Exegesis vrs Eisegesis on Acts 2:39

[DeoOpt]

most reformed baptist have sited that we (Presbyterians) use a partial citation of Acts 2:39 and the reason being is that we alow "Tradition" to get in the way of reciteing the whole text. So in a sence the Presbyterians are resorting to eisegesis rather than exegesis. So I guess Im confused on this point, because the last time I remembered I used the whole text.. So Im not so sure what there talking about..

 

[Christusregnat]

most reformed baptist have sited that we (Presbyterians) use a partial citation of Acts 2:39 and the reason being is that we alow "Tradition" to get in the way of reciteing the whole text. So in a sence the Presbyterians are resorting to eisegesis rather than exegesis. So I guess Im confused on this point, because the last time I remembered I used the whole text.. So Im not so sure what there talking about..

Robert,

There is legitimate eisegesis, and illegitimate. Our Confession demands legitimate eisegesis when it says:

WCF I, IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

If we compare this passage with other passages of Scripture, we find that:
1. Other passages clearly explain what Peter's meaning is, and
2. Such passages confirm that our children are included in God's household and covenant family, the church.

The household baptisms are likewise to be read in the light of these and other passages which clearly and unmistakeable declare the same thing.

An example of illegitimate eisegesis of this passage would be if someone were to say that it asserts the exact opposite: that God's household, the church, excludes children of believers, when no such thing is stated anywhere in Scripture.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[CalvinandHodges]

most reformed baptist have sited that we (Presbyterians) use a partial citation of Acts 2:39 and the reason being is that we alow "Tradition" to get in the way of reciteing the whole text. So in a sence the Presbyterians are resorting to eisegesis rather than exegesis. So I guess Im confused on this point, because the last time I remembered I used the whole text.. So Im not so sure what there talking about..

Hey:

I get a little confused about their argumentation as well. If you consider how they interpret the passage, then Peter should never have said, "your children."

If the CB view on this text is correct, then it would have been more natural for Peter to say something like, "to all who believe" rather than the apparently convoluted sense they try to make out of his actual words.

Blessings brother!

-CH

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Most"? or do you mean "many"?

The latest I saw this was on AOmin, where JW was responding to one of more vitriolic elements of the blogosphere, people who routinely (and pointlessly) needle guys like him for not measuring up to their standards. So, one needs to take his (or whomever's) "target" into consideration.

I thought JW's post didn't measure up to his usually higher standards of engagement. But in his defense, he was coming down to the other guy's level. As part of his reply, he apparently posted a clip from his debate with Bill Shishko, where he argues this particular point, re. Acts 2:39.

Watch the entire debate, and draw your own conclusions about the participants' positions. But I would point out that, absent inclusion in the "clip" of any "response" by WS, would itself be subject to the EXACT SAME argument he uses against a pb usage of Acts 2:39, namely selective restriction of context in order to make one's own position look better.

Not that I would necessarily draw that conclusion, but the method he's critiquing has done just what he's done in a different medium. If he argued that WS's response to him lacked "relevance", hasn't he "prejudiced" the watcher/listener? Isn't he obliged to put that material in there, and let the observer decide the strengths? If not, for whatever reason (time/space limits, editing the clips time/cost prohibitive, etc.), he would be giving himself a "pass" for what he berates someone else for. Not good form, brother.

It isn't really effective, in my opinion, because his point can't possibly be that quoting a portion of a verse is of itself "selective traditionalizing of the text." He just happens to think that the rest of that verse is "germane" to a better interpretation of the text--HIS interpretation. That is subjective, however. I could quote a passage in full for 5 verses complete, and someone (even JW) could say, ""Oh, but you left off verse 6, which militates against your position!"

The REAL (that is, our side's typical rejoinder) reason for sometimes not quoting the "rest" of the verse, is because it might not be as relevant to the point the speaker is making. If the point is to emphasize the linguistic parallel to Abraham's covenant (the promise is to you, and to your descendants after you), then the "gentile codicil" attached to the end of the verse simply isn't especially relevant to THAT point.

JW appears to fault Someone, quoting Francis Nigel Lee, quoting Acts 2:39, for a partial citation that includes an ellipsis (...) at the end. Now, what is MORE misleading? 1) a partial quote, with an ellipsis, that invites the reader to go see what was left out, to see if it might be relevant in his mind? Or 2) to quote the portion, put a period (.) and possibly let a careless reader, one who doesn't go check the verse, perhaps think that this is more definitive than it deserves to be?

Actually, neither of the choices is indicative of a "better" citation. Fact-checking is the burden of the listener, caveat emptor, and all that. The verse divisions are "reference markers" and a textual imposition or innovation--a point JW frequently makes himself, and rightly so. Our choices, then, for "how much" to quote is purely subjective, and often audience or space-limitation determined.

As I said, I think JW does much good work. But this objection only holds water if no pb ever answers the objection, either before or after it is raised.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey:

I did not notice that Dr. White commented on this matter until Rev. Buchanan pointed it out. I agree that it would have been good for Dr. White to include Rev. Shishko's response to this point, and, using Dr. White's own argument, it shows his precommitment to a "Tradition" on Dr. White's part.

One also has to ask why would Dr. White mention the Anabaptist persecutions under the "Protestants" during the Reformation? Especially when a number of these Anabaptists denied the Deity of Christ, and were confirmed Unitarians? Dr. White seems to think that they were only persecuted for their Baptistic beliefs - or - at least that is what he makes them out to seem. This also indicates a precommitment to a "Tradition" on Dr. White's part.

But is that where we really want to steer the argument - whether one side or the other is committed to a "Tradition" of sorts?

Finally, Dr. White says that in Acts 2:39 is where Baptism is first mentioned. Which is not entirely accurate. John the Baptist baptized many people. The disciples of Jesus baptized many people as well. And, Baptism is specifically mentioned in Mt 28:19 where we are commanded to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them. Not to mention the Baptisms done in the OT.

Do CB deny that we are to make disciples of our children? If we are to do so, then how can they deny baptism to such children?

Blessings,

-CH

 

[DeoOpt]

Hey:

I did not notice that Dr. White commented on this matter until Rev. Buchanan pointed it out. I agree that it would have been good for Dr. White to include Rev. Shishko's response to this point, and, using Dr. White's own argument, it shows his precommitment to a "Tradition" on Dr. White's part.

One also has to ask why would Dr. White mention the Anabaptist persecutions under the "Protestants" during the Reformation? Especially when a number of these Anabaptists denied the Deity of Christ, and were confirmed Unitarians? Dr. White seems to think that they were only persecuted for their Baptistic beliefs - or - at least that is what he makes them out to seem. This also indicates a precommitment to a "Tradition" on Dr. White's part.

But is that where we really want to steer the argument - whether one side or the other is committed to a "Tradition" of sorts?

Finally, Dr. White says that in Acts 2:39 is where Baptism is first mentioned. Which is not entirely accurate. John the Baptist baptized many people. The disciples of Jesus baptized many people as well. And, Baptism is specifically mentioned in Mt 28:19 where we are commanded to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them. Not to mention the Baptisms done in the OT.

Do CB deny that we are to make disciples of our children? If we are to do so, then how can they deny baptism to such children?

Blessings,

-CH

I agree. In the most part Dr white missed the point for the sake of argumental reasoning (thats if you understand the ruels of engagement for debate) it would seem he is not true to himself when it comes to this point on pado baptisim.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

It pains me to do this, but I believe that the record must be set straight.

In the James White video mentioned above he "accuses" John Calvin of holding to a "tradition" because Calvin will only quote part of the verse in his Commentary. However, if one investigates the full passage in Calvin's commentary, then it will be clear that Calvin is addressing a specific argument made by Dr. White's "spiritual ancestors." I will let Calvin speak for himself (the italics part is what Dr. White quotes):

This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy a starting hole in the allegorical sense, and they expound it thus, that by children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spake thus because God did adopt one nation particuliarly. And circumcision did declare that the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of your seed, Commentaries, vol. 18, pgs. 122-123.

So, the question presents itself: Is Calvin holding to a "tradition" in his commentary, or, is he addressing a specific error that the Anabaptists were making at his time?

Blessings,

-CH