Extremely strict colleges...your thoughts?

[tinytim]

So the problem is not whether or not the rules at Suchandsuch Bible College are strict or not, but what the motives for the rules are. I believe that the main motives for having high standards in a college should be:

(1) Protection from temptation for the students, who have been entrusted to the college by their Christian parents.

John, the other two rules I have no problem with.. but I don't think it is a college's job to protect students from temptation... especially students that are going into the ministry. They have to LEARN how to deal with temptation. Even the Father didn't protect Jesus from temptation.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to say, because having 3 teen sons, I do everything I can to protect them from evil.. but at some point, if I don't turn them loose and trust that what I taught them will be good enough, they will not know how to truly deal with life.

I'm not saying the college should throw temptation in front of the students.. but I feel they have gone too far in trying to protect them from temptation that when the students gets into ministry, there may be problems..

Of course that's just my opinion.

 

[Luke2427]

Strict rules worked okay for me and many of my preacher friends. :smilewinkgrin:

Perhaps. And it works against many others, doesn't it? Whenever we enforce rules upon people that God does not enforce it tends to Phariseeism doesn't it?

Completely irrelevant.

Probably true. I was just curious.

 

[John of Japan]

These motives are fine for children, but they do not work well for young men of God.

So let me get this straight. To you, the motives of (1) being protected from temptation, (2) avoiding offending others, and (3) the glory of God are all for children? Adults shouldn't worry about them?

All of these motives are completely Scriptural, and you would do well in your spiritual life to heed them.

(1) Mt 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
(2) 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
(3) 1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

 

[Luke2427]

So let me get this straight. To you, the motives of (1) being protected from temptation, (2) avoiding offending others, and (3) the glory of God are all for children? Adults shouldn't worry about them?

All of these motives are completely Scriptural, and you would do well in your spiritual life to heed them.

(1) Mt 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
(2) 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
(3) 1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Yes. If they are enforced they are for children aren't they. If they are taught and left up to the individual, then they are for adults aren't they?

That settles it. It is time for you to yield, John.:thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

John, the other two rules I have no problem with.. but I don't think it is a college's job to protect students from temptation... especially students that are going into the ministry. They have to LEARN how to deal with temptation. Even the Father didn't protect Jesus from temptation.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to say, because having 3 teen sons, I do everything I can to protect them from evil.. but at some point, if I don't turn them loose and trust that what I taught them will be good enough, they will not know how to truly deal with life.

I'm not saying the college should throw temptation in front of the students.. but I feel they have gone too far in trying to protect them from temptation that when the students gets into ministry, there may be problems..

Of course that's just my opinion.

Hi, Tim. Hope you're doing well.

It has been said earlier in this thread that college students are still considered adolescent. I truly believe that, and believe they still need watching over in some areas. The typical college student: does not have a full time job (and never has had one), does not pay all his or her own way (the parents or government pay), has little experience in the real world, has trouble relating to the opposite sex (I sure did!), does not yet know what he or she wants to become. In the midst of these struggles to mature, I believe the last thing a college student needs is more temptation!

I remember how raw and inexperienced I was when I went to college. The strict fundamentalist college I went to seemed like a sheltered environment, and I didn't understand the students who rebelled against the rules. Hey, wait a few years until you're completely on your own, I thought.

Here in Japan, the legal age at which one is considered an adult is 20. You can't even get a driver's license until then! You aren't allowed to smoke, drink, etc. Frankly, I think that's wise. Then, once a year the city hall sponsors a "Coming of Age Ceremony." All the kids dress up, go to the ceremony, then party afterwards. I've never yet heard a Japanese kid complain about this process (though they probably do).

 

[John of Japan]

Yes. If they are enforced they are for children aren't they. If they are taught and left up to the individual, then they are for adults aren't they?

See, the problem here is that apparently you consider college students to be full adults, and they're not. (See my post to Tim.) The average college student still has many immature areas--or terms "spring break" or "party" would not mean what they do in American secular colleges, secular and sacred (something different than when an adult hears the terms).

American culture has an emphasis on freedom because of our history. This is good in many ways. People from cultures all over the world look with envy at American political freedom, and want it for themselves. The down side is that American kids think freedom means absolute freedom to do whatever they want. And it doesn't.

 

[Salty]

... The down side is that American kids think freedom means absolute freedom to do whatever they want. And it doesn't.

Thats right - part of freedom is responsibility! :thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

See, the problem here is that apparently you consider college students to be full adults, and they're not. (See my post to Tim.) The average college student still has many immature areas--or terms "spring break" or "party" would not mean what they do in American secular colleges, secular and sacred (something different than when an adult hears the terms).

American culture has an emphasis on freedom because of our history. This is good in many ways. People from cultures all over the world look with envy at American political freedom, and want it for themselves. The down side is that American kids think freedom means absolute freedom to do whatever they want. And it doesn't.

I do not think that an 18 year old is as mature as a 30 year old. But he is grown. He must learn to live on his own. This, of course, has taken place throughout history at a much earlier age, hasn't it? For that matter a 45 year old is not as mature as a 70 year old.

But what your argument does is concede that such silly, unbiblical rules are for adolescents, not for adults. Thank you for yielding. It means that you are mature and can admit when you are wrong. Very good.

 

[John of Japan]

I do not think that an 18 year old is as mature as a 30 year old. But he is grown. He must learn to live on his own. This, of course, has taken place throughout history at a much earlier age, hasn't it? For that matter a 45 year old is not as mature as a 70 year old.

"The word adolescence means 'the period of growth to maturity.' The adolescent is in an ill-defined period of life which begins prior to the teenage years and extends into the late teens or early twenties. (The final period is called "late adolescence"--JoJ.) during this time the young person changes physically, sexually, emotionally, intellectually and socially. He or she moves away from dependence and the protective confines of the family and toward relative independence and social productivity. The changes sometimes come quickly, and immature young people do not always adjust efficiently" (Christian Counseling, by Gary Collins, p. 220).

Therefore, they still need protection from temptation to a certain degree. A friend of mine sent his son to a non-strict evangelical college where he fell in with the wrong crowd and began doing drugs--at a "Christian college"! I'll not go into detail about the devastation that family is now enduring, but I'll repeat. I believe that kids in late adolescence still need some protection from temptation.

I thank God that our son went to a college that afforded that protection, and he is also thankful. He is now finishing up his Ph. D. under the mentoring of a leading Greek scholar, has two papers about to be published by scholarly theological journals, and this week will present a paper at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.

But what your argument does is concede that such silly, unbiblical rules are for adolescents, not for adults. Thank you for yielding. It means that you are mature and can admit when you are wrong. Very good.

I really don't like it when people try to put words in my mouth. It's rude. Please refrain. And if you will look at the quote I give in this post, you will see that adolesence extends all the way through the senior year of college.

 

[glfredrick]

I thought the topic of this thread was schools with extremely strict rules? When did it become a discussion of IFB churches?

You are correct. I'll abstain from that direction.

 

[glfredrick]

glfredrick feels free to strictly criticize strict rules, and went so far as to compare independent Baptists with strict rules to the beliefs of the notorious Fred Phelps, saying strict rules are what caused Phelps to be the vicious person that he is. (Of course he gave no proof for this assertion when I called him on it.)

I have twice asked glfredrick to define legalism. He believes we are legalists, but apparently can't even define the term. Therefore I declare victory in this debate.

Good for you.

Wanna bet that you or anyone else can define legalism when it applies to your own condition?

When a school decides -- for religious reasons -- to set down rules that cannot be found in the source text for the religion they purport to serve, then they are legalistic and or Pharisaical.

In a sense, legalism is the state of affairs where a person is judged guilty before they make the first action, and rules are set in place to curb that guilt-provoking behavior. Legalism also tends to further the cause of the ones holding the power over the rules instead of empowering those who are forced to live under those same rules to be as free and creative as God made them to be.

Will that work for you?

Want details? Can't give them, any more than you can tell me what it means to operate under grace. :tonofbricks:

 

[DHK]

Will that work for you?

Want details? Can't give them, any more than you can tell me what it means to operate under grace. :tonofbricks:

NO, You fall far short.
Legalism is adding works to salvation. It is taking the grace out of salvation and substituting it with works. The Judaizers that followed Paul around were legalists. The issue was brought to a head in Acts 15. These legalists were determined to have their way in adding or requiring that keeping the law and circumcision be part of salvation.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
--These men were legalists. Their message was one of works and not of grace. They added works to a message of grace.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:1-2)
--In verse one, it was the legalists (Judaizers) that had bewitched them.
--In verse two, they apparently were deceived into following the law (legalism) instead of living a life of faith.

You have wrongly defined legalism. You have given some modern definition which has nothing to do with the Biblical definition of legalism at all.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Legalism is adding works to salvation.

I agree!!! Like so many will say you should do this or that if you are saved or to prove you are saved. Having to do anything is adding to salvation. Do this or that out of love isn't. We all have peaks and valleys in our life after salvation, if we are being judged by works and we are in a valley, we don't look like a Christian. Many of us or most of us have had those valley and peaks in our walk.

I do nothing to keep my salvation, but what and when I do something is due to me following the Holy Spirit.

Can't speak for anyone else, but from my father on to military academy, college and seminary and then in the service, there have been many rules to follow. A quick look to see how strict rules work, go back to your combat days or ask someone how it was, not following could get you and many others killed. Ask some folks who have been divorce or children raised in a broken home and see if it would have been better if maybe a rule or two were kept out of love, just asking.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Know this thread is long and probably will be closed, but want to add that MOST of the institutional rules of strict colleges/military academies et al are there to teach discipline to the student and to protect the image of the school.

They are not rules on which a student will then base his life for the next decades; they are there to be guidelines for group conduct.

Example: I attended a historic ifb college with policy of no facial hair and sideburns neatly trimmed to middle of the ear. (Think 1965 and rise of the hippies and see how different we looked). A couple years out of school I returned to campus with a moustache and longer sideburns. I joked with a former prof of mine over "breaking the rules".

Dr W looked askew at me and wondered why I said such. He reminded me that I was an adult, making choices on my own and not under institutional rules meant for campus appearance/uniformity/testimony. No big deal if I had a moustache.

How liberating. So now I no longer have a "curfew" and since I pay the electric bill, can leave the lights on all night. Not bothered an iota by rules that were temporary for the transitional phase of life in the late teens.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Know this thread is long and probably will be closed, but want to add that MOST of the institutional rules of strict colleges/military academies et al are there to teach discipline to the student and to protect the image of the school.

They are not rules on which a student will then base his life for the next decades; they are there to be guidelines for group conduct.

So very true.

Dad was very strict to protect the family name and image, the schools were the same and the service was the same and to bring as many back alive as they could.

 

[glfredrick]

NO, You fall far short.
Legalism is adding works to salvation. It is taking the grace out of salvation and substituting it with works. The Judaizers that followed Paul around were legalists. The issue was brought to a head in Acts 15. These legalists were determined to have their way in adding or requiring that keeping the law and circumcision be part of salvation.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
--These men were legalists. Their message was one of works and not of grace. They added works to a message of grace.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:1-2)
--In verse one, it was the legalists (Judaizers) that had bewitched them.
--In verse two, they apparently were deceived into following the law (legalism) instead of living a life of faith.

You have wrongly defined legalism. You have given some modern definition which has nothing to do with the Biblical definition of legalism at all.

How does what you write differ from what I wrote, except that my version is concise?

When a school decides -- for religious reasons -- to set down rules that cannot be found in the source text for the religion they purport to serve, then they are legalistic and or Pharisaical.

Oh, and for the record, you are being "legalistic" toward me... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

Good for you.

When a school decides -- for religious reasons -- to set down rules that cannot be found in the source text for the religion they purport to serve, then they are legalistic and or Pharisaical.
In a sense, legalism is the state of affairs where a person is judged guilty before they make the first action, and rules are set in place to curb that guilt-provoking behavior. Legalism also tends to further the cause of the ones holding the power over the rules instead of empowering those who are forced to live under those same rules to be as free and creative as God made them to be.

Will that work for you?

Nope, probably won't work for me unless you can give me an actual source for this definition. Did you make it up yourself? (Sounds like it.) Is it your own opinion, or do you have a theological authority (or better yet, Biblical source) for it?

There is a widely accepted theological definition of legalism. I've already quoted an important SBC theologian on the matter. So far all you have is your own theologically naive definition.

Want details?
Can't give them, any more than you can tell me what it means to operate under grace. :tonofbricks:

And you know me and my beliefs and lifestyle from where? Frankly, I just laughed at this! You think you know me simply because I advocate strict rules at colleges. Ridiculous. :tongue3:

Now, if you actually want to discuss this intelligently, and if you are well read, I suggest you go to the Swindoll book Grace Awakening or some similar book, give me something to work with other than your own opinion, and we'll go from there.

 

[DHK]

How does what you write differ from what I wrote, except that my version is concise?

Your definition is not Biblical nor theological. It is simply opinion and vastly different from the Scripture that I quoted you.

Oh, and for the record, you are being "legalistic" toward me... :smilewinkgrin:

You are referring to this quote:

In a sense, legalism is the state of affairs where a person is judged guilty before they make the first action, and rules are set in place to curb that guilt-provoking behavior.

Those are your own words.
You are being legalistic toward yourself. You condemn yourself by quoting yourself. What logic is this?

Your definition of legalism here is not what the definition of legalism is according to the Bible. It is not rules set in place....
Legalism has to do with salvation, not with Bible Colleges.
Your definition falls way short of the Biblical definition of legalism.

 

[Jerome]

When a school decides -- for religious reasons -- to set down rules that cannot be found in the source text for the religion they purport to serve, then they are legalistic and or Pharisaical.

So Boyce College is legalistic and/or Pharisaical?

 

[Luke2427]

I really don't like it when people try to put words in my mouth. It's rude. Please refrain. And if you will look at the quote I give in this post, you will see that adolesence extends all the way through the senior year of college.

Exactly John. I said that such rules are adolescent. You retorted- "You think that separation is adolescent!!!!"" or the like. Then you went on to prove my point by saying that college students- in your opinion are adolescents.