The Irony of My "Reformed" Experience

Like most novices to the Reformed tradition, I cut my teeth on issues surrounding God's sovereignty and man's free will.  From there I moved to covenant theology and infant baptism.  In both cases, the major driver pushing me towards Reformed convictions was my sense that the Reformed tradition was more intellectually honest when confronted with Scripture that was hard to deal with.  Instead of glossing over hard passages or using contorted logic to make them fit a feel-good system, the Reformed tradition sought to be highly integrative and honest when the Scriptures were downright difficult.  I vividly remember hearing folks of a more baptistic / dispensational persuasion reacting to certain Scriptural texts saying, "Well, it can't really mean that!"  Or even worse, "I could never believe that!"

Now I feel as if those tables have been turned.  Whether we're talking about paedocommunion, the efficacy of the sacraments, the Lordship of Christ in every arena of life, or even the nature of Christ's obedience on our behalf, it seems that the Reformed stalwarts are saying, "Well, it can't really mean that!"

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!" 

I could develop this particular point much more, but the irony is that popular Reformedom is only willing to be intellectually honest up to a certain point.  For all of the hoopla about sola scriptura and sola fide, the reality is something far different.  You can't even talk about baptism as a washing away of sin without a thousand caveats that explain it away!  They can derogatorily call me a "Biblicist" all they want, but I'm determined to be intellectually honest when confronted with what the Scripture says.

Comments

[RevK]

That semper reforming thing...

[weston]

I had the same experience, Garrett. And I suspect the same thing can be multiplied many, many times.

I became reformed because on the issues I was examining at the time, the reformed were so much more honest with the Bible than what I was used to.

I’ve now run into a bunch of issues where my reformed brethren are reminding me a lot of the bunch I left behind. And its not *because* they disagree with me. Its *how* they disagree with me.

I’m starting to think I was at the same place theologically with mainstream reformed people for a time, but for different reasons.

Some FV critics have hinted at, implied, or said that part of the problem with the FV is that most FVers come from outside the reformed tradition initially and as a result are more comfortable criticizing it.

That's a point on which both sides can heartily agree.

[Boneman]

Hey Weston,

You can call me Garrett, but I am actually the Boneman. We might seem to be the same person, but we're actually two separate people!

I grew up in the PCUSA, so technically I come from the Reformed tradition - broadly speaking. I don't see how that fact changes any of the issues on the table...

Boneman

[Andrew Matthews]

I grew up in the fundamentalist free church tradition (the Plymouth Brethren). I used to think dispensationalists took Scripture less seriously than Reformed folk. I have come to revise this formerly held opinion.

In fact, dispensationalists wrestle a lot more with the details of OT prophecy (I'm not referring to the Hal Lindsey & Tim Lahaye types). They cannot be charged with spiritualizing the text as certain "biblical theologians" do. Of course, except for the progressive dispnsationalists, they fail to recognize the clear continuity that exists between Israel and the Church.

Good blog!