Sunday, July 29, 2007

All I heard was Blah, Blah, Blah

This is just too much to pass up. The Boneman has a blog up about the irony of his reformed experience. Apparently he thought the reformed tradition was intellectually honest. He seems to have since changed his mind. The real irony is his example of a lack of intellectual honesty. Here it is.

Take the issue of paedocommunion. Reformed traditionalists keep banging the "examine yourself" passage from 1 Cor 11:28 to mean that we must introspectively / subjectively determine if we really "know" we are saved before coming to the table. When confronted over the largely "extrospective" pastoral context of 1 Corinthians as it relates to "discerning the Lord's body" (the unity of the local church), the Reformed traditionalist's eyes glaze over and proceeds to say, "Well, it can't really mean that because... blah, blah, blah!"


In other words, Boneman thinks it is intellectually dishonest to make an argument against paedocommunion. Not that he pays attention to the arguments they use. He admits they have one, he just does not think it worthy hearing. Notice the last sentence where he quotes the ‘traditionalists’. They reject something and when they start to explain all Boneman can come up with is ‘blah, blah, blah.’ I don’t know about you all, but when I see someone summarize a position as ‘blah, blah, blah’, I know where the intellectual dishonesty lies.

Oh yeah, and if you wonder where I ran across this jewel of reasoning, I found it linked and strongly agreed with by Mark Horne.

4 Comments:

eileen~ said...

Lee,
I wonder if you might explain the comment "extrospective pastoral context of 1 Corinthians as it relates to 'discerning the Lord's body' (the unity of the local church). I'm not sure I understand what he means.

Is he saying that particular Scripture means the local body of believers and not the Lord's body which was broken for us? And he wants it to say that so that he can legitimize paedocommunion?

Enlighten my understanding if you would please.

Brett said...

Eileen, Lee, and everyone else,

What I meant by the extrospective pastoral context of 1 Corinthians is that over and over again in 1 Corinthians, the "body of Christ" is applied to the local church in Corinth. There were factions in Corinth over various and sundry things, but Paul was pleading with the Corinthians to be at peace with another because the partook of "one loaf." So when we come to 1 Corinthians 11 and the bits about discerning the body of Christ, this is about unity in the church, not something else.

As far as my blog goes, I was not mounting a monolithic argument for paedocom. I was simply using an example of how very simple hermeneutics are explained away by those who simply want to cling to their tradition.

I would be happy to engage in something more lengthy, but that was not the goal of that particular post. Please.

Best,

Boneman

Lee said...

Eileen,
I hope you are doing well. I see now there is no need for me to enlighten your understanding as Boneman has explained his comment, which is always better than having me try to explain it. Keep the questions coming. Rev. Gallant has an article that explains the paedocommunion position on I Corithians 11 if you are curious.

Boneman,
Thanks for commenting. For the record my blog was not supposed to be an attack on paedocommuion (though I do disagree with it). It was merely to point out the irony of an article about the lack of intellectual integrity of the Reformed churches using 'blah, blah, blah,' to not only describe, but prove your point about churches being against paedocommunion simply because of tradition.

Your case is not strong enough to brush off the legitimate exegetical arguments about I Corinthians 11 with a 'blah, blah, blah.'

My two cents.

Thanks again,
Lee

Andrew McIntyre said...

Well, as you know, I am a paedocommunionist. Yet, I struggled with the issue for years with great angst. So, although I reject the Reformed majority report, I respect it. It is a learned position...even if wrong:-) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Andrew