1 Corinthians 10:1-6 and It's Implications for Paedocommunion

10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

It's clear that Paul wanted to teach here that going through the sea and eating the manna and drinking the water from the rock in the wilderness are the exodus' prefiguration of baptism and communion. 

Chrysostom noted, 

Just as the gifts are symbolic, so are the punishments symbolic. Baptism and holy Communion were prefigured in prophecy. In the same way the certainty of punishment for those who are unworthy of this gift was proclaimed beforehand for our sake, so that we might learn from these examples how we must watch our step (Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 23.4).

Likewise, Ambrosiaster commented, "The manna and the water which flowed from the rock are called spiritual because they were formed not according to the law of nature but by the power of God working independently of the natural elements. They were created for a time as figures of what we now eat and drink in remembrance of Christ the Lord (COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES).

Origen argued that "These things were written as examples for us, so that when we read about their sins we shall know to avoid them (COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 4.46).

There are two major questions to answer here. The first is who partook in baptism and communion in the exodus according to this text? And the second is, How can one avoid the punishments of those who partook of these things in the wilderness?

The answer to the first is undoubtedly, "Everyone." All the men, all the women, and all the children went through the sea. All the men, all the women, and all the children ate of the manna and drank the water in one way or another. They were all partakers in it. 

This leads to the the answer of the second question. Paul says that the rebellion of the Israelites, not the partaking of the sacraments, caused God to bring wrath upon them in the wilderness and kill them. The answer was not that God's wrath was upon them because they partook of what was holy. They were supposed to do that. All of them. The problem is that they partook of what was holy and then rebelled.

Now, who rebelled? The children? One of the groups mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10 is the group that grumbled and were destroyed by the Destroyer, i.e., Satan. 

One of the groups that grumbled and rejected Moses' authority was the group of which Korah was the federal head. In fact, he was the one who led the rebellion. The text says that he and all of his household went down alive into the pit, his wife, his children, his cattle, his tent, and his infants. Yes, his infants. Why did his infants go down? Because they partook in communion? Nope. They would have survived on into the Promised Land had Korah not rebelled. So it was Korah's rebellion that landed his infants in that pit under the wrath of God. 

This then tells us that the answer is not to withdraw our households from the sacraments and what is holy but rather to be fully aware as federal heads that if we partake in what is holy and continue in sin, we place our households in grave danger. 

To withdraw from holy things in case we might sin is evil. We are commanded to partake in them. Hence, whether we have our children partake or not, they are partaking of what is holy through us either way and the remedy is not to act like they aren't partaking in them but rather to make sure that we, as the federal heads of our households, are not partaking in what is holy while indulging in the rebellion of the world at the same time. 

Don't save your children, therefore, by acting like they have no place at Christ's Table, but rather by following God through the wilderness rather than the devil, for if you are a Christian that is the only way to save them now, i.e., going all in rather than half in.

The Davidic Promise: Three Options for Jewish Interpreters

 The promise that God gave to David, that he would always have a descendent of David upon the throne, is a sticking point for Jewish theology because the throne of David was physically destroyed when the Romans leveled Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and then squashed the hopes of regaining the territory when the Bar Kokhba Revolt was finally put down in A.D. 136. 

The promise first appears in 2 Samuel 7.

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’ ”

There are, as far as I can tell, only three ways to interpret this promise.

1. It's a false prophecy. The Bible is not really the Word of God and this is just a prophecy that was given to encourage an exiled people but it utterly failed in the end as the Jews were without a king as soon as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed what remained of the city in 587/86 BC. The monarchy was officially destroyed and never restored.

2. The promise is contingent upon Israel's obedience and since they are not obedient, the promise is never fulfilled. 2 Chronicles 6:16-17 seems to suggest this, and it is what some Jewish interpreters might point to in order to make sense of the problem.

16 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk in my law as you have walked before me.’ 17 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David. 

3. As containing both contingent and non-contingent elements to it. The contingent elements are not fulfilled and never can be since God already did not have a Davidic king on the throne since the time of the Babylonian Exile. The non-contingent element must be fulfilled.

The problem is that the original command seems to have both elements in it. It seems to be both contingent upon Israel's obedience and a promise that will be fulfilled by God so that the promise is not contingent upon Israel's obedience. In fact, in the midst of Israel's disobedience, God restates the promise in Jeremiah 33 as follows.

14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.” 19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.” 23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.” 

In other words, the covenant is not contingent upon Israel's obedience, since God has said that His promise to David here is unbreakable. What are we to make of this? Chronicles seems to suggest that it is contingent and Jeremiah seems to suggest that it is not, but has two different promises in it. But notice also that there seem to be two promises here rather than just one. The first seems to suggest that the throne will be filled with succession after succession of David's offspring. This promise extends to the Levitical priests always having offspring to minister as well. The second promise that is parallel, however, refers only to "one of his offspring" to rule. Now, this could simply mean that one of his offspring will be chosen successively, but again, we know that this did not happen. So we are left with two options here. Either the promise is contingent on Israel's obedience and they were not obedient, and haven't been for the past 2500 years, or the promise has an aspect that is both contingent upon the people's obedience and not contingent at the same time. In other words, Israel will always have a Davidic king on the throne from the time of David into eternity (as long as the Hebrew word is understood to mean that) as a reward for their obedience, but if they disobey, God will still bring about His promise to David, but through the singular Messiah who will reign forever.  

The Jewish interpretation must now see that the contingent aspect of the promise is over. God did not continually place a descendant of David upon the throne. In fact, in the Jewish system, God never put another descendant of David upon the throne after He gave this promise in Jeremiah. Foreign kings, governors, high priests, and the Herods ruled over the throne, but never a Davidic king again. 

According to the New Testament, however, He did choose one to rule over Israel and when rejected as their king, He expanded Israel to include anyone within the entirety of the world who would receive Him as their king. Christ reigns over Israel, the throne of David, and has for the past 2000 years. He is the offshoot of Jesse, the branch of David. God has fulfilled His promise by establishing Him over the throne of David and has fulfilled His promise to expand David's throne to the ends of the earth (Zech 2:11-12; 9:10).

Why the Children of Every Communicant Christian in Every Christian Denomination Is Baptized and Partaking in Communion

 I have often said that I have no need to convince anyone to allow their children to partake in either baptism or communion since I believe in federal headship. My only purpose of teaching that they should is to be consistent with what is already happening and to stop the unnecessary vitriol and division that often occurs around these issues. But make no mistake, every child of every Christian for all time has, is, and will always partake in whatever their parents partake in, and that includes baptism and communion. Every child is baptized with his parent. Every child eats the bread and drinks the wine if his parent does. Every child is holy to the Lord if his parent is. Every child is a Christian if his parent is. Every. Single. One.

All of the Baptists, all of the Presbyterians, everyone is causing their children to partake in baptism and communion to the degree that they do. If federal headship is true then anyone who condemns these practices condemns themselves, for all are doing it whether they realize it or not. By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. 

So you cannot avoid any harm to your little ones by barring them from the table or keeping them from baptism unless you yourself do not partake in those, but then you would fall under the warning of Christ, "Unless you eat of the Son of Man's flesh and drink his blood, you will have no life in yourselves" (John 6:53). If you do partake, therefore, which you must do so as a Christian, then your entire household is in danger if not taken in a worthy manner. It cannot be avoided except to take it in a worthy manner, i.e., not hoarding it. that seeks to love other Christians by allowing them to partake in it as well. And if all already are partakers in these sacraments then we ought to all be consistent in communicating that truth by allowing them to visibly partake in it with us whenever they can.

A Challenge to the Common Reformed Interpretation of the Phrase "He Is to Examine Himself" in 1 Corinthians 11:28

 The interpretation of this phrase is not up for grabs. It is a matter of proper hermeneutics and exegesis. It is my contention that, historically speaking, the traditional Reformed view commits the fallacies of context replacement in the form of an illegitimate referential transference. In other words, to what the phrase, "he is to examine himself" refers is changed by going outside of the context, ignoring what Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine themselves about, and then reading into the phrase a host of references from either experience (i.e., what the phrase sounds like to the modern reader likely due to tradition or an ignorance of the context--thus, reading it as though it was an unmarked phrase without a contextual referent) or by illegitimately transferring concepts from other biblical passages into the text so that the contextual referents can be ignored and new referents can be assigned to the phrase. This, of course, changes the meaning of the phrase and the logical application of the passage.

So here is my challenge. Conduct the following experiment with yourself.

Experiment: 

You can only define what it means "to examine oneself" by using other verses in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. You cannot add anything. You must use the verses alone in the text. You must also do the same for any verse you use to support your conclusion as to what this text refers. In other words, you can only substantiate your interpretation if you do not add referents through eisegesis to any other verse in the context as well. So only the verses in the context can be used to reconstruct the logical argument Paul is making in the passage. 

If you have to go outside the text, either to your own understanding of the words due to what it merely sounds like to you or to use other biblical passages that Paul does not reach out for in this passage, then you are committing eisegesis not exegesis because eisegesis is to put something into the context that is not there already but exegesis is to draw out from the book or passage what is there. It must be concluded that if the traditional Reformed argument cannot be made unless the phrase is defined by characteristics foreign to the text itself, whether experiential or biblical, then it must be concluded that its argument rests on eisegesis. The interpretation I have given you in the previous post is completely exegetical, as I have not had to go outside of the passage to make my argument but have stayed with Paul’s argument from v. 17 to the end in v. 34.

Paedocommunion and the Contextual Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

 One of the most abused texts in the Reformed tradition is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. It is the locus classicus concerning the defense of the Reformed tradition's rejection of paedocommunion. Supposedly, this text teaches that each person needs to examine his own heart and life as to whether he is repentant and believing in the gospel for the forgiveness of his sins so as to be worthy enough to partake in the communion. 

Unfortunately for those who argue this way, this is nowhere close to what this text is talking about. Let's analyze the text below.

*17 Τοῦτο δὲ ⸂παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ⸃* ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλʼ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.* 18 πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω. 19 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ⸋ἐν ὑμῖν⸌ εἶναι,* ἵνα °[καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ⸋1ἐν ὑμῖν⸌.* 20 Συνερχομένων ⸀οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν· 21 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ ὃς δὲ μεθύει. 22 μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε,* καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ⸀ἐπαινέσω °ὑμᾶς;* ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. 

23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ⸂ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου⸃,* ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν,* ὅτι ὁ κύριος °Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ⸆ ἄρτον 24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν·⸆ τοῦτό ⸉μού ἐστιν⸊ τὸ σῶμα °τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ⸇· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.* 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ⸂ἐμῷ αἵματι⸃·* τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ⸆ πίνητε,* τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ. 

27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ⸆ ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως⸇,* ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.* 28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω· 29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ⸆ κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα⸇. 30 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί. 31 εἰ ⸀δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν,* οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα· 32 κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ °[τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα,* ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. 33 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε.* 34 εἴ ⸆ τις πεινᾷ,* ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὡς ἂν ἔλθω διατάξομαι.* 

17 "But in instructing the following I do not praise you because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first and foremost, when you come together in the assembly I hear there exist cliques among you and I partly believe it. 19 Since indeed it is necessary for there to be divisions among you in order that those who are tried and true might be made known among you. 20 Therefore, when you come together for the self, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for each one prematurely grabs his own supper at the meal, one is hungry and one gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you think poorly about the church of God and shame those who are without. What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you. 

23 For I received from the Lord what I also have passed on to you that on the night in which the Lord Jesus was handed over, 24 he took bread and giving thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this as a reminder of me." 25 Likewise, also the cup after the meal, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, as a reminder of me." 26 For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you herald the death of the Lord until he comes. 

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that does not suit it will be considered guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a person evaluate himself and in this manner eat of the bread and drink of the wine. 29 For the one who eats and drinks judgment upon himself when he eats and drinks without evaluating the body. 30 Because of this, many among you are sick and ill and quite a few have fallen asleep. 31 But if we evaluate ourselves, we will not be condemned; 32 but when judged by the Lord we are disciplined in order that we might not be damned with the world. 33 So, my brothers, when you come together to eat wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he is to eat at home in order that you might not be judged when you come together. What is remaining I will put in order when I come."

Let's summarize the argument.

1. There are cliques where one group is taking all of the elements because they are hungry and so eating and drinking all of it as though it is their own personal dinner. Hence, some are hungry and some are drunk, i.e., some people are getting all of the communion and some people are getting none.

2. Because of this inconsideration of other believers, those who get to the elements last are not getting to partake in the Lord's supper.

3. The Lord's supper was implemented by the Lord for the purpose of communicating the gospel of the new covenant of which all Christians are included.

4. When it is taken in a way that excludes other Christians from partaking in it, it is being taken in a way that is not fitting to the message, proclaiming that the gospel does not cover, and is not for, the group that is excluded.

5. Therefore, every person is to examine himself, which is parallel to examining the body, i.e., his body, so that he does not do what is condemned above. In other words, if he is eating in a gluttonous or drunken manner then that means he is taking too much of the bread and wine and not leaving enough for those who "have not" (v. 22).

6. Therefore, if anyone is hungry, he is to eat at home rather than coming to the supper and be tempted to take too much. 

As we can see from the argument in this text, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is evaluating his heart and lifestyle and understanding the mysteries of the gospel. What it is talking about is that no one who partakes in the communion should hoard it in a way so as to exclude other Christians from participating in it because this is contrary to the message of the gospel expressed in the communion meal. Paul just laid out this analogy of the supper with eating things sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18. Those who partake in the meal communicate that they have a part with Christ and the entire body is communicated as one with Christ and with one another through it.

16 Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς ⸀εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν,* οὐχὶ κοινωνία ⸉ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ⸊;* τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; 17 ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος,* ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου ⸆ μετέχομεν. 

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because we, the many, are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 

Notice the parallel between the one bread and the one body. The entirety of the Christian church is one body and here it is said to be one bread because it all partakes of the one bread. So the fact that all Christians are united into one body is communicated from the fact that they all partake in the one bread. They participate in Christ and his death through their participation in the communion which represents the gospel. It is a picture of the truth of the entire church's participation in Christ and his death for the forgiveness of their sins in the same way that the sacrifices in the Old Testament are pictures of the participation of the Old Testament believer in the one community of Israel. To be excluded from the participation of the sacrifices would be a picture of exclusion from the salvation of Israel. Likewise, to be excluded from participation in the communion, i.e., the sacrifice of Christ, would be to communicate that one is excluded from the salvation of Christ. 

To, therefore, give a picture in one's taking of communion that one who is saved by Christ is excluded from him and his salvific work is a rejection of the gospel. The one who rejects the gospel becomes guilty of the death of Christ, and therefore, is judged for it in the temporal sense of being made sick or killed as a discipline for distorting the message of the gospel and thus preaching a false religion to the community of the church, which in the law, carries with it the penalty of death.

This is the context of the passage. Hence, the statement that is continually ripped out of context, "Each person is to examine himself" refers to whether he is hoarding the communion so that others do not get to partake. It is parallel to his "examining the body" in v, 29. 

27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ⸆ ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως⸇,* ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.* 28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω· 29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ⸆ κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person is to examine himself and in that manner he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment upon himself when not examining the body."

So examining oneself is to make sure a person is eating and drinking a particular way, and that particular way is by examining one's body so that he does not eat and drink it in a way that excludes other Christians from the picture of Christ's death covering the entire Christian community by eating and drinking too much of the communion elements. 

You can see, therefore, that the practice that would exclude Christians (i.e., the little children who Christ told his disciples to allow to come to him) from the communion is the only practice guilty of this, an irony since those who do not exclude certain members of the church from communion are the ones often accused of violating these divine instructions.

The real issue is whether children are considered Christians. Any church that agrees that they are but bars them from the table runs the risk of being guilty of what Paul is arguing here absent of a robust federal headship argument where the children partake in the communion through the parents. But that is for another post.

Gavin on Eschatology

Not total but a lot of agreement here concerning how to address these issues.

How to Die Believing a Lie in 5 Steps

 Step 1: Assume that you already know the truth and ignore anyone who says anything that conflicts with it. Never question your own ability to know the truth through personal experience and traditions.

Step 2: Avoid conversations and/or people who challenge your ideas.

Step 3: If engaging with other ideas, never do so with the best presentations and presenters of those ideas. Make sure your interaction with other ideas is as an ungracious caricature that comforts any fears that you might be avoiding an idea that could refute your own.

Step 4: Slander anyone who supports an idea that might refute yours by making them seem ridiculous or evil. This way, you will convince yourself that this idea isn't even worth considering since it is proposed by such an awful person.

Step 5: Start accumulating a series of other false ideas to support the one you have. This way it will be too much to untangle for anyone left in your life who might be a beacon of light to you.

Dragons Abounding: Great Errors Confronting the Church

https://youtu.be/NfE_sBV17gs