So-Called American Pro-test-ants, fail to even protest Rome, calling Satan their brother in Christ, and Roman Catholism a "denomination"

The Ascent of the Antichrist

  Reformed Baptist Fellowship  

In what can only be called a strange sign of the times in which we live, Evangelical reaction to the election of a new Roman Pontiff ranges from mildly encouraged to wildly enthusiastic.  Perhaps this only reflects the effete civility of our day.  Perhaps it means that American Christians have entirely abandoned theology for politics.  Or perhaps it certifies that Protestantism is dead.  Whatever the reason, when a few have dared mention what was for centuries the settled opinion of the entire Protestant world – that any “Pope” is and must be Antichrist – many within their own ranks have cried foul.

Insults, Lies & Evaluations
If I call the Pope the Antichrist, do I insult him?  After all, it’s not as though I said the Pope’s mother wears combat boots; I am making a more subtle and significant point.  An accusation of “insult” requires definition.  What is an insult, and is it always wrong?
Some have hurled cruel curses against the Popes, but to the Christian, such language is unworthy.  Others paint all Catholic clergy as sexual deviants, which is simply “false witness,” and yes, there is a commandment against it.

Sometimes, though, what sounds like an insult is actually a carefully reasoned evaluation.  It is normally an insult to call someone a “Nazi,” but some historians have called Sir Oswald Mosley – the English fascist sympathizer – a “Nazi.”  They are not insulting him so much as evaluating him.  Similarly, Protestants have called the Pope the “Antichrist.”  Is this insult or evaluation?

Antichristos
I suppose many Catholics see evangelicals as a pack of “Left Behind” watching fanatics who imagine the Antichrist as a futuristic horned monster who runs around eating children and slapping barcodes on everyone’s forehead.  Goodness knows too many evangelicals are exactly that; maybe this accounts for some of the concern that we are being a little unfair with the Pope.
But this is a recent delusion.  For most of history, Protestant Evangelicals have understood antichrist as a character and a concept best described by the Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians 2:1-12.  Here is the text:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.  Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.  Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?  And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.  The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

We may summarize four descriptives of the Antichrist:

1. He will seek to enforce faith in himself on the whole earth.
2. He will call himself God.
3. He will promote himself with counterfeit miracles.
4. He will deceive men into believing a lie which condemns rather than saves.

American Evangelicals now look for one great Antichrist figure at the end of the age whose temporary ascendency will be the harbinger of Christ’s return, but this is something of a contemporary anomaly.  Historically Protestants considered the words of I John 2:18 – there are “…many antichrists…” – and concluded that the spirit of antichrist is greater than any one person or even institution, but that with the passage of history one central Antichrist could be expected to rise.  The consensus position was that this has been fulfilled in the institution of the papacy.  Is that an insult, or a reasonable exegetical conclusion?

Popish Abominations
Our confession summarizes the case against the Pope by repeating the Protestant consensus: he is the Antichrist.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Second London Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVI, Paragraph 4

Does this evaluation square with II Thessalonians 2?

1. The Antichrist will “exalt himself against every so-called god or object of worship.”   In other words, he will be the head of a megalomaniacal religion.  He will not replace the worship of false gods with the worship of the true God, but rather with the worship of himself.  Today’s Catholics argue their own relevance by citing more than a billion adherents worldwide.  In so doing, they only highlight their leader’s compliance with the first descriptive of the Antichrist.  Priests have not brought the gospel, but the sword, the inquisition, and the invented terrors of purgatory – only to say, “Look to us, and we will save you from it all.”  Even in our age, when papal ambition wears a cloak of civility, the grand celebrations and claims of vast influence are a very visible form of self-exaltation.

2. The Antichrist will “take his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”  Ever since Wednesday evening we have been hearing what a humble man Pope Francis is, but his supposed humility is undercut by the titles he has assumed.  He has allowed himself to be called “Holy Father.”  Of course Jesus Himself told us (in Matthew 23:9) to call no man “Father” because God in Heaven is our Father.  Moreover, in Colossians 1:18 and elsewhere we are told that Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, yet the Pope assumes this title as well.  Finally, when Jesus was preparing to leave He promised to send another to stand in His place, namely the Spirit of Truth. (John 14:17)  So the Holy Father, the Head of the Church, and the Vicar (one who stands in the place of) of Christ are none other than God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  What exactly are we to think of a man who assumes all three titles to Himself?  Has he not proclaimed himself God?

3.  The Antichrist will come with “all power and false signs and wonders.”  American Catholics don’t like to talk about it, but the first purveyors of fake miracles were not Pentecostal frauds but Roman Catholic frauds.  The system of “sainthood” is based upon fraudulent wonders, as is the false sacrament of the mass.  The priest supposedly performs a miraculous transformation of bread and wine into the dead body and blood of Someone who is at the same time risen and seated in heaven.  The net effect of this counterfeit supernaturalism is to leave the common adherent in awe, unwilling to question the priests who hold the keys to heaven and hell.  Yet not only is none of it verifiable, none of it is remotely consistent with the teaching of Scripture.  The pope is the great beneficiary of this grand confidence scheme – the recipient of the loyal adulation of the superstitious.

4. The Antichrist will “delude” men into “believing what is false,” with the result that they are “condemned.”  As a prop to their ambition the Popes have denied the transaction which sits at the very heart of the gospel: the imputation of Christ’s righteousness fully and freely to everyone who believes.  In its place they have erected a monstrosity – a false gospel in which grace has been conferred by God to the Pope, who distributes it wherever he wills – forgiving sins, but always at a price.  Catholics are taught that the church, through its sacraments, will grant them just enough grace to avoid damnation, but this is an abominable lie.  It turns the hearts and eyes of men away from the freely offered grace of Christ and toward men.  Those who die trusting in this false gospel will be dragged down to hell alongside the Popes who have invented it.
So our Baptist forefathers, together with all other Protestants, were onto something when they identified the Pope as the great Antichrist.  Certainly every Pope has met the description offered by the Apostle, and no other man or institution has ever come close to matching them.

What Should We Say?
But is it insulting?  Is it hopelessly mean to call the head of someone else’s faith “the Antichrist”?  Would it not be more civilized to smile and say what a nice, humble man he is and how glad we are that he supports traditional marriage and opposes abortion?
If the Apostles are an example to us, we ought to realize that part of the task of proclaiming the good news is to oppose heresy in every form.  That is why Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
Wasn’t Paul being horribly impolite?  Of course he was, but he was willing to accept the scorn consequently heaped upon his words. As he said in the very next verse, “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servantof Christ.”
As servants of Christ, faithful pastors have no choice but to identify the Antichrist whenever he exalts himself.  This is no “anti-Catholicism.”  We love our Catholic neighbors; we love them so much that we would rather they not go to hell!  To that end, every faithful minister of the gospel must speak the truth.  Pope Francis is the Antichrist.  He is the man of sin and the son of perdition, and one day he will be destroyed by the brightness of the coming of the Lord.

 

Tom Chantry, Pastor

Knox Confession 1560 #19

Chapter 20 -
General Councils, Their Power, Authority, and the Cause of Their Summoning

As we do not rashly condemn what good men, assembled together in general councils lawfully gathered, have set before us; so we do not receive uncritically whatever has been declared to men under the name of the general councils, for it is plain that, being human, some of them have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance. So far then as the council confirms its decrees by the plain Word of God, so far do we reverence and embrace them. But if men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God, then we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils, drawing our souls from the voice of the one God to follow the doctrines and teachings of men. The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to form new articles for our belief, nor to give the Word of God authority; much less to make that to be his Word, or even the true interpretation of it, which was not expressed previously by his holy will in his Word; but the reason for councils, at least of those that deserve that name, was partly to refute heresies, and to give public confession of their faith to the generations following, which they did by the authority of God's written Word, and not by any opinion or prerogative that they could not err by reason of their numbers. This, we judge, was the primary reason for general councils. The second was that good policy and order should be constitutes and observed in the Kirk where, as in the house of God, it becomes all things to be done decently and in order. Not that we think any policy of order of ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as ceremonies which men have devised are but temporal, so they may, and ought to be, changed, when they foster superstition rather than edify the Kirk.

Knox Confession 1560 #19

Chapter 19 - The Authority of the Scriptures

As we believe and confess the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make perfect the man of God, so do we affirm and avow their authority to be from God, and not to depend on men or angels. We affirm, therefore, that those who say the Scriptures have no other authority save that which they have received from the Kirk are blasphemous against God and injurious to the true Kirk, which always hears and obeys the voice of her own Spouse and Pastor, but takes not upon her to be mistress over the same.

Knox Confession 1560 #18

Chapter 18 -
The Notes by Which the True Kirk (Church) Shall Be Determined From The False, and Who Shall Be Judge of Doctrine

Since Satan has labored from the beginning to adorn his pestilent synagogue with the title of the Kirk of God, and has incited cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true Kirk and its members, as Cain did to Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, Esau to Jacob, and the whole priesthood of the Jews to Christ Jesus himself and his apostles after him. So it is essential that the true Kirk be distinguished from the filthy synagogues by clear and perfect notes lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace, to our own condemnation, the one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the spotless bride of Christ is known from the horrible harlot, the false Kirk, we state, are neither antiquity, usurped title, lineal succession, appointed place, nor the numbers of men approving an error. For Cain was before Abel and Seth in age and title; Jerusalem had precedence above all other parts of the earth, for in it were priests lineally descended from Aaron, and greater numbers followed the scribes, Pharisees, and priests, than unfeignedly believed and followed Christ Jesus and his doctrine . . . and yet no man of judgment, we suppose, will hold that any of the forenamed were the Kirk of God. The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there, beyond any doubt, is the true Kirk of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in its midst. This is not that universal Kirk of which we have spoken before, but particular Kirks, such as were in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places where the ministry was planted by Paul and which he himself called Kirks of God. Such Kirks, we the inhabitants of the realm of Scotland confessing Christ Jesus, do claim to have in our cities, towns, and reformed districts because of the doctrine taught in our Kirks, contained in the written Word of God, that is, the Old and New Testaments, in those books which were originally reckoned as canonical. We affirm that in these all things necessary to be believed for the salvation of man are sufficiently expressed. The interpretation of Scripture, we confess, does not belong to any private or public person, nor yet to any Kirk for pre-eminence or precedence, personal or local, which it has above others, but pertains to the Spirit of God by whom the Scriptures were written. When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Peter's Leadership Model in Acts 1-10

There is a beautiful story in Numbers chapter 22 that is written as a historical narrative, not an allegory or a parable.  In it God uses two different Asses to preach.  The first is an actual ass, Balaam’s donkey, which the Lord used to preach to Balaam.  The second is the money-grubbing televangelist (or false-prophet) Balaam who would “prophesy” whatever spiritual message you wanted to hear, for the right price.  Balaam is converted, in a sense, and is then used by God to preach against God’s enemies.  I am often reminded of this bit of church history when I think of the Apostle Peter and myself.  If God can use Balaam, Balaam’s donkey and Peter then surely God can use a sinner like me.

           

            Since Peter is so prevalent throughout the New Testament I felt the need to confine the information that I will be expounding on to the fist half of the book of Acts.  There are three separate stories there that I feel best-articulate Peter’s leadership characteristics.  These would include: Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts chapter two, Peter and John disobeying the Sadducees in Acts chapter four, and Peter preaching to the Gentiles in Acts chapter ten. 

            Following Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension, Peter shows several of our leadership qualities in the Pentecost sermon from Acts chapter two - willingness to take a stand, influence of others, effective communication skills, leading change, and expressing his passion for Christ. 

           

            Though a simple fisherman Peter’s sermon reflects a deep theological understanding of the Old Testament and how that points us to Christ as its fulfillment in the New Testament.  I often hear young pastors today, who have not been to seminary, justify themselves by the fact that the Apostles had no seminary training.  The truth is that spending night and day with God incarnate for years is the best seminary training anyone has ever received.  Peter also models for us servant leadership in how he preaches what Christ empowers us all to preach: repentance and the forgiveness of sins found exclusively in Jesus (Luke 24).  He shows bravery, influence and team building not just in standing amongst the other Apostles but also in taking the spotlight to proclaim Christ.  He shows effective communication in confronting sinners (the Jews) with their sin (murdering the Messiah).  He beautifully weaves bits of Old Testament passages together with contemporary headline news to craft a theologically rich sermon that explains to these Jews why Jesus was the Messiah they had been waiting for and how it was God’s purpose, not just their ruler’s, that he should be put to death.  He then calls these sinners to believe in Jesus, to be baptized and become fellow disciples (i.e. The Great Commission from Matthew chapter 28). 

            In the Gospels we see a completely different Peter.  I heard a sermon once as a kid called “Peter: the Apostle with the foot-shaped mouth” this briefly describes Peter’s tendency, like mine, to run his mouth off without thinking first.  Peter’s passion at Pentecost shows a deep change within him from the days when he would question, rebuke, reject and deny God.  Peter is still brash and bold but he’s now committed to be a

pastor (or shepherd) of Christ’s sheep (John 21).  Now, since he’s seen both Christ’s resurrection and ascension personally, Peter is unstoppable.  He fears neither the embarrassment in calling his fellow friends and Jews Christ-killers nor does he fear bodily harm from angry Sadducees.  His sole concern is turned toward fulfilling Christ’s commissions.  When threatened by the religious rulers of his day in Acts chapters 3 & 4 his response is, if it is better for us to obey you, mere men, or God you must judge but I’m going to keep preaching Christ.  For Peter influence and teambuilding meant confronting sinners with their Savior and then pastorally shepherding with care and instruction any sheep (or disciples) that God put under him (see 1^st and 2^nd Peter). 

            After the Lord raises a girl from the dead for whom Peter prayed over. Then the Lord directs Peter’s feet to preach to a house full of Gentiles in Acts chapter 10.  Peter exemplifies again Christ’s teaching that a real leader will spend their time, serving.  While externally to us it looks like Peter is leading change in being the first to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles, Peter makes it clear that its not him “leading” as much as its him “following” God.  Preaching Christ because Christ empowers him to in John 21, preaching to the Gentles just like God told him to in Acts 10.  In this act God is slowly sanctifying Peter, shaving off his own natural racism that can be seen in Paul’s public rebuke of Peter in Galatians chapter 2 and Peter’s surprise that God would extend Salvation by Grace through Faith to non-Jews in Acts 10 & 15.  

           

            In all of this we see the light of Christ being reflected in the very earthen vessel of the Apostle Peter as he strives to keep the Church together by preaching and teaching, by prayer, by spreading the Gospel and confronting sinners with their sins, with facing open opposition and persecution from Pharisees and Sadducees, by standing up to the very people that killed Jesus and not stepping aside, or being passive or being tolerant and accepting of diverse religious opinions. He confronted the Law-based, Works-righteous church of his day with the Gospel and the established church crumbled before selfless men who proclaimed not themselves and their pragmatic leadership principles but the Gospel of Jesus and Christ crucified for sinners.

In application, I would just like to remind us that while Scripture records moments of personal discouragement, it nowhere encourages doubt, disbelief, discontentment or even disappointment with God.  Where Scripture instructs it instructs us in repentance, faith, trust, belief and contentment with God’s sovereign rule over the universe.  When Christ predetermines Peter’s martyrdom in John 21 his initial response, like ours would be, Lord you can’t do this it isn’t fair.  Yet by the time of his death Church History tells us that Nero was seeking to kill him and the church in Rome encouraged Peter to flee the city and he got as far as the city gate and was reminded by Christ of the death He had ordained for him and Peter stopped, turned around and headed back into the city to die (Foxe, 2010).  Even in this Peter models for us both servant-hood and leadership.  We can only pray that God would grant each of us but a little of this titan’s strength, faith and boldness to do what he’s called each us to do, to Lead and to Follow faithfully until the time of our own appointed ends.

my teaching for Sunday school

XII. Education – Baptist Faith & Message

Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore, a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge. Moreover, the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal support of the churches. An adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ's people.

In Christian education there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.

So we have 3 main points: 1^st Christianity leads us to deeper education and we’ll briefly look at Church history and how the fields of education, science & medicine were all originally based on the precept that God wants us to know things- so we observe and learn and then use that information to benefit others, 2^nd point our accumulation of knowledge is always subservient to our Biblically revealed knowledge of God, so if my study of archeology tells me Jesus never existed well we’ve got eyewitness testimony in the NT that that is not true, or if my study of space (astronomy) tells me the universe has always been here (eternal) and no one ever created it well the Old Testament tells us that’s also not true, so I would need to look again. 3^rd point is what is the Christian parent’s responsibility in how our kids are schooled & should it be: Public, Private, Christian or Home school?  

1 – educated important, 2 – education subsidiary, 3 – who’s responsible for education?

Intro:

READ Deuteronomy 6:4-7  “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Hebrew history reveals that the father was to be diligent in instructing his children in the ways and words of the Lord for their own spiritual development and well-being. The message in this passage is repeated in the New Testament where Paul exhorts parents to raise children in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). This instruction includes not only formal education, but also the early education parents give to a child, this discipline is designed to plant the child firmly on the foundation upon which his life is based. In biblical times, children were primarily educated and socialized by their families and simply by living and working in their community.

Sect 1 – education is important

Why do you think Christians considered Education so important? 

Education:

Jesus calls us to make and be disciples (learners). To a Jew this meant spending 15yrs dedicating yourself to your Rabbi’s teachings in Acts 2 after the Resurrection the disciples started teaching and never stopped. In the Early Church a book called the Didache was amassed as to what should be taught to Christian disciples, kids included. All kids in the Church were pushed not just to learn the Didache, but also to learn a trade to benefit the local community. Christianity wasn’t the first to start schools, many Greek philosophy schools already existed for rich boys but Christian schools like Justin Martyr’s or Augustine’s were the first to teach both boys and girls and the rich and poor. They were taught to read and write – so that they could study the Bible. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both strong advocates of universal education including reading, writing, grammar and religion, even at task payer expense. Along these lines, most of the top universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, and Cambridge, were originally founded by Christians as religious schools.

Medicine:

Charity organizations, orphanages, soup kitchens, and hospitals were all created because Christians had a high view of the value of people because it is what Scripture taught, back in Rome only the rich had doctors and healing clinics. The historian Seneca said that the Romans were proud that they drowned their own children who showed obvious birth defects and they considered it tough to reject the desire to pity the less fortunate. So it wasn’t until AD 369 Bishop of Cesseria Basil created the world’s first hospitals, where people could learn a trade while recuperating like a vocation school + hospital all in one.

Science:

Francis Bacon and William of Akom were both Christian theologians that introduced the idea of observational science to the world – for them theology came 1^st, and science was created to support theology like a table leg. From the 13^th – 18^th century every major scientist expressed his motivation for learning science religiously, learning about the world God created. Men like Leonardo Di Vinci the godfather of Anatomy, or Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler who were all towers of the astronomical sciences were Christians. And it was Lutherans historically that backed these early Christian scientists, like Galileo, when they were being devalued by the Catholic Church. And it was Calvinists later that supported science and created the Royal Society of London 1645, in which 70% of the scientists were Puritans and this was the scientific community of its day. 

Sect 2– education is subsidiary

Is there a way to resolve conflicts between the Bible and Science today?

Theology has been called “the queen of the sciences” because our knowledge of God informs every other area of education.

A Christian schoolteacher can be wrong, a pastor and Sunday school teacher can be wrong, and parents can be wrong on any particular viewpoint theologically. So, as we teach our children spiritual things, they need to be taught that the only source of absolute truth is the Scripture READ (2 Timothy 3:16.) Therefore, perhaps the most important lesson we can teach our children is to follow the example of the Bereans READ (Acts 17:11) “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true,” and to test all things they are taught—from whatever source—against the Word of God.

Education begins with the reality of God’s existence and the fact that He has communicated to us through creation, His Word, and His Son. As we learn more of God’s creation, our understanding of God’s wisdom and power deepens. As we study God’s Word, we become more equipped for God’s work. As we grow in our knowledge of God’s Son (2 Peter 3:18), our love for Him increases and our service for Him intensifies.

Sect 3 - who’s responsible for education?

What are some pluses and minuses for home, private, Christian or public schools?

Regardless of where or how we think children should receive their formal education: Public, Private, Christian or Home school, the principle found throughout all of Scripture is that of ultimate responsibility. The child’s education both formal and specifically spiritual education is not left with either the State or the Church but rests with parents.
The issue in Scripture is not what type of general education our children receive, but through what paradigm that information is to be filtered. Are you teaching them a Biblical worldview?

It is imperative that Christian parents teach their children the Word of God from a young age, showing them how to incorporate it into their daily lives, trusting continually in God. Spiritual training is even more important than academic training, and it doesn't happen by accident; it must be purposeful and habitual. Public schools—and even some private and Christian schools—can be spiritual battlegrounds for our children. Children tend to adopt the values of those with whom they spend the most time, which makes it crucial for parents who do not opt to home school to spend significant time indoctrinating their children in the truth of the Scriptures. The child who is well versed in biblical principles will easily see the falsehood of the claims around them and may very well be used by God to counter the lies with His truth.

Concl

Some people see education as a cure-all for society’s ills. However Scripture reveals that, education, in and of itself, does nothing to combat ungodliness. In fact, knowledge, apart from the love of God, leads to pride. Paul was a highly educated man, having been trained in the best Jewish school of his day, and he used his education to communicate effectively to people of many cultures. Yet Paul’s education certainly did not make him holy, and he warned of those who were “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Simply knowing facts does not make one a better person, and it is indeed possible to be a highly educated fool.

There are very few things we can do in this world that are more important than praying for our children and raising them to have hearts that love and desire to serve God. Ultimately, parents are going to have to answer to God for how they raise and educate their children.

We need to prayerfully consider how we can better educate our children in the Christian faith. What steps can we take to be better teachers and examples to our kids? 

BLASPHEMY! Lesbian ‘The Last Supper’ Painting Features Ellen DeGeneres And Other Gay Icons