Anyone who is not reformed using VP?

[Aloha2U]

I am not reformed, but I plan on following VP curriculum suggestions closely in the future (w/the exception of SWR and possibly correlating VP history w/SOTW).

 

I'm just curious... for those of you who are also not reformed, but follow VP or plan on following VP... what made you decide to use VP instead of say TOG or something else? What are your likes and/or dislikes with their curriculum choices? What variations have you made that work better for your dc?

 

I hope someone will reply to this thread as I am very interest in getting feedback.

 

Many thanks,

 

Melissa

[PeterPan]

Not reformed. I'm trying to think, and I think many of the people on the yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp_elementary are not reformed either. Maybe half are? I don't know that we've done a survey. In any case, it's not an issue with the elementary curriculum, imho. And people have said for Omnibus you just present your side/spin to it as well. Where it would be most likely to show up in the elementary curriculum would be the MARR choices, and they're pretty balanced across the time.

 

Why not TOG? Well, because I started the VP history 2nd semester of 1st grade, when TOG would have been overkill. I haven't changed now, going into 4th, because I haven't felt the need. Actually I thought about it going into this year, because the VP tm's for history are pretty trim (compared to the Vegas buffet of TOG), but I didn't feel I'd have time to deal with that with the new baby coming. And really, after you've done this a while, you find your own groove, the balance of what you need to make it practical for you and enough for your dc.

 

There's really a lot of wisdom to the VP curriculum selections. I think actually where people part waters or adapt to make it work for them is not so much what is used but how. For instance, with the history it's not at all uncommon for people to totally drop the worksheets. Are they worthwhile? Yes. But do you *have* to and are some people happier without them? Like you, for the spelling I've used SWR. This year we're diverging, with the baby coming. I don't use their math. If you like most of what they suggest, you might spring for the Scholars lessons, say when you hit 2nd grade, which might make life easy.

 

Definitely check out the yahoo group and get feedback from others. We've uploaded schedules and all sorts of things.

[Tabrett]

What does "reformed" refer too?:confused: Does VP teach a certain type of theology?

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

We've moved VP's history program to the additional resource catagory. I found that as we progressed their focus stays more with church history and misses or minimizes other historical events. We use their items as additional work and I like many of their book selections but I have varied between Biblioplan/SOTW and TOG to try to find a balance of history.

[angela in ohio]

I could be mistaken, but I think TOG is reformed, too (in case you were thinking of that for a non-reformed option.)

 

Of course, I'm reformed, so I say come join us on the dark side.... ;)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I could be mistaken, but I think TOG is reformed, too (in case you were thinking of that for a non-reformed option.)

 

Of course, I'm reformed, so I say come join us on the dark side.... ;)

 

In my experience the difference is that TOG focuses more on history with the religious bent allowing for greater flexibility while, as I mention above, VP drops historical events in favor of including more church history. It is not so much the POV as the choice between topics of secular/political/cultural history and church history.

[sarahv]

What does "reformed" refer too?:confused: Does VP teach a certain type of theology?

 

It is a protestant view of theology that draws heavily on their roots from the Reformation. Thus, "reformed" theology. Presbyterians, Christian Reformed, Reformed Baptist, etc.

[Tabrett]

It is a protestant view of theology that draws heavily on their roots from the Reformation. Thus, "reformed" theology. Presbyterians, Christian Reformed, Reformed Baptist, etc.

 

So would non-reformed be Catholic? And most other Christian demonination be reformed?

[VaKim]

So would non-reformed be Catholic? And most other Christian demonination be reformed?

 

No. Here is a good link.

http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/reformed-a-defi.php

[laylamcb]

So would non-reformed be Catholic? And most other Christian demonination be reformed?

 

Catholics don't really come into it, IYKWIM. If you're Protestant and not Reformed, you presumably come out of an Anabaptist and/or evangelical and/or fundamentalist and/or restorationist background.

 

Have I covered everything?! :D

[tristangrace]

I'm just curious... for those of you who are also not reformed, but follow VP or plan on following VP... what made you decide to use VP instead of say TOG or something else? What are your likes and/or dislikes with their curriculum choices? What variations have you made that work better for your dc?

 

I wouldn't say we are "following" VP for history, but we're using some VP resources. SOTW 1 will be our history spine this year, and I got the VP cards and activity books (OTAE and NTGR) to introduce more Bible history into our history curriculum. I'm using VP as a tool to "tweak" SOTW 1, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not sure yet whether we'll use VP materials into the Middle Ages and beyond or not, since the materials will depart from an emphasis on Bible history and go on to an emphasis on church history. Since we are not Reformed, I will have to hunt down broader resources than VP offers, and I'm not sure whether I'll end up using VP plus other stuff, or not at all.

 

Susan

[tristangrace]

If you're Protestant and not Reformed, you presumably come out of an Anabaptist and/or evangelical and/or fundamentalist and/or restorationist background.

 

Have I covered everything?! :D

 

Scoot over a bit and make a little more room for us Anglicans!

 

Susan

[CactusPair]

Tristangrace, you're too funny!

 

Any room for Friends/Quakers on the bench?

 

I like the way you describe how you'll be using VP with SOTW. I have the cards and trying to think of ways to best implement them.

 

Thanks for sharing your good ideas!

[laylamcb]

Oy! I KNEW I shouldn't have even BOTHERED to try to answer the whole "non-reformed" thing! :banghead:

 

Ack. Sorry, gals! Anglicans and/or Friends and/or...anyone else? :D

[Guest]

In my experience the difference is that TOG focuses more on history with the religious bent allowing for greater flexibility while, as I mention above, VP drops historical events in favor of including more church history. It is not so much the POV as the choice between topics of secular/political/cultural history and church history.

 

Melissa - this is what I was trying to say the other day when I told you I saw their materials...said much more clearly. :)

 

As for TOG - I just saw the Somerville's in person and they made a few points re: their philosophy. First, they attend a church called Sovereign Grace Ministries and they hold to their statement of faith. If I understood them correctly, they were saying that this is the philosophy they hold to, but they do not want that to be the focus of their curriculum. They want to present everything in a very open manner, allowing the users to interpret and tailor to what their family believes. I am still trying to figure out the whole Reformed thing (thanks to the link someone posted...that was very helpful!) so I cannot comment on that point one way or the other.

 

Hope this makes sense, I am on the phone and baby is crying, so I may have to come back and edit. AaggghhhH!!!

[Aloha2U]

We've moved VP's history program to the additional resource catagory. I found that as we progressed their focus stays more with church history and misses or minimizes other historical events. We use their items as additional work and I like many of their book selections but I have varied between Biblioplan/SOTW and TOG to try to find a balance of history.

 

In my experience the difference is that TOG focuses more on history with the religious bent allowing for greater flexibility while, as I mention above, VP drops historical events in favor of including more church history. It is not so much the POV as the choice between topics of secular/political/cultural history and church history.

 

Melissa - this is what I was trying to say the other day when I told you I saw their materials...said much more clearly. :)

 

As for TOG - I just saw the Somerville's in person and they made a few points re: their philosophy. First, they attend a church called Sovereign Grace Ministries and they hold to their statement of faith. If I understood them correctly, they were saying that this is the philosophy they hold to, but they do not want that to be the focus of their curriculum. They want to present everything in a very open manner, allowing the users to interpret and tailor to what their family believes.

 

Thank you for these comments. I believe I am understanding more of what you were trying to tell me Monica.

 

I wouldn't say we are "following" VP for history, but we're using some VP resources. SOTW 1 will be our history spine this year, and I got the VP cards and activity books (OTAE and NTGR) to introduce more Bible history into our history curriculum. I'm using VP as a tool to "tweak" SOTW 1, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not sure yet whether we'll use VP materials into the Middle Ages and beyond or not, since the materials will depart from an emphasis on Bible history and go on to an emphasis on church history. Since we are not Reformed, I will have to hunt down broader resources than VP offers, and I'm not sure whether I'll end up using VP plus other stuff, or not at all.

 

This is what I am thinking of doing for History too... correlating VP history w/SOTW.

 

Not reformed. I'm trying to think, and I think many of the people on the yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp_elementary'>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp_elementary are not reformed either. Maybe half are? I don't know that we've done a survey. In any case, it's not an issue with the elementary curriculum, imho. And people have said for Omnibus you just present your side/spin to it as well. Where it would be most likely to show up in the elementary curriculum would be the MARR choices, and they're pretty balanced across the time.

 

Why not TOG? Well, because I started the VP history 2nd semester of 1st grade, when TOG would have been overkill. I haven't changed now, going into 4th, because I haven't felt the need. Actually I thought about it going into this year, because the VP tm's for history are pretty trim (compared to the Vegas buffet of TOG), but I didn't feel I'd have time to deal with that with the new baby coming. And really, after you've done this a while, you find your own groove, the balance of what you need to make it practical for you and enough for your dc.

 

There's really a lot of wisdom to the VP curriculum selections. I think actually where people part waters or adapt to make it work for them is not so much what is used but how. For instance, with the history it's not at all uncommon for people to totally drop the worksheets. Are they worthwhile? Yes. But do you *have* to and are some people happier without them? Like you, for the spelling I've used SWR. This year we're diverging, with the baby coming. I don't use their math. If you like most of what they suggest, you might spring for the Scholars lessons, say when you hit 2nd grade, which might make life easy.

 

Definitely check out the yahoo group and get feedback from others. We've uploaded schedules and all sorts of things.

 

Now I have some comments and questions for OhElizabeth:

 

I am considering going with the Scholars lessons as you stated above, however, I am curious... since you were considering switching to TOG this year... if you had to do it all over again (although I guess you eventually will with the new addition to your family arriving soon ;)) would you still use VP history selections like the cards and such, or would you have started with TOG instead and maybe use VP or SOTW as extra resources?

 

Although I know it may be an good opportunity to teach my ds why we believe what we believe and why we do/don't agree with some of the material presented in the Omnibus, I cannot deny that I am a bit leery of using the it when the time comes. Another concern being exactly what JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst stated above about VP dropping historical events in favor of including more church history. I don't mind and am not against that it covers church history, unless it is completely based on reformation and nothing else.

 

I realize that there may be no one perfect curriculum for us and that I may need to tweak some things to get the result I'm wanting... but if it is not so much the POV as the choice between topics of secular/political/cultural history and church history concerning TOG and VP... then, from your experience and IYHO, is correlating VP w/SOTW going to cover all the bases or should I lean towards TOG from the beginning or combine VP w/TOG, etc.?

 

Is this making any sense to anyone? I hope I'm not confusing the issue but I could sure use some sound advice on this and will greatly appreciate any additional feedback on this issue.

 

BTW, I posted the initial question on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp_elementary just today and hope to get more information from there as well.

 

Sincerely,

 

Melissa

[PeterPan]

That I am thinking of doing for History too... correlating VP history w/SOTW.

 

Now I have some comments and questions for OhElizabeth:

 

I am considering going with the Scholars lessons as you stated above, however, I am curious... since you were considering switching to TOG this year... if you had to do it all over again (although I guess you eventually will with the new addition to your family arriving soon ;)) would you still use VP history selections like the cards and such, or would you have started with TOG instead and maybe use VP or SOTW as extra resources?

 

Although I know it may be an good opportunity to teach my ds why we believe what we believe and why we do/don't agree with some of the material presented in the Omnibus, I cannot deny that I am a bit leery of using the it when the time comes. Another concern being exactly what JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst stated above about VP dropping historical events in favor of including more church history. I don't mind and am not against that it covers church history, unless it is completely based on reformation and nothing else.

 

I realize that there may be no one perfect curriculum for us and that I may need to tweak some things to get the result I'm wanting... but if it is not so much the POV as the choice between topics of secular/political/cultural history and church history concerning TOG and VP... then, from your experience and IYHO, is correlating VP w/SOTW going to cover all the bases or should I lean towards TOG from the beginning or combine VP w/TOG, etc.?

 

Is this making any sense to anyone? I hope I'm not confusing the issue but I could sure use some sound advice on this and will greatly appreciate any additional feedback on this issue.

 

BTW, I posted the initial question on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp_elementary just today and hope to get more information from there as well.

 

Sincerely,

 

Melissa

 

Hi Melissa, I saw your post at the vp_elementary group, but I've been sewing a lot and didn't head over to answer it. I also figured we were talking here, didn't want you to get tired of me. :)

 

I'm not sure you're really asking the right questions yet, because you're concerned so far with what is being taught but not WHEN. VP suggests starting their history sequence in 2nd, meaning you have a long ways to go until then. I know you haven't cited them, but MP suggests waiting until 3rd for ancients, and when I start with my new Little One, that is my plan. If you do it with VP, you can start in 3rd, combining OTAE and NTGR in one year (the schedule is in the group files). In this way you can still hit Omnibus in 7th, if you wish. You can't know if you're going to use Omnibus or not, so I wouldn't sweat that.

 

I can't say I really understood the comments of the other poster on the MARR cards either. I don't know much about history, so it's entirely possible I miss the significance of some things. In any case, when I started MARR (which I'm not claiming I did a good job on, let's blame it on pregnancy, hehe) I went through the cards and tallied them by what portion of the MARR time period they corresponded to. Someone around here had told me there were divisions (early middle ages, middle ages, ren/ref??), and as I tallied them, I found the cards were evenly divided between the 3, which seemed quite balanced to me. The cards do cover some church history stuff that, if you cover it with a very young dc, you're kind of left scratching your head on the why. But you know, that's why they meant it for 4th graders. Younger dc doing it are tag alongs, and if I were doing it with only say 2nd graders, I wouldn't do it that way. There was a recent post on the VP list about these very thing, about how to teach exclusively littles vs. more the target age with MARR.

 

You also have to remember that with VP history there's the base topic and a whole bunch of rabbit trails. Those rabbit trails are in the tm through various activities and are found in the book selections in the catalog. So I doubt that anything exceptionally interesting about the Middle Ages was skipped per se in MARR, but rather it was covered a different way, as a rabbit trail, rather than the main memory work for the week. There's only so much you can cover or focus on, and VP picked what they thought was important.

 

The Scholars lessons have consistently good feedback. Again, if you do scholars now, you're not talking history anyway (K5 and 1st). Are you sure you really need scholars right now, with just one dc? Do what makes you feel comfortable. I'm just saying K5 is awfully easy: just teach them to read, do some basic math, and read aloud a lot together. I don't think the Scholars lessons schedule the extras (art, etc.), so you'd still be doing stuff. I would think they'd be a bit more helpful later, but that's just me. They seem to be very good at boosting people's confidence, so if that's what you need, go for it! :)

 

If I were doing it over, I'd play more and worry less. And no, I wouldn't suggest you buy TOG now (with a 4 yo). I have a rising 4th grader who is a prolific reader, huge history buff. That's totally different from having a 4 or 5 yo. VP, to me, is like TOG streamlined down to just the elementary. It's not for the faint of heart, as you really do have to pull together your own stuff. TOG would have given me some extra tools that would have been nice with this increasing age, but we're fine right now. And like I said, for K-2nd, I wish I had played more and worried less. With this new Little One, I'd probably read CHOW in K5 and then do american for a couple years using good spines and lots of activities. Then in 3rd start into VP, doing OTAE and NTGR. That puts us at MARR in 4th, which I think will be a better age than the young 3rd my dd was. You also have to remember that my dh has read my dd story bibles and whatnot over and over and over and over... So you're talking about worldview and biblical integration. Well these littles don't care about that, don't need that. You just want to fill their banks with lots of good stories. Then about 4th or 5th you start to pull together the dots. Do you remember what history you were taught in K5 and 1st? Didn't think so, lol. But you remember the stories you were told. They have no sense of time, so it really doesn't matter if you jumble them up and cover all kinds of stuff concurrently. My big thing is that truth always gets told as truth, that's all.

 

If you like SOTW, you either let it drive or VP. If you want VP to drive, I wouldn't bother starting in 1st like I did, honest. I'd save VP until 2nd, or 3rd if you want to do the combined OTAE and NTGR in one year. You can start SOTW in 1st if you want. But like I said, the issue is what is driving. SOTW can become a resource to correlate to the VP cards, if you want to let them drive. My dd didn't really adore SOTW, so I let her just read it herself and we moved on. BTW, that's part of why you wait on the VP history, so they'll be able to read the books for themselves. ;)

[Melissa in CA]

No. Here is a good link.

http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/reformed-a-defi.php

 

Great article. I especially liked this part:

 

"To be Reformed is to adhere to the purist teachings of the Bible - to affirm the doctrine taught by Jesus, Paul and the apostles. Scripture is considered the ultimate authority in matters of life and faith and all Reformed doctrine is founded on the Bible. I am convinced that Reformed doctrine is nothing more than Biblical Christianity. Were it not for human sin we would have to make no distinction between them." ;)

 

I personally love Reformed doctrine (minus the baby baptism stuff because I don't see it in scripture), and though we don't actually attend a "Reformed" church, we are in fact of the Reformed faith. I personally would love a curriculum that taught it fully and have looked at VP from time to time. I have never understood their catalog though and have always felt they push some books at too young an age. My very average children would have been overwhelmed completely.

 

From one Melissa to another :D, I personally would at least consider TOG. You can 'purchase' a FREE Explore TOG packet that includes lots of info for you. I would highly recommend getting the $5 CD set that goes with it though. I loved hearing Marcia Somerville talk about the curriculum and the philosophy behind it. After you have purchased all four years of TOG, you have your curriculum set for the rest of your child's schooling (and any children up and coming).

 

But, I do agree wholeheartedly with OhElizabeth about starting out easy; "Play more, worry less." ;) The first few years should be all about the three R's. I would have fun with those adding in some great read-alouds and picture books before jumping into any full curriculum.

 

My opinion of course.

[PeterPan]

Actually, it was attending Marcia Somerville's talks on TOG at the convention that helped me decide not to buy it. Not that I didn't like it, as I did seriously consider it again this year. But Marcia's talk really hit home to me when she said, "Trust much to the reading of good books." So to Marcia, the lower grammar years, say K-3rd-ish, should be reading a lot of good history. Well I was doing just fine with that with VP! That's when I realized that I could knock myself out a lot harder, but someone who knows history was just saying to give them the books and let them enjoy it. You go for the connections and fancy stuff, what I think of as teaching, later. And as I realized I was doing just fine making that happen with VP, I no longer needed all the extras of TOG.

[Aloha2U]

Hi Melissa, I saw your post at the vp_elementary group, but I've been sewing a lot and didn't head over to answer it. I also figured we were talking here, didn't want you to get tired of me. :)

 

First of all, I don't think that I could ever get tired of you. In fact, I wish you had a blog so that I could visit it and glean from you more often, that way you don't get tired of me! LOL! :lol:

 

I'm not sure you're really asking the right questions yet, because you're concerned so far with what is being taught but not WHEN. VP suggests starting their history sequence in 2nd, meaning you have a long ways to go until then. I know you haven't cited them, but MP suggests waiting until 3rd for ancients, and when I start with my new Little One, that is my plan. If you do it with VP, you can start in 3rd, combining OTAE and NTGR in one year (the schedule is in the group files). In this way you can still hit Omnibus in 7th, if you wish. You can't know if you're going to use Omnibus or not, so I wouldn't sweat that.

 

I can't say I really understood the comments of the other poster on the MARR cards either. I don't know much about history, so it's entirely possible I miss the significance of some things. In any case, when I started MARR (which I'm not claiming I did a good job on, let's blame it on pregnancy, hehe) I went through the cards and tallied them by what portion of the MARR time period they corresponded to. Someone around here had told me there were divisions (early middle ages, middle ages, ren/ref??), and as I tallied them, I found the cards were evenly divided between the 3, which seemed quite balanced to me. The cards do cover some church history stuff that, if you cover it with a very young dc, you're kind of left scratching your head on the why. But you know, that's why they meant it for 4th graders. Younger dc doing it are tag alongs, and if I were doing it with only say 2nd graders, I wouldn't do it that way. There was a recent post on the VP list about these very thing, about how to teach exclusively littles vs. more the target age with MARR.

 

I agree with everything you stated above. I plan on doing GtG in K, VP's geography selections in 1st possibly along w/Child's Story of America and/or CTC - but possibly waiting until 2nd to CtC. Then doing as you say, starting OTAE and combining it w/NTGR in 3rd. (Any thoughts on this plan?)

 

You also have to remember that with VP history there's the base topic and a whole bunch of rabbit trails. Those rabbit trails are in the tm through various activities and are found in the book selections in the catalog. So I doubt that anything exceptionally interesting about the Middle Ages was skipped per se in MARR, but rather it was covered a different way, as a rabbit trail, rather than the main memory work for the week. There's only so much you can cover or focus on, and VP picked what they thought was important.

 

This is what I like!

 

The Scholars lessons have consistently good feedback. Again, if you do scholars now, you're not talking history anyway (K5 and 1st). Are you sure you really need scholars right now, with just one dc? Do what makes you feel comfortable. I'm just saying K5 is awfully easy: just teach them to read, do some basic math, and read aloud a lot together. I don't think the Scholars lessons schedule the extras (art, etc.), so you'd still be doing stuff. I would think they'd be a bit more helpful later, but that's just me. They seem to be very good at boosting people's confidence, so if that's what you need, go for it! :)

 

I don't think that I'll do Scholars for K or possibly even 1st, but will most likely spring for them in 2nd and on (until I get comfortable).

 

If I were doing it over, I'd play more and worry less. And no, I wouldn't suggest you buy TOG now (with a 4 yo). I have a rising 4th grader who is a prolific reader, huge history buff. That's totally different from having a 4 or 5 yo. VP, to me, is like TOG streamlined down to just the elementary. It's not for the faint of heart, as you really do have to pull together your own stuff. TOG would have given me some extra tools that would have been nice with this increasing age, but we're fine right now. And like I said, for K-2nd, I wish I had played more and worried less. With this new Little One, I'd probably read CHOW in K5 and then do american for a couple years using good spines and lots of activities. Then in 3rd start into VP, doing OTAE and NTGR. That puts us at MARR in 4th, which I think will be a better age than the young 3rd my dd was. You also have to remember that my dh has read my dd story bibles and whatnot over and over and over and over... So you're talking about worldview and biblical integration. Well these littles don't care about that, don't need that. You just want to fill their banks with lots of good stories. Then about 4th or 5th you start to pull together the dots. Do you remember what history you were taught in K5 and 1st? Didn't think so, lol. But you remember the stories you were told. They have no sense of time, so it really doesn't matter if you jumble them up and cover all kinds of stuff concurrently. My big thing is that truth always gets told as truth, that's all.

 

I think I saw CHOW in VP's selections, but I'm not familiar with it. Maybe I should consider using this instead of Child's Story of America in 1st or possibly instead of CtC in 2nd? (Any suggestions there?)

 

If you like SOTW, you either let it drive or VP. If you want VP to drive, I wouldn't bother starting in 1st like I did, honest. I'd save VP until 2nd, or 3rd if you want to do the combined OTAE and NTGR in one year. You can start SOTW in 1st if you want. But like I said, the issue is what is driving. SOTW can become a resource to correlate to the VP cards, if you want to let them drive. My dd didn't really adore SOTW, so I let her just read it herself and we moved on. BTW, that's part of why you wait on the VP history, so they'll be able to read the books for themselves. ;)

 

Ok, now I'm not sure what to do... so much to choose from and I can't have my ds doing everything all at once. Maybe I should start SOTW in 1st instead of CtC. I saw a file on the VP elementary Yahoo group that I should I realize I still have time, but there is so much to consider and I want to have a well thought out plan while using the best materials to accomplish our goal. I know that different materials fit everyone's situation differently... so uh, do you have any thoughts on this? :bigear:

 

I'm having a heard time thinking straight because my ds is sitting on my lap and playing Veggie Island on the PC while I'm on the PowerBook next to him... so I hope this reply is making sense as it is taking quite a long time to construct. LOL!

 

Actually, it was attending Marcia Somerville's talks on TOG at the convention that helped me decide not to buy it. Not that I didn't like it, as I did seriously consider it again this year. But Marcia's talk really hit home to me when she said, "Trust much to the reading of good books." So to Marcia, the lower grammar years, say K-3rd-ish, should be reading a lot of good history. Well I was doing just fine with that with VP! That's when I realized that I could knock myself out a lot harder, but someone who knows history was just saying to give them the books and let them enjoy it. You go for the connections and fancy stuff, what I think of as teaching, later. And as I realized I was doing just fine making that happen with VP, I no longer needed all the extras of TOG.

 

That makes complete sense to me and makes me feel even better about my choice to go with VP. Thanks for all your feedback, Elizabeth. I hope you'll indulge me a little more and respond to my comments/questions above as well.

 

BTW, Here is a response from someone on the Yahoo Group that was helpful as well.

 

Hey Melissa,

 

I just saw your post on VP. I will try to answer your question. I was raised in an Assembly of God church. Today, we do not go to a "Presbyterian" church but I do love VP. I have looked over TOG and it looks very good. I like the TOG "Teacher's notes" and Bible verses. But for me the choice came down to this ~

 

I like the short and to the point cards

They are jump off for us to be able to read more real books with my kids

I have never really seen "doctrine" in VP's history it is pretty much facts

I have figured out a way of doing history that I like and VP gives me the structure that I need but also gives me lots of room to "flesh" out the card the way I see fit with 2 boys.

I am totally opposed to only textbook learning for history. I think me and my kids would both GAG!

I like that VP only covers 32 events and for me I am okay with this. I like doing an indepth study of a few events rather than cover a "ton" of events.

I feel like with 32 events I am able to keep it together and be organized.

I guess for me it is the "less is more" (We used SOTW for 1st grade but I switched in the middle of 2nd b/c I did not like covering 3 events a week ~ I do however love the method that SOTW uses: Narrated Story, Map Work, Timeline Entry, including real books) I would still recommend SOTW but I would only do the sections that line up with a VP card.

For the grammar stage I don't per se feel like I have to give them a ton of info right now. I just want to create pegs for round 2.

I would consider TOG for round 2 in the logic stage but that is just a thought floating in the back of my mind right now. LOL

 

Any additional comments here? :bigear:

 

Many Many Thanks!

 

Melissa

[Teri H.; Oregon]

I could be mistaken, but I think TOG is reformed, too (in case you were thinking of that for a non-reformed option.)

 

Of course, I'm reformed, so I say come join us on the dark side.... ;)

We're reformed as well. This just made me chuckle. Thanks for the light! :)

[Gailmegan]

Just wanted to clarify that the bias within VP isn't just a matter of Reformed Theology. I am Reformed, a full 5-point Calvinist (but not a hyper-Calvinist, to clarify) and I have issues with VP's bias. Douglas Wilson is one of the main writers, who not only has a patriarchal view of marriage/family, but is one of the leaders in the Federal Vision movement, which has been rejected by the General Assemblies of most Presbyterian denominations. (A topic for another thread).

 

I started using VP with my son for K and 1st and found some subtle bias in some first grade primers with the Phonics Museum. I decided that if it could sneak in there, it could sneak in anywhere and I didn't want to have to over-analyze what I was teaching. Like the PP I was really torn, until I saw that Oliver North was to be a keynote speaker for VP's teacher training. That made the break easy for me. So starting with 2nd grade (and wishing I had done it a year earlier) I am now using all WTM recommendations -- and I'm so excited about everything! I do still enjoy looking through the VP catalog for ideas of other resources, but I won't be purchasing any of their materials.

 

I am not in any way slamming VP, just stating that the biases do not fit with the theology or politics of my family. Since we are all human, all curriculum will have biases (some more obvious than others) so you just have to decide what will fit your family the best and go with it.

[Kimber]

Hi,

 

I'm very curious about the bias in Omnibus. Can you (This is to both of you guys--Jennifer and Gailmegan or anyone else that can elaborate, Thanks!) tell me a little more or maybe highlight a few of the quotes that gave you pause. The translation of John 3:16 for an example is one I would have major problems with. That is totally different from what I was actually teaching my son yesterday for memory work! The intent is completely different.

 

We go to a reformed church, but I am beginning to believe that Omnibus will not be for me, but I'd like to be sure.

 

Thanks,

 

Kimberly

[Aloha2U]

I definitely believe that using most of VP's curriculum selections is the right fit for me and my ds (with the exceptions of Bible, using SWR, and correlating VP history w/SOTW), however, I called VP yesterday and went over a few things with them. Here were some of my dilemmas... I was considering either starting SOTW in first and OTAE in 2nd... or starting SOTW in 2nd and combining OTAE/NTGR for 3rd... but I like the suggestions by someone from the VP Yahoo Group of only do the sections of SOTW that line up with a VP card and so I am resolved in following VP's suggestions of doing OTAE in 2nd correlated w/SOTW and NTGR in 3rd. I believe that I will start using the Scholars program in 2nd and take a look at the file on VP Yahoo Group about VP correlated w/SOTW.

 

However, I have a few more questions. I'm still undecided on my K/1 plans for geography/history. I think that we will use Galloping the Globe for K and VP's geography selections for 1st, however, I also want to include some State/American history in 1st as the VP rep suggested on the phone yesterday. So, I am now considering either Cantering the Country (focusing more on our state when we get there-Idaho), MFW Adventures, or WP The American Story 1. Has anyone here used GtG or CtC? What do you use for world exploration/geography in K? What do you use for State/American history in 1st? Any comments or suggestions?

 

That said... I was feeling more confident in my choice of VP selections until a new kink gummed up the works when Conai-Scoil responded with an eye opener for me. Here is a portion of the above comments posted today that has me rethinking my plans again...

 

When I read in the teacher's notes, "For God so loved the Church" (John 3:16), I knew that my days with Veritas and specifically, Omnibus were over.

 

Now, how can I ignore that? I had heard of others looking past this sort of stuff and just teaching your dc why you do or don't agree with it... using it as an opportunity to reinforce why you believe what you believe and I thought that I would do the same - knowing that not any one particular curriculum is perfect, but changing scripture... I just have huge doubts now. I know I still have plenty of time before I even come to the Omnibus, but I would like to have a well thought out plan ahead of time with room for tweaking when we actually get to each stage/grade, KWIM. That said, I think I am still going to use most of VP selections until we hit Omnibus, as I do believe there is wisdom in their curriculum selections (as someone once stated :001_smile:) then maybe switching to TOG or ?

 

Can anyone help me with this? Do you really use Omnibus and look past this sort of thing? Do you switch and start TOG's history for the 2nd rotation? Should I consider using TOG from the very beginning although I like most of the other curriculum selections VP offers? Would using SOTW as my spine and VP history cards as a supplement resolve my problem?

 

I truly look forward to further comments and feedback on this issue.

 

Sincerely,

 

Melissa

[tristangrace]

Great article. I especially liked this part:

 

"To be Reformed is to adhere to the purist teachings of the Bible - to affirm the doctrine taught by Jesus, Paul and the apostles. Scripture is considered the ultimate authority in matters of life and faith and all Reformed doctrine is founded on the Bible. I am convinced that Reformed doctrine is nothing more than Biblical Christianity. Were it not for human sin we would have to make no distinction between them." ;)

 

 

 

 

Good quote--but I think most of us who respect our churches could insert our own denomination's name in there for "Reformed" and say the same thing!

 

And then when I saw this:

 

Originally Posted by Conai-Scoil

When I read in the teacher's notes, "For God so loved the Church" (John 3:16), I knew that my days with Veritas and specifically, Omnibus were over.

 

 

. . . I thought that either Reformed theologians are exaggerating their adherence to the purity of Scripture, or Veritas Press is not doing a very good job of representing Reformation views.

 

Susan

[cajun.classical]

When I read in the teacher's notes, "For God so loved the Church" (John 3:16), I knew that my days with Veritas and specifically, Omnibus were over.

 

Now see, this is the problem with taking things out of context. And boy does that happen a lot to us Reformed folk. I mean that lightheartedly, ok.

 

I've read lots of Reformed theology and my dad studied theology under Greg Bahnsen--if you are Reformed you know that's a big deal. I've also read lots of Doug Wilson and over and over I see this same sort of thing happening to him. He presents an argument about something to try to get us to think in a new way, and then someone takes a portion of that fuller argument and quotes it, giving an entirely different spin. I'm not saying that it is intentional or mean-spirited. I didn't get that from the poster at all. She said that the theology didn't jive with what she believe and hey that's fine. I've got no problem with that.

 

But now we've got this highly suggestive and provocative quote with absolutely no context to explain, and people start getting worried. I would say, assume the best. I haven't read the particular passage in question, but I've read enough of this type of thing to have a pretty good idea what was meant. Most likely, the author of the quote was trying to make a point, to get us to think in a new way. I can assure you without any doubt that Doug Wilson, et al., do not think that God loves only the church. As a matter of fact, the Reformed church sends more missionaries worldwide than any other denomination. We care about missions! But, certainly, if God loves the whole world then that would include the church, would it not?

 

Again, I haven't read the entire context, and that's why I won't assume the worst possible spin on that quote. Those Omnibus essays are long, 16-20 pages. It's very easy to pull out quotes that sound scary, but aren't really if you have followed the whole argument.

[cajun.classical]

Jennifer,

 

I'm afraid you took my comments as some kind of personal attack. I tried to be quite clear that I didn't find you mean-spirited and I also said that I had no problem with you deciding that the theology presented in Omnibus didn't meet your needs. I've still got no problem with that.

 

And you also seem to misunderstand my complaint. You gave a quote without any context; a quote which leaves the (misguided and wrong) impression that Omnibus teaches that God loves the Church exclusively. This is simply incorrect. I have my Omnibus I right here in my lap. I've also been speaking online with other users of Omnibus I and frankly they say they don't know what you are talking about, that they have never seen Scripture altered in any Omnibus book.

 

Again, you are correct to reject books that don't line up with your theology. I don't disagree. I just think we need to be very careful about giving out single, isolated quotes that can mislead. I understand that you are concerned about what you call Replacement Theology. Reformed folk call this Covenant Theology, and it is simply incorrect to imply that Covenant Theology teaches that God loves the Church exclusively. It is simply not true. I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it is probably not appropriate for this thread.

 

Again, sorry that you took it personally. We can agree to disagree.

 

ETA: I am in contact with an Omnibus teacher from Veritas Academy. He is going to talk to the editor of Omnibus to find out if that quote actually exists and if it does, what the context is. We shall get to the bottom of this yet.

[cajun.classical]

Sure, I can get you a source for that. I'll email my pastor. I got it from him. As far as the PCUSA. They are the very liberal branch of Presbyterianism and are a distinct and completely different denomination; they have very little/nothing in common with the PCA. I'm not surprised to hear that they've given up on missions.

 

I've had this conversations with others and I'm always surprised to find that people equate Covenant Theology/Reformed teaching with a lack of missions or a lack of love for the lost. I've been Reformed for 25 years and all the Reformed folks I know take the Great Commission very seriously. I personally know missionaries doing amazing work in many different countries and they are all very Reformed in theology. This is a misconception that I really want to clear up. All Christians--Reformed or not--are called to "make disciples of the nations." I think that this is an area we can have a lot of unity on.

 

ETA: Yes, I know of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. And I even own a few A.W. Tozer books :D.

[Gailmegan]

I can't be of any help for you with Omnibus, since I only used VP for K and 1st. I mentioned some issues with the primers for first grade, so I will give specifics is that would be helpful. I can think of 2 off the top of my head.

 

The Brave Monk is the story of Martin Luther. I love Luther (especially his commentary on Galatians) and I am so thankful for how God used him in the Reformation. I think it's great to tell this story to children also. But the tone and choice of words in this primer - particularly calling the Catholic church "silly" wasn't respectful or appropriate. I realize with first grade primers vocabulary is limited, but I feel that if you can't do a topic justice, don't try to make it into a first grade primer. While I want to teach my children what the Bible says (which I believe the Reformed tradition accurately conveys) I want to do it in a way that respects those who disagree and wouldn't dismiss them as "silly".

 

Lexi's Hope is about a little girl learning to trust God through Bible stories. I had two issues with this book. 1. The mother teaches Lexi to count and do art, the grandmother teaches Lexi to bake, and the father teaches Lexi about the Bible. On the surface, not a big deal, but being aware of the patriarchal views of major contributors to VP, and being a woman who has an MDiv and writes part of the curriculum for our children's ministry at church, this just really got my goat. 2. The goal of what Lexi was being taught is to "be wise". Although Proverbs teaches that wisdom is to be valued above all things, and the book does say that God is the only one who can give Lexi wisdom, wisdom is empty without Christ (and the NT even quotes the Proverbs about wisdom in reference to Christ.) I was greatly disappointed in the focus on wisdom rather than the gospel.

 

Now you might read these examples and think I am being really, really, ridiculously picky. And I admit that I am. But I am picky about what I teach my kids - and it's always the gospel above all else!! And if I have to redirect back to the gospel with simple first grade primers, it makes me wonder where else I will have to do much more extensive damage control later on, especially since I am aware of political and theological views of major contributors that I personally do not want my children to learn.

 

I hope my explanation helped clarify some of the concerns I have, particularly the subtle manner in which bias crept in.

[Aloha2U]

I honestly don't believe that the one quotation I chose to highlight is misquoting Scripture. I just believe that the editors are being transparent about their strong "Church" emphasis in God's Sovereign plan and used John 3:16 to illustrate how they believe God feels about the Church, I guess?!

 

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation because I simply don't have my Omnibus anymore (I sold it two weeks ago). But I would definitely comb through the essays (and specifically teacher's notes). I sure wish I had it, because I put post-it notes on probably 50 pages where I highlighted "red flags." That would have been so much more helpful to you.

 

Also, as I tried to say, I really loved VP. It just got increasingly heavy-handed, in my opinion, the longer we stuck with it.

 

And honestly, that makes sense . . . the deeper you go, the more some of the differences become highlighted. I also realize that my tolerance for the "Limited Atonement" piece, and their attitude and treatment of Israel is probably a little lower than others'--and that's okay, too (We work with Messianic Jews).

 

And after 8 years of homeschooling, I'm just plain 'ol tired of the tweaking and decided to go with teachers' notes and approaches that I can relax with; that are written from a more Evangelical viewpoint.

 

Jennifer, I am truly grateful that you shared your experience.

 

BTW, an anonymous person recently left a message for me... basically thankful for this thread as they were wondering the same thing, but feel too shy to say anything about anything remotely religious on the boards. I believe that it takes courage at times when posting on this board because of that issue. So I want to reiterate that I am truly thankful to you for not holding reserve and attempting to answer my question to the best of your ability by sharing your experience. I hope that you will continue to post on this thread and on this board with the same confidence as I can already see that your opinion is one I will value.

 

For the record... when I started this thread I never intended it to become a debate between reformists vs. non-reformists, just as those who post seeking secular curriculum most likely do not intent for their threads to become debates between secular vs. religious based curriculums. It is unfortunate when someone cannot share their honest experience without someone else thinking they have to be defensive because they are in disagreement or offended that others do not share their views/beliefs. I will say I agree with Jennifer that "For God so loved the Church" would definitely be a spin on John 3:16 at the least and am resolved to agree that this would be crossing the Rubicon for us as well. I type this with no intention of offending anyone... just firm in what I believe. In the end everyone has to use what will work best for them. I do not condemn those who are or will use Omnibus, but I can see that it most likely will not be the right fit for us.

 

Many thanks and God Bless,

 

Melissa

[Jami]

 

For the record... when I started this thread I never intended it to become a debate between reformists vs. non-reformists, just as those who post seeking secular curriculum most likely do not intent for their threads to become debates between secular vs. religious based curriculums. It is unfortunate when someone cannot share their honest experience without someone else thinking they have to be defensive because they are in disagreement or offended that others do not share their views/beliefs. I will say I agree with Jennifer that "For God so loved the Church" would definitely be a spin on John 3:16 at the least and am resolved to agree that this would be crossing the Rubicon for us as well. I type this with no intention of offending anyone... just firm in what I believe. In the end everyone has to use what will work best for them. I do not condemn those who are or will use Omnibus, but I can see that it most likely will not be the right fit for us.

 

Many thanks and God Bless,

 

Melissa

 

 

With respect, I think you've misunderstood Angelina's intent here. She was only trying to urge that specific quotes, particularly those that seem confusing or shocking, be placed in a context. She is certainly not one to act defensively or jump into a debate, but seeks unity and charity between believers.

 

Since it now seems that Jennifer's quote was not a direct quote, but her impression based on reading sections of Omnibus through the lens with which she understands theology, it was good that the exchange happened for clarity's sake.

 

The issue was not to discourage or urge use of materials one might disagree with, but to seek clarity and to avoid mischaracterizations of intent.

 

But I'll say, for my own part, if I were not a believer in the Reformed tradition, I would probably not use Omnibus. :001_smile:

 

Jami

[cajun.classical]

It is unfortunate when someone cannot share their honest experience without someone else thinking they have to be defensive because they are in disagreement or offended that others do not share their views/beliefs.

 

Melissa,

 

I think you misunderstand me. As I have said (for the third time now), I have absolutely no problem with someone deciding that the theology in Omnibus is not for them. Nor, do I expect anyone to necessarily agree with Omnibus. My issue was that a quote was given without any context. A quote that I feared gave the wrong impression about Omnibus. And a quote that the poster later admitted was not a direct quote but was rather her impression about the theology. There is a big difference there.

 

Again, I have no problem at all with theological disagreements. Nor do I take offense when others do not hold my theological views. However, I am sensitive--as anyone would be--to feeling like my theology is being misrepresented. And I stand by what I said. If someone if going to disagree with Reformed theology, they should at least understand what it is they disagree with and be careful not to misrepresent it.

 

If I were to state some incorrect things about Dispensationalism (the opposite of Reformed theology), I would certainly expect to be corrected. Nor would I take offense if someone did correct. My desire here is for truth and unity among believers, not to be "right."

 

If indeed VP is not for you, I've got no problem with that. I wish the best for you in your homeschooling endeavors. I just wanted to make sure that others weren't misled about the theology in the program.

[Aloha2U]

But I'll say, for my own part, if I were not a believer in the Reformed tradition, I would probably not use Omnibus. :001_smile:

 

Jami, I appreciate your last comment as well as your and Angelina's clarification on the matter. :001_smile:

 

Although some of my other questions still remain unanswered, I have gained a better understanding of VP and reformed theology. I will continue to plan our homeschooling journey and ask the Hive many more questions in the future in hopes to glean further knowledge and wisdom.

 

Good night for now and God Bless,

 

Melissa

[Aloha2U]

Melissa,

 

A quote that I feared gave the wrong impression about Omnibus. And a quote that the poster later admitted was not a direct quote but was rather her impression about the theology. There is a big difference there.

 

 

1). I didn't "later admit it." Someone read what I typed and implied that I said Omnibus was misquoting Scripture. I see a difference because I'm not accusing Wilson or Fischer of twisting Scripture because that's a serious accusation that I don't want to direct toward people I consider brothers and sisters in Christ (despite our differences starkly reminded to me here today. May I remind I have used and recommended VP and other Reform products for 8 years. I'm certainly not trying to be unfair here.)

 

2). Second, "For God so loved the Church" is IN Omnibus I. It is not just my impression about their theology, or a "lens" through which I read it. I read it. I read it to various people, in context of the paragraphs. All of my friends found it quite interesting. I was trying to be as absolutely gracious about it as I could be in my earlier phrasing. That was a turning point for OUR family. I'm glad it won't be for yours!

 

I guess when you have other Reformed people acknowledging that VP/Omnibus does have a tone and "leanings" and statements/assertions that even they're not comfortable with--then that speaks volumes to me, with regard to the OP's question.

 

Jennifer, I was hoping you would respond to that and clarify for the record. :) I just want to let you know that I didn't doubt you for one second, still don't, and I agree with you. Many thanks again for your feedback and comments! :)

 

God Bless you and your family,

 

Melissa

[Kimber]

Thank you so much for this information! This is extremely telling. I was all set to use Omnibus I for my oldest child when she's ready, but I'm not so sure now. While my dh and I are reformed, most of our family isn't and I completely respect their opinions and do not in any way look down on my non-reformed family. In fact, I would never ever think of criticizing their faith. I don't know how big of an impact this would have on my own children, but I definitely have to look into this further.

 

My biggest problem is that the publishers of Omnibus I do not appear to be completely open about some of these issues. Maybe I've just missed something at the website. I find it almost impossible to navigate.

 

Thanks again,

 

Kimberly

 

Kimberly

[Kimber]

Thanks for asking this question, and thanks to everyone for your answers. I'm grateful for the discussion. I couldn't do this kind of research on my own, and it's wonderful to read both sides of the issue. I appreciate all of the information that this conversation has started.

 

Curriculum is too expensive to have to shell out the money just to read it before hand in order to understand the pov of the authors. So thanks to all of you! And I'm watching this thread closely.

 

Kimberly

[cajun.classical]

P.S.

I read tonight that the PCA is the largest misions-sending organization AMONG PRESBYTERIAN churches. I think with the Southern Baptist Convention's 16.2 million members (and their huge missions sending and giving to the lost people of this world), versus PCA's 345,382 members that it's possible to assume your Pastor misquoted? An easy misunderstanding to be sure, Angelina.

 

Actually, Jennifer, that's not what I was referring to at all. My pastor confirmed again that the Presbyterian Church in Korea sends more missionaries than all the denominations in the United States combined!

 

I'm bowing out of this conversation. You seem intent to misunderstand and misrepresent Reformed Theology with respect to their views of the Lost. I am greatly grieved by this, but clearly there is nothing I can do about it. As much as it depends on me, I'll be at peace with all men.

 

All the best to you.

[tristangrace]

Actually, Jennifer, that's not what I was referring to at all. My pastor confirmed again that the Presbyterian Church in Korea sends more missionaries than all the denominations in the United States combined!

 

I'm bowing out of this conversation. You seem intent to misunderstand and misrepresent Reformed Theology with respect to their views of the Lost. I am greatly grieved by this, but clearly there is nothing I can do about it. As much as it depends on me, I'll be at peace with all men.

 

All the best to you.

 

 

As an outsider to this particular discussion, I'd encourage you to stay IN the conversation. Bowing out without supplying the information in dispute while accusing someone of foul intentions inhibits the pursuit of truth and harms relationships.

 

Susan

[Kimber]

I agree! Having both sides to this discussion about Omnibus and VP is really, really helping the rest of us. We need to understand these differences more clearly.

 

Please stay in, :). We value the discussion.

[cajun.classical]

As an outsider to this particular discussion, I'd encourage you to stay IN the conversation. Bowing out without supplying the information in dispute while accusing someone of foul intentions inhibits the pursuit of truth and harms relationships.

 

Susan

 

I apologize to Jennifer if what I said came across as accusing her of "foul intentions." I honestly don't believe this is the case. What I do believe is that, all of us, unintentionally, bring to the table our own set of assumptions. These assumptions can cause us to misunderstand what someone else says. There's no big sinister plot, it's just human nature.

 

I've been Reformed for 25 years and have been an intense student of its theology for much of that time. When I hear the comments being made, I can honestly see how someone could come to that conclusion--especially if they already thought that the Reformed church had a low view of missions and the Lost. But this has never been true of the Reformed church historically nor is it now.

 

The truth is that I am more than happy to defend my position. I only feared that this particular forum--meaning bulletin boards rather than face to face or extended letters--would not be conducive to the kind of discussion that would be necessary. I've already been accused on this thread of taking offense because someone didn't agree with Reformed theology, which is not true. Those kinds of misunderstandings wouldn't happen face to face, and I was only trying to avoid fanning the flames.

 

If there are specific questions, I am happy to answer, but I'm honestly not sure how to rebut general accusations like claiming that Reformed people have an arrogant attitude toward the Lost. That's obviously the conclusion she walked away with. I've read the same book and didn't draw that conclusion at all.

 

One of the Omnibus books that she singled out as problematic was the essay on Genesis. It's available in its entirety on the Veritas website.

[Confuzzled]

I don't use VP and have never seen Omnibus but feel compelled to address some or the other turns this thread has taken.

 

I am a member of a PCA church and am therefore considered reformed.

 

The term "replacement theology" is a pejorative term that is not part of reformed theology and is based on bias and misunderstanding. I can't speak for the theology in VP.

 

It is my understanding (which could be faulty) that we are grafted onto the same tree as Israel. (Romans 11). I have NEVER heard that we have "replaced" Israel, not in sermons, Sunday school, Bible studies, or the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

I have not read R.C. Sproul so can't comment on his theology.

 

If you do an online search of the phrase, "replacement theology," the only entries are from sites refuting it. I couldn't find a single site from a denomination actually espousing this view.

 

Could someone please direct me to documentation that the PCA preaches or believes these views? Or any other denomination for that matter. And I don't mean material from Baptists who are critical of this theology, but an original source of doctrine from a denomination that verifies that they hold to the sol-called replacement theology.

 

Maybe it's there and I'm just not aware of it.

 

Kris

[Confuzzled]

I'm still researching and I do see that the PC-USA has taken some questionable actions concerning Israel. I want to add that the PC-USA, although considered a reformed denomination, is not representative of all reformed denominations and is in fact considered to have veered off course of traditional biblical theology by many conservative denominations, including the PCA.

 

I was a member of a denomination with Arminian theology for many years and had heard so much negative and biased information about reformed theology in general and Presbyterian churches in particular that I felt animosity toward them.

 

Yet my favorite Christian authors were C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. I especially love Francis Schaeffer. It took me quite awhile to figure out that they were both reformed and that Schaeffer was actually a PCA minister. The dissonance that fact created in me caused me to do further research, which ultimately led me to join a PCA church.

 

Kris

 

PS... I'm still somewhat of a fence-sitter when it comes to Arminius and Calvin. I think they BOTH had a bit of the truth.

[mommaduck]

I have to back up Kris and others on this thread. I was raised baptist and was a baptist most of my adulthood. Staunchly so. I'm now Reformed. The second big hurdle for me was the "Replacement Theology" bit. Took a very kind and patient PCA minister to take in all my accusations (ones that I admitted to spouting of just what I had been taught and heard about the Reformed) and answer them. The Reformed do NOT, I repeat, do NOT believe in Replacement Theology. They believe in Covenant Theology. This is also what prevents them from being Dispensationalists ;)

 

As far as the anti-mission issue: non-reformed people will sometimes mix up Hyper-Calvinists with the rest of the Reformed...can't do this. Hyper-Calvinists are a SMALL extreme branch off on their own.

 

Idon't know who has a "bigger" group of missionaries...I don't care. Why? Because it doesn't mean that one group has a larger "heart for the lost". One group might be larger in and of itself. Not everyone views missions as "send me to Africa". There are mission fields right here in the US. As a Covenantal person, I also see my life and being a witness to those around me as my mission field. We're not all called to "go to Africa"...doesn't make us less of a witness, less in heart, less evangelical, etc. As a Reformed person, I believe Gd changes hearts, not men. We are called to spread and live the gospel, not tally numbers of who said the sinners prayer. Also, we can be picky about who we send where. We don't just send every harry and sue that raises their hand (not saying all baptists do, but I have seen this) and we many times will seek some kind of maturity in both knowledge and faith.

 

 

Oh, and PSUSA is not respresentative of all Reformed people...in fact, they are not respresentative of all THEIR people either.

[Julie in PA]

I have tried to stay out of this for two reasons, but have decided to chime in for this one post. First, this is very personal to me. I am friends with a lot of the authors and on editor of Omnibus. Are they reformed? Some of them, but not all of them. Are they men and women who change Scripture and take it lightly to be accused of that? Absolutely not. I had made a promise to go through Omnibus and find the quote in context. I thought it would be easy because my husband is one if these authors and has taught through almost every level of Omnibus several times. I have not been able to find it and he does not know what I am talking about. That does not mean it is not there, it just means that I can not find it right now. Unfortunately, I do not have anymore time to put in this. We are about to go through something that could turn our family upside down and all of my focus needs to be there now. If you do not like Omnibus, VP, or reformed theology, so what. I have many reasons for not using curriculum that you all may use, but if I accused them of something as serious as this I would certainly be able to back it up.

 

I still stand by my claim that you do not have to be reformed to us VP. We have had several students, if not most, who are not reformed. Some of our biggest fans are actually a devout Catholic family who have made it through Omni I and II with no complaints. Many of the families at Veritas Academy are Arminian. Maybe it is true that a teacher can put more time into covering all aspects. As a homeschool mother of 5 I will admit that it would be quite time consuming to teach it the way my husband does.They do a lot of debating the different theologies and view points. It has been said by non-reformed families that when their children are done with Omni they can defend their view because they are so much more familiar with the others.

 

Someone mentioned Billy Graham earlier. I know a little something interesting about him. He happens to attend a reformed church in North Carolina. I sat at the same table as his pastor at a wedding last summer. This pastor preached the funeral for his wife and has been helping Billy Graham to plan his. We were surprised to hear this, but the pastor had a good thing to say. Yes, Pastor Graham would disagree with some things. His wife was reformed and it was his compromise to her that when they were home they would attend this church. Once they retired it was their home church and they stayed there. According to this pastor, in all of Billy Graham's experience he realized one thing. None of us are really 100% right. We are all going to sit at the same table one day and to become so worked up about it all is not productive.

[Kimber]

This is why to this point, I have stayed away from Christian curriculum. I didn't want to have to wade through everything to sift out what would be appropriate for our family.

 

But at the middle schoool and highschool level, I think the wading may actually be good for growth and understanding. After this conversation, I will probably continue to use the less heavy handed religious or secular materials for the early years. (I don't want to confuse my kids.) My choice for the future seems to be between TOG, Omnibus, and TWEM at this point, and I think all are great options.

[mommaduck]

You have to wade through the secular as well.

[Kimber]

This is true, but to a point. I don't typically use text books for the younger years. And the sentences for copywork are all my choices. The spelling words aren't in context of an idea. And I get to select the living books we read.

 

But life itself is constantly wading through the ideas, I just don't want to do this through the books we're using to teach with. So far Ive been pretty good at avoiding this problem. Of course not completely, but pretty good.