Hermeneutics and eisegesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Rom. 3:1-3 is instructive:

"What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!"

The promises of God are voided through unbelief. This has not changed from OT to NT. Believers were always children of Abraham by faith, though this did not exclude the physical sign. Is this faith of a different quality than the Heb. 8 "better covenant"?
 
Last edited:
Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts.

What God declares is that the promise is "unto you, and to your children..." (Acts 2:39).

Their parent's salvation does not save them!

Has it been suggested that it does? Even so, it cannot be denied that a great part of those in the household of faith come from parents of the same.

It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.

Are you to bring your child to church? Are you to pray with him? Can your child, really, call God "Father"? Is not that "presumption"?

[P]resuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.

A child telling lies is not necessarily "going astray", although it is an indication of a sinful nature. If, for example, my son's temper tantrums mean that he's probably not regenerate, then so should his father's innumerable sins consign him as well to unregenerate status. (The difference to a credobaptist, I suppose, is that credible profession. I have made one, but my son, at thirty months, has not.)
 
Last edited:
Serious question: If we are to presume that a child of believing parents is unregenerate, and that child dies in infancy, do we likewise presume that that child is in hell? (David did not: 2 Sam. 12:23.)
 
Serious question: If we are to presume that a child of believing parents is unregenerate, and that child dies in infancy, do we likewise presume that that child is in hell? (David did not: 2 Sam. 12:23.)
Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.
 
Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.

"Presumption" has been brought up a few times already, and I am seeking clarification. However, you're quite right that my questions have strayed somewhat from the OP.
 
Moderating. Head back to the topic of the OP and start a new thread. I'm not going to move posts so reference any relevant posts made here in any new thread.
Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.

"Presumption" has been brought up a few times already, and I am seeking clarification. However, you're quite right that my questions have strayed somewhat from the OP.
 
I think Rom. 3:1-3 is instructive:

"What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!"

The promises of God are voided through unbelief. This has not changed from OT to NT. Believers were always children of Abraham by faith, though this did not exclude the physical sign. Is this faith of a different quality than the Heb. 8 "better covenant"?
I think I can interact with this reply without diverging from the OP. As for the off-topic interactions with my posts from other respondents, I'll have to let those alone for now. But these very questions have been discussed in detail in recent threads, and I'll be most happy to discuss them again in a more appropriate spot.
Now to the point: you're right that believers were always Abraham's children by faith, but they had something more than just the circumcision of the flesh--they were circumcised where it really mattered: in their hearts. I believe that 1st century Christian Jews would have seen that very fact, looking back over their long history of hardness of heart even while being circumcised in their flesh, and realized that this New Covenant was not for a people born of physical lineage, but for a people born anew of spiritual lineage. Their cultural reality would have made them understand it better: "So that's what circumcision was pointing to! This new and better sign that is applied to those who by faith have entered Abraham's spiritual family!"
No doubt all Presbyterians will disagree with this assessment, but that is my view, for what it's worth...
 
"So that's what circumcision was pointing to! This new and better sign that is applied to those who by faith have entered Abraham's spiritual family!"

Ben,
But many of your confessors sign is placed erroneously, given your criteria. I am not surprised by your response; What I am surprised by however is how all credo's refuse to acknowledge their presumption when it comes to placing water on anyone! I was a credo for a good portion of my walk and I know that there has been a large number of confessors whom were baptized and yet, now no longer walk with the Lord. Admit it. Your protocol is no better than ours. It has proven to be deficient. At least we are following a OT principle that God approved and we have one benefit over yours in that we DO see our children as (h)oly, officially set-apart for the services of God, approved of God (in this regard).
 
Ben,
But many of your confessors sign is placed erroneously, given your criteria. I am not surprised by your response; What I am surprised by however is how all credo's refuse to acknowledge their presumption when it comes to placing water on anyone! I was a credo for a good portion of my walk and I know that there has been a large number of confessors whom were baptized and yet, now no longer walk with the Lord. Admit it. Your protocol is no better than ours. It has proven to be deficient. At least we are following a OT principle that God approved and we have one benefit over yours in that we DO see our children as (h)oly, officially set-apart for the services of God, approved of God (in this regard).
I freely admit that many false confessors are baptized. After all, it's human elders who make the judgment of whether to baptize or not, and humans are fallible. But to throw out the entire witness of Scripture about baptism simply because of some irregularities would be like not bothering to close the door because some thieves jump over the wall. Would you no longer fence the Table because you knew that someone unworthy was sneaking the cup? Ridiculous. So likewise the visible church strives to administer all things correctly, knowing that some irregularities are inevitable; knowing even that wolves will arise in sheep's clothing (should we not bother vetting ministers because some wolves are bound to get it anyway?).
All of this does not get sorted out in this life: it will be revealed at the great assize, when Christ will separate the sheep from the goats.
To your last sentence, what good are any benefits if they are only imagined in your head? My children are also (h)oly, in whatever sense Paul was speaking of to the Corinthians, but we know that does not mean: Automatically Saved. Whatever sentimental notions surround paedobaptism, whatever pathos other respondents see in credobaptism, however shocking it may be to some that credos regard their children as sinners deserving of judgment and needy of mercy, none of this changes the facts. If you argue for paedobaptism because you find it more warm, more touching, more comforting, it means you are out of arguments from Scripture. There are many who find Universalism more appealing to their understanding--too bad: it's false. Don't let your emotions and your longings get in the way of God's truth.
 
What good are any benefits if they are only imagined in your head?

They are not merely imagined, whatever you may think.

However shocking it may be to some that credos regard their children as sinners deserving of judgment and needy of mercy...

Paedobaptists would not deny that their children are sinners, of course.

If you argue for paedobaptism because you find it more warm, more touching, more comforting, it means you are out of arguments from Scripture.

That's not the argument at all.

There are many who find Universalism more appealing to their understanding--too bad: it's false. Don't let your emotions and your longings get in the way of God's truth.

Ridiculous.
 
Ben,

I've appreciate your concern for our convictions. I feel like I understand where you're coming from as I have dear Christian family members who share your conviction on this matter.

I don't think this thread is likely to change your mind on the matter, nor is it likely to change ours.

Before leaving the conversation, however, I just want to tell you three of the practical things that my view of baptism have in my life.

1. Seeing the continuity between God's relationship to His covenant people through the course of the entire Bible, I'm confident that He will not let my children go (even if they leave the faith), but will keep calling them to repentance be as He did the Jews. My covenant children have a real advantage being in the covenant as the Jews did.

2. Though I wouldn't invite someone to pray in my home that I regarded as an unbeliever, I frequently ask my children to pray-- even the three-year-old-- since I regard them as believers in the covenant (the visible church). I don't regard her as a lost soul born in sin. Likely, many of our covenant children will never know a time when they weren't saved, and I'm thankful they will also never know a time that I treated them as unbelievers (unless in time they demonstrate unbelief).

3. I either assume that they are saved or that they are unsaved. Either way, I make an assumption. I would rather make a charitable assumption than a non-charitable assumption, since they are considered holy by God.

Again, I'm not saying this to convince you, but I thought leaving on this note might sum up our perspective practically on the continuity we understand through the millennia on God's dealing with His people.

Blessings,

Tim
 
Ben,

I've appreciate your concern for our convictions. I feel like I understand where you're coming from as I have dear Christian family members who share your conviction on this matter.

I don't think this thread is likely to change your mind on the matter, nor is it likely to change ours.

Before leaving the conversation, however, I just want to tell you three of the practical things that my view of baptism have in my life.

1. Seeing the continuity between God's relationship to His covenant people through the course of the entire Bible, I'm confident that He will not let my children go (even if they leave the faith), but will keep calling them to repentance be as He did the Jews. My covenant children have a real advantage being in the covenant as the Jews did.

2. Though I wouldn't invite someone to pray in my home that I regarded as an unbeliever, I frequently ask my children to pray-- even the three-year-old-- since I regard them as believers in the covenant (the visible church). I don't regard her as a lost soul born in sin. Likely, many of our covenant children will never know a time when they weren't saved, and I'm thankful they will also never know a time that I treated them as unbelievers (unless in time they demonstrate unbelief).

3. I either assume that they are saved or that they are unsaved. Either way, I make an assumption. I would rather make a charitable assumption than a non-charitable assumption, since they are considered holy by God.

Again, I'm not saying this to convince you, but I thought leaving on this note might sum up our perspective practically on the continuity we understand through the millennia on God's dealing with His people.

Blessings,

Tim
Thanks, Tim,
Naturally, I disagree. We could keep slugging at each other about this, but it would probably be to the profit of no one. I do have a far better grasp of what my paedo friends believe and why they do so than I had some months ago, and even much sympathy for the position, even if I can't with good conscience get behind it.
I will say this one final thing: simply because baptists regard their children as sinners needing salvation doesn't mean we don't take them to church, or teach them about God, or duty, or make them memorize scripture and be catechized. We do all those things: we seek with God's help to train them up in the way they should go, and more than all else, we pray for them. Because at the end of the day, their salvation is in God's hands. If they are elect, they will surely be saved--ours are the means, God's is the effectual calling. I suspect that among confessional baptists the means I mentioned are used with as much diligence as among most Prebyterians. If it is an error to delay baptism, surely man's error cannot frustrate God's grace; if it is an error to baptize infants, He will still give those that are elect repentance and faith in due season.
God bless you, and I hope we can have many more fruitful interactions in future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top