But I believe Bill meant that, given the opportunity to train his children, he has been able to inculcate these principles into their life, while in public school, they would be trained in principles to the contrary.
But now, I’d like to say that this is a great reason for Christians to take the positions of teachers. In Ontario, we have a section in our education act that reads,
Section 264 c) [Teachers’ responsibility in relation to Religion and morals is] to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues;
How many teachers really do that? How many ever read that? I’m afraid not many, but there is a place for Christian teachers, and principals, and I’m proud to see Bill filling one of those places.
And that’s it folks! I was hoping to have some other interviews to include with this, but it just didn’t happen. Hope you enjoyed this!
What does your bother mean by this quote, what historical precedent is he referring to?
“History bears record that any time when a government or any agency other than the family assumed the primary role of raising children, societal disaster, corruption, and destruction followed close.”
Jason, I’ll have to ask him what he had exactly in mind. But I believe he was referring to the Nazi and Communist education programs that totally infiltrated the children and instructed them that their parents were of the ‘old type’ and that the state was the only one that is right.
Try out this link: I haven’t read the whole article but it looks like it might answer some of your questions: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/education.html
I guess I see the point that in those places, the children were instructed by a corrupt system.
But it doesn’t seem fair to say that “societal disaster, corruption and destruction” followed BECAUSE of that. The education failings had nothing to do with societal failings. In fact, the children managed to be re-educated and became productive citizens. The current Pope himself was in the Hitler Youth program!
Jason, you have a point there. Let’s assume that our education system is not a corrupt system, although many would be willing to give you much evidence of that.
I have a question for you that might be an answer in itself. Would you want the education of your children to change upon the fancy of the government? Assuming we don’t have one, what if we did get a corrupted government? How easy would it be to infiltrate the education system and train children to support them.
Of course you can be re-educated. But it doesn’t change the fact that they were deceived in the first place, and supported something, with their lives, that was totally wrong, just because the government educated them.
When education is in the hands of private schools or parents, the government CANNOT force a certain worldview upon the whole country.
Just to put the proper perspective on what I said – it was in direct reference to government childcare.
Alright, Jason, let me make a very absolute statement: The core of society is the family.
And here’s another very absolute statement: If the government or any government agency other than the family is attempting to assume the primary role of raising children, that system is absolutely corrupt before it even begins because it is dissolving the core of society in order to establish it’s own society.
Take a look at this resolution: We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists…. We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children’s nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)
In your viewpoint, this is entirely A-OK if the Communists are not corrupted.
Actually, the Communists weren’t corrupted at all. They were right on track with where they wanted to go. But they produced societal disaster, corruption and destruction. And why? Because they dissolved the core of society as God established it.
Bottom line: Any establishment, any scheme that in any way establishes a government role in raising children, is a socialist scheme designed only for political gain, destined for ultimate corruption, because by it’s very nature is 100% corrupt, and works societal disaster, corruption, and destruction.
All that I have put in the perspective of government childcare, HOWEVER, that principle is also obvious in government education. It may not be as blatantly socialist, but it has the same effect of corrupting society, albeit in a somewhat slower manner.
Maybe it’s because you guys were homeschooled—and probably also because you aren’t old enough to look back on your developmental years—but I think you give way too much credit to the power of the public education system.
Ideally, the education that you receive as a child and teenager isn’t a complete brainwashing one way or the other. The goal should not be to install in childish minds a complete worldview. Kids shouldn’t learn in school what is right and wrong, what economic system is the best, what country is most benevolent. They should merely be learning how to learn, mastering basic writing and math skills, learning some basic history and the latest science, and—importantly—learning how to deal with peers and authority figures. The education that you receive through high school is really just a primer, and it is only the beginning of a lifelong education.
Your family should instill the values by which you judge history and begin to shape a worldview.
Perhaps the diversity of opinions in our culture is proof that the public education system is working, allowing people to become educated enough to think for themselves, and to then pursue studies that shape their adult perspectives.
I agree the public education system has problems, and we should continue to fix it.
Jason,
The “diversity of opinions in our culture” is proof that a Godless postmodern dynamic of “doing what is right in our own eyes” has pervaded the system/culture. I can attribute that to the public education system, but not before I fault parents for not properly training their children in Biblical principals and sound doctrine.
The best place to “train up a child in the way he should go” ie,”a complete worldview” (like the public education system, you seem to expect way too little from a teenager) is under the disciplined tutorage in a homeschool environment.
The diversity of opinions in our culture is proof that the public education system and its “tolerance” and “diversity” is allowing people to think that right and wrong are personally defined. Varying degrees of “right” and “wrong” occur as often as there are people who insist they are “right” by virtue of the fact that it is their own opinion. No more. Right and wrong then can only be enforced by those with the greatest force. To promote and grow this societal force an effort to a great degree to “train up a child” is made and its most powerful venue is the public education system.
Hence, the education systems of totalitarian governments anymosity toward the family and the homeschool model. The public education system as it is now models these aforementioned systems much more than you realize.
Bill
A public school principal
Thanks for your input Bill.
Well, Jason, you think I take the education system too seriously. Interestingly enough, the Communists took it even more seriously. They knew very well that children can be shaped like wax – especially when their influence begins in the very first days, in the nurseries and the schools.
You may think that all school is about is learning math and reading, however, you must realize that the religion and the values of the government will be 100% coerced upon students. For example, right in kindergarten in Ontario schools those cardboard lift-the-flap books and etc ‘curriculum’ feature ‘families’ with homosexual parents, i.e. two ‘dads’ or two ‘moms’. Whether you like it or not, if you send your children into such a system, they will be shaped like wax. Sure, you can spend your time trying reshape them, but they will very quickly become very tolerant of ‘diversity’ aka immorality in this case.
So, if you send you children to government run daycare, they will be raised in accordance to the principles and values of the government. If you send your children to government schools they will be taught in accordance to the principles and values of the government. And at the end of the day, that child will have been shaped like wax by the government system.
So, you may think I am giving too much credit to the power of the system, but rest assured that they know where to apply their influence. And the question of who will get the upper hand lies in whether you know where to apply your influence. However, if the two are one and the same, I have nothing further to say.
I think I’ve come up with a system that will work even better for you guys: Lock your kids in a metal box in the basement from birth and raise them with only stimulus that you provide. This way, you can soon control their every thought!
It’s clear to me that you guys are more interested in creating drones who repeat your opinions back to you, rather than creating thinking, developing, sentient beings who can train their brains to have thoughts that have never occurred in your own brain. And it’s troubling that an “educator” has such a small view. Assuming you’ve read Brave New World, give it another spin. Pay special attention to the beautiful discussion at the end, about the relative merits of thought control vs. messy reality.
Our kids will be raised in a world where some families have two mommies. You can hide your kid from that as long as you like, but sooner or later they will have to come to terms with that fact. Make of it whatever you will, it’s not changing.
I look at it this way: My kids will go to public school and confront the messy realities of our world—kids with troubled backgrounds, conflicting accounts of history, evolving scientific “fact”, peer pressures, educators who have given up on their own ability to properly educate. And having seen these things, they’ll come home and we’ll talk about what it all means, and we’ll both learn from the experience. Maybe we’ll come to the same conclusions, maybe we won’t.
I’m not so much concerned with whether my kids find the same answers that I’ve found. If my answers are truth, they’ll come to them in time. What I’m more concerned about is their ability to find the right questions, and their ability to thoughtfully consider those questions.
There you go Jason, placing yourself squarely in the camp of
” I think I’m right so everyone who disagrees with me is stupid”. This evidence suggests you are a product of public education. The so-called diversity and tolerance fallacy is so clearly exposed in your writing. Talk about creating drones…it appears you are one, except without a purpose.
The Bible says “train up a child in the way he should go and in the end he will not depart from it”. That is the goal of one holding to the Biblical worldview. As for yourself if you are not sure your answers are truth, then they aren’t. Then you are wrong. If your kids learn the “truth” (this relative amibiguity of ‘my opinion counts and yours doesn’t, unless it agrees with mine’) they will indeed disagree with you, and consider you intolerant and belittle you for your ideals, just like you do here. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, or “whatsoever you sew, that you will also reap”
It’s really quite simple. I don’t want my kids to grow up like you are now. It is my parental right and duty to see that they don’t. Do you listen to country music? There’s a song that goes like this: “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”. That was a quote a son was repeating that his father taught him. It is, among other things, what I will teach my children, except I will teach them what to believe and why, and what not to believe and why. You will not get that in a system so crippled by political correctness that it can do nothing but teach “bland”
Bland is what you are espousing, not a disciplined process that turns out adults that really know how to think.
By the way, when your kids come home they will tell you what they think you want to hear, and that’s what you will talk about. Don’t fool yourself. A 15 minute talk with an early teen consumed by peer presure in the public school will not include anything they don’t want your opinion on.
As far as a comparison to Huxley’s version of the world to my world view, well, I suggest that his “new world” idea would contrast similarly to the new world described in the Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the 13 United States of America. A willingness to endure pain and/or death to preserve or secure genuine freedom. Now there would be a document created by the sort of thinkers that would come out of a home school environment I espouse.
Read the Declaration. It will do you good. Then remember that it’s signers were trained primarily from Christian doctrines that were born out of the reformation. The same sort of thought prohibited by law right now in the public system.
Soma is not Christianity without tears,like Huxley’s character chides, it is just a drug that accomodates an interesting work of fiction. Christianity has tears, and trials, and persecutions. It was made that way for a purpose that is described in the first chapter of James. It has endured in spite of great holocausts known and unknown for almost 2000 years. Because it bears the truth, it’s author is Truth, and it can set you free.
Bill –
How funny that you accuse me of believing that everyone else is wrong, only to later insist that I believe no one is wrong. I don’t think you understood much of what I said. I’m happy to disagree with people, arguments like this one are useful even if we don’t agree.
If I’m not sure my answers are truth, it’s not because I think everything is true, or that truth is relative. It’s just because I’m intellectually honest. If you insist that there is no doubt in your mind that your truths are rock solid, unquestionable, eternal truths—then you are lying to yourself. Be honest, you can’t be sure. There is a little tiny speck of doubt, somewhere in the back of your mind. Even now you are denying that it’s there, while it screams that it IS there. And you won’t admit it now, maybe not soon, maybe not openly, but it’s there, Bill, and you know it.
And what if you WERE 100% certain. What kind of Christian modesty allows such arrogance? Is there anything more arrogant than 100% certainty? Your knowledge is as great as God’s! A little self-doubt is a good, humble, human quality.
What a sad life it must be to think you have all the answers figured out. What’s left to do but wait to die? And how sad that your goal with your children is to instruct them on exactly what to believe and what to not believe, rather than arming them with the tools to decide for themselves. Why even bother having kids if your aim is to make them thought-clones of yourself?
Funny, too, that you hold up the Declaration as the thinking of those like your home-schooled drones. In fact, it’s writers were very free thinkers. Jefferson didn’t believe that Christ was God. George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin—these aren’t your prototype Christians. You’d be embarrassed if these were your kids. These are men who were taught to think for themselves, not men whose beliefs were branded on them by their self-righteous fathers.
Well Jason, I think we’d have a grand time sparring in a coffee house over a fine dark roast. We should do that sometime. I have a lot of fun with these dialogs, unfortunately it is hard to portray a grin or a grimace in this written context, nevertheless take this with my grin
As far as my double accusation on your double standard, well, remembering that we’re being “intellectually honest” now and you’re not sure that your answers are the truth, my point persists by your own admission. As far as doubts in my mind about truth, there aren’t any. Not even a tiny speck, no matter how much you don’t want to believe me, it’s not there. You can jump up and down all night and accuse me of someday seeing it your way, but that statement in itself screams of your hope of being right, over my assurance by faith in Christ. Why? I have to take you to the gospel of Jesus Christ. That I was born in sin, I was dead in sin. Like a stinking rotting worm infested dead. You too. And everyone else. The wages of sin is death; we are dead in our sins, but I was made alive in Christ, not by my own works, intellect, good looks, etc, but by grace I was saved. I recommend you read from your Bible Ephesians chpt. 2. It will explain the confidence I have (no, confidence of being 100% certain is different than arrogance because it is based on a humble blessed assurance)
You keep worrying about my sad life and sad goal with my children. Sorry, but have you ever accepted pity from a corpse? That’s how I feel about your statements. You don’t see your own deadness…and frankly you won’t unless by God’s grace He shows it to you if He has chosen you to spare you from the judgement to come.
I know these words may be anethema to you, but the Bible makes it plain that the words of the cross are foolishness to those who are perishing. The cross though is the central figure and symbol of the finished work of God incarnate to fully satisfy the wrath of God on us in our sin. Jesus, God incarnate, took apon himself the sins of the world that we, through Him, might be saved. His resurrection from the dead sealed the salvation for those who believe because He had victory over both sin and death.
Finally, the humor you saw in my comparison using the signers of the declaration exists because of your own ignorance of American History. Whether or not Jefferson or Franklin personally believed in the deity of Christ, they certainly knew the doctrince of the incarnation and substitutional attonement of Christ. John Witherspoon, one of the signers, personally taught 9 of signers, including John Adams, at Princeton. His faith was clearly demonstrated in his writings, as was the faith of most, but that’s another topic. Your reference though to these “men whose beliefs were branded on them by their self-righteous fathers” I think was a bit of a slam directed my way. I could be wrong, but for someone who is “not sure my answers are truth”, thems purdy strong words
Hmmm… I have a feeling I’m planted squarely between you both. I’ll post my thoughts later.
Now I think we have sufficient proof that a fence-sitter doesn’t make progress anywhere! All I had to say, was “I’m in the middle!” and everybody stopped. What happened there?!
Bill—Don’t mistake my open-mindedness for wishy-washiness. Just because I allow for my own imperfection doesn’t mean I don’t trust my own intellect. And don’t think that your assuredness in your opinions is any proof in their own validity. We are human, and so are our minds.
I have trouble believing that you are an educator at all. You are dismissive of my every thought because of its source—shouldn’t an educator know that every person, no matter how small or dim, has something to teach us? Shouldn’t Christian modesty demand that attitude?
Our conversation proves one thing beyond doubt: David didn’t find in you an average public school principal who has come to see the errors in the public education system. Instead, he found a fringe element, an outlier. You don’t represent a larger group, you represent the extreme edge of a spectrum of thought. He found in you someone who apparently joined a system he knew he could never uphold, someone who’s viewpoint is so far outside the mainstream that he could never faithfully serve the mainstream.
What did you expect to contribute to the system, Bill?
Thanks Jason, I always appreciate it when readers [who don’t necessarily agree with me, take the time to debate a bit on my blog. Bill might be interested in a more defined definition of what he is saying, but for now let me address a couple things you mentioned. I may post in a few days on some of the other things you mentioned.
First this debate seems to have taken a curve away from the actual post, which is totally fine. But it definitely opens our thoughts to a new area, Oneway Purpose did not address this in the interview, and does not necessarily totally support the interviewee in all other areas.
So let me answer a few questions. Let me divide here faith and the mind. For example, I know that Bill and I have some very intense disagreements. For example, on the subject of the sovereignty of God. I debated this issue with my readers a few months back. Here is Calvinism: Part 1 | Calvinism: Part 2 | Calvinism: Part 3. I’m sure you can quickly see that I’m no drone. I believe somewhat differently than my family on various subjects too. We’re all trained various things as children, but as we grow older, there’s a time where we have to reason it out in our minds and decide for ourselves. Otherwise, yes, it is simply your parents understanding. In my profile, I said, I’m ready to challenge, or be challenged. Why? Because challenge is the way to progress. Listen to my podcast on this.
Now, there’s a good point in training your children to defend what they believe. Why? Because that is teaching the ‘whys’, and not all the ‘whats’. ‘Whats’ only work until your about 12 or 13, then the parents had better have taught the ‘whys’. Why? Because the child will start thinking, and asking himself his own questions, and answering them. And I believe this is what Bill is dealing with here. I doesn’t matter to me at all that Bill has the truth. I admire him for that ability. But let’s not mix faith and reason too much here or otherwise it can get trouble. If you base your reason on faith, you can get into trouble. Certain things like salvation, regeneration, etc are based on faith. These in fact have little to do with the reason. Yes, there is the knowledge of God. But that, the Bible says, a little child can understand. Trying to understand all the various things about God, gets a lot deeper. For me, I’m still somewhat undecided on all those issues, still studying, still learning. That is being intellectually honest.
Let me quote myself here, in the last Calvinism debate I concluded by saying. “What I know, I know, and that I defend. What I know not, I know not, and that I seek to learn. And maybe someday what I ‘know not’ will put what I know into a different place.” That will always be my standard, I’m not saying that I don’t have anything to learn. But for that that I do know, I shall defend it. And don’t ask me to tell you it’s my opinion either.
You see, I think I admire Bill, and then I have some questions for him. I admire him because of his willingness to stand up for what he believes. But the question I have to ask him is this. Is the ‘you’re false, I’m right, because I believe I’m right 100%’ a satisfactory comeback? In comment number 12 you inferred that jason was a corpse (a non-regenerate believer), would you be willing to back that up if you found your differences stopped at the intellectual level? Am I a corpse because I believe differently? I appreciate that you don’t have any doubts about what you believe. Neither do I—on the things I am sure of. But is saying you are sure of your intellectual strengths on the basis of faith satisfactory?
Somehow I believe some of these things were said more as a jab. Feel free to correct me, or explain yourself.
But now that I have addressed the issue of intellect, I will be posting, and for my readers attempting to destroy some of the other opinions you have expressed on homeschooling. Not by the assertion of my correctness, but the presentation of reason. Of which I believe we all have PLENTY! I’ll make sure mine is biblical though, then I’ll have a sword too. Right!?
Wow! A post-modern and an Arminian! This is getting exciting. We should all sit down for that cup of coffee!
Jason, open-mindedness and wishy-washy are both the same to me. But are you open minded? You don’t seem that way with my arguments. You seem so ready to put me on the “fringe” that your open mindedness closed to some time ago. By the way, if you can refute my arguments your only recourse is, and has been, various sorts of mockery or discredible associations. You are so sad for me and my children (or at least for my children). Really? You think how “funny” things I mention are. I don’t think like you so I’m on the fringe…is that bad? Why? Does fringe element, “outlier” make me incapable of sound argument? How’s that? In reality we have a disagreement, but the only way I have seen you validate your position is to place me “so far out of the mainstream” (by you definition, whatever that is). It is easier for you I’m sure if I agree with you first before the debate, but then, why debate? Sounds like your open mindedness extents toward that which you already decided was ok for you.
I do need to clarify something though where you may have misunderstood me, or I didn’t make myself as clear as I should have. My assuredness in what I believe and why is based on my understanding of the scriptures (the Bible). Inspired by the omniscient God it is perfectly relevant in every situation. I will agree to be corrected if you can show me by sound biblical exegesis my error. That is really the only factor.
As far as the corpse remarks (David)...that reference comes from Paul to the Ephesians (chpt 2:1-10) where we are dead in sin. I see it as “Lazarus dead”. The kind of dead that didn’t allow Lazarus to debate whether or not he was going to remain in the tomb prior to Jesus’ command “Come forth!” I believe that, though still working through humanistic rationalism, Christians espousing an Arminian view are saved by grace, I just don’t believe that it was the Arminians choice to begin with, and Arminians think they had a hand in their salvation. But as you mentioned earlier, that is in an area different from the original intent of the interview and so I will leave that alone from this point on.
At this point I need to wrap up. Take care of family business, ie, yard sale. Jason, it has been a pleasure, God bless you! You may have the last word
(Aside from David of course since this is his blog)
David, I am very impressed with what you are doing here and I pray for the very best for you. In an earlier post you mention Vision Forum. I recommend that at some point, whatever your career pursuits, you take the time to attend their Witherspoon School of Law and Public policy. Imagine being surrounded by young men your age and intellect, some with their fathers, listening to some of the greates Christian thinkers. Check them out at www.visionforum.org Blessings to all.
Thanks for explaining yourself Bill. I appreciate it. If I could believe in Calvinism I would. But as I said, I can’t defend something I don’t believe or v/v I won’t believe something I can’t defend. If I can ever defend Calvinism—you’ll hear about it.
Actually, just so you know, I have as many disagreements with Arminians as I have with you. I don’t have a problem at all with you being calvinist.
Yes, the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy is something that has been on my list of go-to’s. Possibly next year, and I’ll be sure to blog about it. If I agree OR disagree.
After all I’d probably be the first CANADIAN to go there! 
And Jason, feel free to continue.
Whoa. Happy guy in that last comment.
Bill—I don’t mean to be dismissive, but if I didn’t respond to your arguments, it’s because I just didn’t see much worth discussing in them. I don’t mean that they are without merit. What I mean is that your arguments are primarily based on your obviously-strong faith, and there’s little we can discuss logically if your logic all boils down to your faith.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect your arguments, your beliefs seem completely sound given your worldview. That’s why I tried to direct the conversation toward areas we could discuss outside those core beliefs (and you never answered those questions).
One final point for you, should you return to the discussion: In regards to your perfect faith in the perfect word of your perfect god, does it trouble you at all to know that so many people have interpreted these words in so many different ways? You don’t like to be considered extremist, but certainly you can see that there are a lot of other Christians who have their own understanding of what the Bible is calling them to do and not do. Right? There are Christians who are untroubled by abortion and homosexuality, there are Christians who think the Pope went straight to hell and that America is soon to follow. If your self assurance is derived from the perfect word of god, what makes you so sure that your interpretation happens to be the one that gets it all right, all the time?
Jason…I said you could have the last word and so you have it, but you brought up some very good points. What’s the difference between a relativist view of the world and a relativist view of Chrisendom if everyone could rely soley on what seemed best to them. And is there an incompatability between faith and logic?
Well, I’m not going to be able to address it well here, but it has be a question that has plagued the church and was addressed in the epistles written by the apostles.
Some more recent authors that have hit on those things, should you be interested in getting a sound, logical, intellectually stimulating response would be:
C.S. Lewis: Mere Christianity
Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live.
I can’t do better than these gentlemen. Have a great day!