Should I publicly correct my teacher?

[Dorothy Mae]

I told you twice already. Maybe you are right about the eternal security issue, but you can't correct the teacher or teach the kids when you do not believe in God.

Who does that? It's ridiculous that an thesist wants to teach Christian children about the God that he don't believe in...

You're all mixed up in your head. The position has been filled. Please come reapply if you ever get right with God. Try trusting God for once.

If you get so angry over a Christian man asking you good questions, could you even handle it if a young one stamped their foot at you and said no! ??

Well, I lied...no wait, I didn't lie but I plan to stop lying in the future....??? What is that? You should get a handle on your anger and lying. Pray about it.

Edward, my esteemed brother, I’m convinced you’re a better man than the above post reflects.

 

[Edward]

Edward, my esteemed brother, I’m convinced you’re a better man than the above post reflects.

Maybe, and I am working on that. But there was a tone set in his words that seemed very arrogant and cocky to me and in the same breath when saying, I want to teach Christian children...Ummm, what?

There is a big attitude from that individual and if he has trouble controlling his anger then he is not one suited to teach children. It didn't take much from me to bring out his anger. He is so mad, that he's even lashing out at me in other threads about othe r issues with unrelated topics. (Wow-let's turn him loose in a classroom! LOL)

This *might be* one of those situations where...why wasn't anyone able to see the signs before this happened?!
Well, I'm seeing signs. I did! Be careful with your kids!

And he can say as much as he wants that he didn't lie to those at his church. He did.

Is a member of that church. Remember that membership paper that you breezed through and gave to them, and signed. I'll bet you money you stated a denominational type that you hold to...

So did he lie then to the church or is he lying now about it? Maybe he is not a member of that church at all?

Well, sir, you have to be a member of the church to be on staff like you requested. Feel free to sit in on the services though as a guest!

 

[T. E. Smith]

Edward I never said I wanted to teach the kids in a class. And really, to "be on staff like you requested"? Come on, man, I never said any such thing. In fact I explicitly denied that already. You are obviously not listening. You're inventing things I never said.

There is a big attitude from that individual and if he has trouble controlling his anger then he is not one suited to teach children. It didn't take much from me to bring out his anger. He is so mad, that he's even lashing out at me in other threads about othe r issues with unrelated topics.

I'm actually laughing right now. Reading your posts sounds like you're quite angry, ironically. If I'm wrong on that, perhaps you should consider if you're wrong about me.

This *might be* one of those situations where...why wasn't anyone able to see the signs before this happened?!
Well, I'm seeing signs. I did! Be careful with your kids!

You don't know me at all. Yet you're cocky enough to think you would definitely have seen the signs. I'm floored.

And he can say as much as he wants that he didn't lie to those at his church. He did.

How?

Is a member of that church. Remember that membership paper that you breezed through and gave to them, and signed. I'll bet you money you stated a denominational type that you hold to...

Nope! I'm not a member. Didn't sign any membership paper. Perhaps you should have asked first before presuming to know me (once again an indication you don't know me at all). There is nothing wrong with me not being a member. I will sometimes call myself a "former Baptist", but I never really cared for such labels and distinctions, I was just born and raised that way.

Maybe he is not a member of that church at all?

You've got it! But I didn't know I had to be a church member, let alone on staff, to say, "I disagree with the idea that a believer cannot fall away, and that if a believer falls away they were never truly saved. Here's some passages that I think suggest otherwise."

 

[T. E. Smith]

Edward And also, your comment about how the Lord revealed to you that you shouldn't have many people in your "inner circle." Do you not grasp the offensive superiority in that statement? As if being in your inner circle is a special privilege awarded to a few.

 

[T. E. Smith]

And he can say as much as he wants that he didn't lie to those at his church. He did.

Is a member of that church. Remember that membership paper that you breezed through and gave to them, and signed. I'll bet you money you stated a denominational type that you hold to...

So now I realize why you say I'm lying to people at church. Because you assumed I signed a membership paper. That's the issue. If I did sign, that'd be lying, but I didn't. You wrongly assumed, and now you've been put to shame: "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Prov. 18:13).

 

[Edward]

@Edward I never said I wanted to teach the kids in a class. And really, to "be on staff like you requested"? Come on, man, I never said any such thing. In fact I explicitly denied that already. You are obviously not listening. You're inventing things I never said

Ohh!! I'm sorry brother my bad. So you was only inquireing if it would be cool for you to correct the teacher one single time in class and then no more after that? Right?

I'm trying to understand...what are the parameters of your request?

 

[Edward]

So now I realize why you say I'm lying to people at church. Because you assumed I signed a membership paper. That's the issue. If I did sign, that'd be lying, but I didn't. You wrongly assumed, and now you've been put to shame: "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Prov. 18:13).

I said I didn't know, and I conjectured both ways, if you are/are not a member of that church.

I sort of had to do that, conjecture because you sure arent being very transparent with us. I bet there's more to this that you havent said. And wont say!
...and it smells bad. Would you like to be more transparent for us?

Matthew 10:16
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.../

 

[Edward]

I'm trying to understand...what are the parameters of your request?

So you don't want to be on staff full time. Ok, gotcha.
So I'm assuming that you did not mean you only want to correct the Teacher one time. Is that correct?
So if you want to be free to correct the Teacher more than once, then...are you asking in a roundabout way to be an overseer of the class?
Is it one class only or more than one class?
Would you be on a schedule or Freestyle so to speak, only when you want to?
A single sunday scholl class each sunday alone?
Or would this develop into oversight of other church program childrens activities also?

You're being way too vague about exactly what it is that you want. Be transparent. You must speak these things because you are asking a big thing, to interupt ur childrens SS class and blemish their Teacher. This is no small issue. So speak up sir.

As you can tell, (should be able to), this is a sensitive question and deserves scutiny simply because of the children. So if you asked this question flippantly at first, and hadn't thought about the deeper implications & ramifications...I knid od understand that. It's getting a little out of hand for you, hey bro?!

So if you say hey, whoa sorry I asked a bad question, no big deal. I'll accept that. But this guy up to now at least, sounds very adament and even insistent sort of.

If you was in my church talking like this, I'd have had you escorted out by now.

Look I think you have some good in your heart. You feel a need to edify children and Teachers(!!), and that may be indicitive of your true calling spilling out. If that's a desire of your heart, there is a right way to take steps in that general direction. There are also wrong ways to go about it.

You can't bypass the elders of the church without them, and you said you want to correct the teacher. That's scripture. You have to speak with the Elders in private and not voice dissension in front of the congregation, especially the kids! There is a protocol prescribed in scripture how to handle such situations, and you are not playing by the rules. Shall I post the reference of scripture for you, oh he who is smarter than a teacher? I will but it sounds like you are well read so I'm sure you know that.

And don't you even try to play a victim card and imply Edward attacks TESmith. Another lie.
You asked. I answered. NO! It's not ok.
Because I know something of church protocols and procedures. And you are not receptive to following procedure. You want to do what you want to do...and you know it's wrong. You can feel it in your bones deep down.

Why else are you here asking that question?! Cuz you know it's dicey, lol. So don't play victim, please?

 

[T. E. Smith]

I said I didn't know, and I conjectured both ways, if you are/are not a member of that church.

You said you don't know. Well...

He did.

Is a member of that church. Remember that membership paper that you breezed through and gave to them, and signed. I'll bet you money you stated a denominational type that you hold to...

Those are some pretty confident statements. You never state any lack of sureness here. In fact you talk rudely and confidently about me "breezing through" the statement.

Ohh!! I'm sorry brother my bad. So you was only inquireing if it would be cool for you to correct the teacher one single time in class and then no more after that? Right?

I'm trying to understand...what are the parameters of your request?

Sure, one time, just to show that the Bible does not support eternal security, and perhaps to encourage the other students to engage with the teacher further in this area. Even if I would be regularly bringing it up, that still would not imply being on staff.

I sort of had to do that, conjecture because you sure arent being very transparent with us. I bet there's more to this that you havent said. And wont say!
...and it smells bad. Would you like to be more transparent for us?

No you did not have to, you could have asked. I'm not sure what all you think is relevant. Here I'll clarify a few things, short to the point. If you want to know anything else please ask.

1. I am a non-believer. No one at church knows of this because the topic has never come up.
2. I am a minor. My parents require me to go to church. They are unaware I am a non-believer.
3. I am not baptized.
   1. As a Christian I believed something unorthodox: children ought not to be baptized. They should wait until they are adults to make such an important decision about their faith and life. I came to this conclusion at age 12 (nearly four years before I began doubting) after seeing an 11-year-old friend of mine baptized. Therefore I declined baptism, despite my belief in Christianity, because I thought I ought to be more mature.
4. I am not a member of the church.
5. The church is a reformed Baptist church (self-contradictory of course, since the reformers supported infant baptism).
6. I do not want to be a teacher, and certainly not to be on the staff.
7. I respect the Bible and care about it being accurately taught. The Bible has had and continues to have strong influence in my life, thus I care about its proper interpretation.
8. I have read the Bible many times, read many commentaries conservative and liberal, and have read theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley; thus my view is not a personal conclusion but is based on years of study.

 

[T. E. Smith]

So if you want to be free to correct the Teacher more than once, then...are you asking in a roundabout way to be an overseer of the class?

If the teacher goes through the book of Hebrews and says, "These people are not actually believers," I would say, "I think the phrases 'have shared in the Holy Spirit' and 'the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified' indicate he was a true believer. How could the author have stated them to be believers more clearly, if that was what he meant? If he did happen to actually call them believers, would you interpret that to mean that they only appeared to be believers?"

Is it one class only or more than one class?

One

You're being way too vague about exactly what it is that you want. Be transparent.

So I just stated a few things to hopefully help, but I don't know exactly what else you're looking for.

 

[Edward]

Those are some pretty confident statements. You never state any lack of sureness here. In fact you talk rudely and confidently about me "breezing through" the statement.

Yes Sir. Confidently yes. Rudely? No. I have spoken matter of factly.

It hurts sometimes when we hear the truth. It may sting, but it isn't an attack.

 

[Edward]

Sure, one time, just to show that the Bible does not support eternal security, and perhaps to encourage the other students to engage with the teacher further in this area. Even if I would be regularly bringing it up, that still would not imply being on staff.

You don't want to be on staff? Nothing official here? You just want to be able to breeze in and out and disrupt the sunday school class at your whim? BWahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, but you can go now. Boys, see him out!

Better yet....Yeah brother, go into the church and say those things! Let us know how long you lasted before your butt hit the street! Those are children bro. You leave them alone.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Yes Sir. Confidently yes. Rudely? No. I have spoken matter of factly.

It hurts sometimes when we hear the truth. It may sting, but it isn't an attack.

The truth? Umm you are obviously wrong? I did not sign the statement, so your statement is false...

But I'm sick of this discussion, I'm done talking about it.

 

[Vinny37]

My three Sunday school teachers all subscribe to the doctrine of eternal security and thus argue that if someone falls away, they were never saved. They often speak of this to my classmates, some of whom as young as 10. I consider the idea very wrong, and I don't want the kids to be indoctrinated into it. Should I speak up publicly and correct the teachers? I could speak to them in private, but I'm certain that their views would not change at all, and it would still leave the children believing this false doctrine.

I suggest that, like with any teaching on basically any subject, you simply discuss it with classmates. Simply sowing the seed-idea that perhaps a teacher is not right, can flower years beyond the teacher. A former atheist philosopher (Anthony Flew) managed to get into his senior years before realising that other teachings existed with the church: https://archive.org/details/thereisgodhowwor0000flew/page/73/mode/1up?q=wesley!

The philosophy you refer to is often called Calvinism (its roots predate Calvin), which tries to explain why God can be fair in damning those never able to hear the gospel. In short (it argues), total humanity is totally worthy of damnation; some at least are given eternal life (grace); since God is sovereign, he must have chosen those, and only those, and it surely follows that if he did so, he would not let any fall away, so any apparent fall-outs must never have been fall-ins. It has a certain cohesion.

Its weaknesses include the premise that everlasting life is predicated on accepting Jesus in mortal years. But for children as young as 10, do you really need to do more than plant a seed of nonconcurrence? Why not use what the teachers are saying as an opportunity to debate, as least with fellow students? It is a good skill in life.

IMO, this side of eternity, the few folk who hear the gospel may enter in to Christianity, then may leave, then may return ad nauseum: there are both blessings and bad times within.

 

[Edward]

The truth? Umm you are obviously wrong? I did not sign the statement, so your statement is false...

But I'm sick of this discussion, I'm done talking about it.

Well, here's a couple scriptures for your perusal. This is a Christian forum!

1 Timothy 3:
3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (A Bishop is an overseer)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (Does that describe you?)

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Didn't you say something about your home life? Some difficulties which is why you lie to them just for now?
I'm not questioning your situational ethics.
I'm pointing out that you do not rule your own house, and that disqualifies you.

I was kind of hoping you would become more transparent for us all. Have a nice day.

 

[D-D-W]

T.E. Smith, many Christians don’t think about what they believe and why and what they don’t believe and why (except the brainless „someone told me.”)

That reminded me of a story I heard on the radio years ago. It was from an SDA evangelist named John Carter. He was preaching at a congregation, and afterward an elderly woman came up to ask him a couple of questions. Her questions seemed rather confused, so he asked her what she believed.

She replied "I believe the same as my church."

"And what is it that your church believes?"

"The church believes what I believe."

"What is it that both you and your church believe?"

"We both believe the same."

His point was how important it is to know what you believe and why you believe it.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Well, here's a couple scriptures for your perusal. This is a Christian forum!

1 Timothy 3:
3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (A Bishop is an overseer)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (Does that describe you?)

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Didn't you say something about your home life? Some difficulties which is why you lie to them just for now?
I'm not questioning your situational ethics.
I'm pointing out that you do not rule your own house, and that disqualifies you.

I was kind of hoping you would become more transparent for us all. Have a nice day.

1) Are you blameless? The passage obviously is referring to general conduct.
2) I do not desire to be an elder. I know of no church that allows children elders.
3) Obviously I don't rule my own house, I am a minor It would be the same way if I was a Christian...

 

[D-D-W]

The philosophy you refer to is often called Calvinism (its roots predate Calvin), which tries to explain why God can be fair in damning those never able to hear the gospel. In short (it argues), total humanity is totally worthy of damnation; some at least are given eternal life (grace); since God is sovereign, he must have chosen those, and only those, and it surely follows that if he did so, he would not let any fall away, so any apparent fall-outs must never have been fall-ins. It has a certain cohesion.

Its weaknesses include the premise that everlasting life is predicated on accepting Jesus in mortal years. But for children as young as 10, do you really need to do more than plant a seed of nonconcurrence? Why not use what the teachers are saying as an opportunity to debate, as least with fellow students? It is a good skill in life.

Actually, in Calvinism there is no "accepting Jesus in mortal years."
The "T" of the TULIP of Calvinism (Total depravity) prevents ANYONE from choosing to accept Jesus at any time. The "I" is Irresistible grace; which means if you are one of the Pre-chosen ones, there is nothing you can do to NOT follow Jesus. No one has a choice in the matter either way.

T=Total depravity (incapable of making moral or spiritual decisions)
U=Unconditional election (predestination of who is saved - the "elect")
L=Limited atonement (Christ died ONLY for the elect)
I=Irresistible grace (cannot fight God's calling)
P=Perseverance of the saints (i.e. eternal security)

 

[Edward]

Sorry, forgot the 2nd scripture. This passage prescribes how to handle your feeling slighted by hearing the Teacher teach something inaccurate to the kids.
It says don't do it in front of the kids. Tell the Teacher privately first, then go from there you move towards the church staff and not the kids no matter how much you don't like it.

That's church protocol. Edwrad didn't just make that up.


Matthew 10:15-17
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.../

If you try to surrepticiously approach the children and undermine church authority, then you're walking on dangerous ground. Gd says He has special plans for people who steer children astray. Want me to look that one up for you?

The whole chapter of Matthew is recommended reading for you so you can learn all about church protocol.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Actually, in Calvinism there is no "accepting Jesus in mortal years."
The "T" of the TULIP of Calvinism (Total depravity) prevents ANYONE from choosing to accept Jesus at any time. The "I" is Irresistible grace; which means if you are one of the Pre-chosen ones, there is nothing you can do to NOT follow Jesus. No one has a choice in the matter either way.

And Calvinists fail to support irresistible grace, basing their doctrine on Matthew's calling and the calling of the disciples - when those were for discipleship, not salvation (Judas called but not saved).

Gd says He has special plans for people who steer children astray. Want me to look that one up for you?

Yes, special plans for the Sunday school teachers who state this wrong doctrine. I'd love to hear about the suffering I'll go through, please explain