Hermeneutics and eisegesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you not counting John the Baptist's work, when multitudes went to be baptized of him?

John's baptism wasn't a Christian baptism, but washings....

The charge that "if John’s baptism was not Christian, then all the people John baptized would then need to be actually baptized for the first time" is flawed in that all of these people already had the sign in their flesh already-unless of course you are prepared to say that the sign of the OT was less than efficacious and now invalid. If so, where are the mass baptisms in the NT transitioning all believing Jews? yes, we have Pentecost as an example, but thats just 3k souls who agreed to submit, given the event. But there has to be a transition period. A grandfathering in of those who had the sign already.
 
Because 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. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming 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.

My children are holy.
 
Because 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. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming 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.
Not quite. The letter to the corinthians does make mention of the children of believers being holy (set apart) as opposed to unclean.
 
But to your OP, certainly culture must be taken into account when reading Scripture--but we must also admit that we have no real context for understanding exactly what a 1st century Jew would have thought or felt. At best we can collate all the available data and make an educated guess, which at this far remove of time and with all our cultural prejudices and preconceived notions I wouldn't hang a great amount of weight on.

For 2,000 years, entrance into the congregation of the LORD was marked by the sign of circumcision based on the headship principle. That carries a lot of weight. If the method of applying the sign of entrance into the LORD's people changed (i.e. if headship rule does not apply), then the Jews would certainly need to be told this - otherwise, we should not assume that God would operate differently.

Since unlike Old Covenant inclusion, New Covenant inclusion wasn't merely by being born, the early church Jew would have seen and understood: "Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."

Neither was this the case in the old testament. The requirement to truly be "in covenant" with God (internally) has always, and will always be by faith. This is why Paul says "a Jew is not one who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly", and why repeatedly in the OT the prophets exhort the people to "circumcise their hearts". Without faith, they were simply under the external administration of the covenant, but were not truly united to Christ.

The congregation of Israel in the OT is simply the visible church pre-Christ. This church was a mixed bag of true believers and false professors. This is the same with the church today - it is a mixed bag.

An OT Jew who was spiritually minded would understand that God's covenant went far beyond the types and shadows of the various ceremonies, and even of the promised land itself. As we read in Hebrews, Abraham looked toward a heavenly Canaan, a better land, a city whose builder and maker is God. And David realized that sacrifices were not sufficient, but a broken and a contrite heart is what God requires.

The basic point is this: The real substance of the covenant has always been spiritual in nature, and obtained through faith. The basic promise of the covenant is this: "I will be your God and you will be my people". This is the echo that rings throughout the entire Bible.
 
Disagree. Israel was a country of covenanting w/ God. God remains a God of covenant, no matter how many credo's claim otherwise. The scriptures are one book. We see no abrogation of signage. No covenant is abrogated.
Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus mediating a better covenant, founded on better promises. Then it talks about the old one being replaced, ready to vanish away. Perhaps you are using the word "abrogated" differently than I do.
But I don't claim that God isn't a God of covenant. The old covenant served as an imperfect picture of the glory that Messiah would usher in with the institution of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant is the full glory of the types and shadows of the old. Circumcision was a sign of something less than perfect: physical birth. That sign is abrogated, by which I mean, we no longer use that sign. Baptism is the sign of something perfect: God's work of grace in the believer's heart. Circumcision served it's purpose of typifying something better and is now gone, just like the sacrifices have served their purpose of typifying something better that has come. They are also abrogated.
 
Not quite. The letter to the corinthians does make mention of the children of believers being holy (set apart) as opposed to unclean.
Do you think that it means that all children of believers are automatically regenerate? If not, then it has to mean something else.
 
Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus mediating a better covenant, founded on better promises. Then it talks about the old one being replaced, ready to vanish away. Perhaps you are using the word "abrogated" differently than I do.
But I don't claim that God isn't a God of covenant. The old covenant served as an imperfect picture of the glory that Messiah would usher in with the institution of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant is the full glory of the types and shadows of the old. Circumcision was a sign of something less than perfect: physical birth. That sign is abrogated, by which I mean, we no longer use that sign. Baptism is the sign of something perfect: God's work of grace in the believer's heart. Circumcision served it's purpose of typifying something better and is now gone, just like the sacrifices have served their purpose of typifying something better that has come. They are also abrogated.

The NC is contrasted to the Mosaic Covenant - Not the Abrahamic Covenant.

The sign of the Mosaic covenant was not circumcision but rather the various Sabbaths.

The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant - the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant.

The NC is certainly superior than the Mosaic Covenant.
 
For 2,000 years, entrance into the congregation of the LORD was marked by the sign of circumcision based on the headship principle. That carries a lot of weight. If the method of applying the sign of entrance into the LORD's people changed (i.e. if headship rule does not apply), then the Jews would certainly need to be told this - otherwise, we should not assume that God would operate differently.
Please tell me what John the Baptist meant when he said to the Pharisees that headship did not matter.
 
Please tell me what John the Baptist meant when he said to the Pharisees that headship did not matter.

I'm not sure what verse you're referring to, and it doesn't really matter, because John's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism.

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. It is not the same as Christian baptism, instituted by Christ. Just because something uses the word "baptism", doesn't make it the same - there are various "baptisms" spoken of in Hebrews, those weren't Christian baptisms either.
 
Do you think that it means that all children of believers are automatically regenerate? If not, then it has to mean something else.
No. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. I think it means our children are set apart and should be included in the visible outward covenant community. So how else do we show that other than by the only way God has shown us...... applying the covenant sign.
 
Last edited:
John's baptism wasn't a Christian baptism, but washings....

The charge that "if John’s baptism was not Christian, then all the people John baptized would then need to be actually baptized for the first time" is flawed in that all of these people already had the sign in their flesh already-unless of course you are prepared to say that the sign of the OT was less than efficacious and now invalid. If so, where are the mass baptisms in the NT transitioning all believing Jews? yes, we have Pentecost as an example, but thats just 3k souls who agreed to submit, given the event. But there has to be a transition period. A grandfathering in of those who had the sign already.
We have no reason to think that all Jews who were converted were not then baptized, especially since the sign in their flesh was not and had never been efficacious--it was a sign, just like baptism, which is also efficacious for nothing: it is only an outward sign of something else done in the heart.
 
I'm not sure what verse you're referring to, and it doesn't really matter, because John's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism.

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. It is not the same as Christian baptism, instituted by Christ. Just because something uses the word "baptism", doesn't make it the same - there are various "baptisms" spoken of in Hebrews, those weren't Christian baptisms either.
"Think not to say to yourselves: 'We have Abraham for our father'..." It matters because John was telling the Pharisees that being physically descended from Abraham did not guarantee them salvation. In other words, their headship did nothing to remove from them their sins. To be truly like Abraham, in the way that really mattered (in the only way that has ever mattered, in fact), they needed to be regenerated.
We too must become sons of Abraham--not physically, by having Jewish parents or some bloody proselyting rite, but by having faith like Abraham did, and becoming his spiritual descendants. It comes about not by who are parents are or were, but by what God does in our hearts.
 
The NC is contrasted to the Mosaic Covenant - Not the Abrahamic Covenant.

The sign of the Mosaic covenant was not circumcision but rather the various Sabbaths.

The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant - the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant.

The NC is certainly superior than the Mosaic Covenant.
Was everyone who was in the Abrahamic covenant regenerate? Clearly not: Esau was in it. What do you mean then by "eternal covenant?" What are the benefits of being in an eternal covenant without being regenerated?
The New Covenant is the fulfilment and full glory of the Abrahamic covenant. Hebrews 6 and 7 speak of Christ and of Abraham, and of how Christ is greater than Abraham: Christ was to bring something better than Abraham brought.
 
"Think not to say to yourselves: 'We have Abraham for our father'..." It matters because John was telling the Pharisees that being physically descended from Abraham did not guarantee them salvation. In other words, their headship did nothing to remove from them their sins. To be truly like Abraham, in the way that really mattered (in the only way that has ever mattered, in fact), they needed to be regenerated.
We too must become sons of Abraham--not physically, by having Jewish parents or some bloody proselyting rite, but by having faith like Abraham did, and becoming his spiritual descendants. It comes about not by who are parents are or were, but by what God does in our hearts.

That's not what we mean by headship. The headship principle is simply a way of describing how the covenant sign was applied. We see this in Gen. 17 - when Abraham's household was circumcised due to the real faith of Abraham. Faith absolutely must be present. If faith is not present, then it is really a sham ceremony - and this is what we see in liberal "reformed" churches today - parents who don't even really believe applying a sign to their children.

There's absolutely no argument against what you are saying about needing to be "real" sons of Abraham - that is essential. Of course, circumcision always pointed to that as well - that is why we are told in Rom. 4:11 that Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of his faith. What we are shown in Gen. 17 is that also his whole house received the sign because of HIS faith. That is the headship principle we are talking about - and it is entirely biblical.
 
No. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. I think it means our children are set apart and should be included in the visible outward covenant community. So how else do we show that other than by the only way God has shown us...... applying the covenant sign.
Then we agree on the principal point, and only disagree on the secondary issue of covenant inclusion.
 
Was everyone who was in the Abrahamic covenant regenerate? Clearly not: Esau was in it. What do you mean then by "eternal covenant?" What are the benefits of being in an eternal covenant without being regenerated?
The New Covenant is the fulfilment and full glory of the Abrahamic covenant. Hebrews 6 and 7 speak of Christ and of Abraham, and of how Christ is greater than Abraham: Christ was to bring something better than Abraham brought.

Clearly there are many and were many people who were simply outward members and never received the fullness of the promises made to Abraham. Esau certainly is an example of that. No paedobaptist would ever argue otherwise. However, there are true spiritual blessings that come even from being only in outward participation in the covenant - for example, you get to hear the word preached. You are "closer" as it were, to salvation. As we know, faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God. Therefore, anyone born in a covenant household is at a great advantage (See Romans 3:1-3) and reaps real spiritual benefits of the covenant of grace. Some lay hold of God in faith and make use of those benefits (of course by the work of the Holy Spirit), while some do not.

I will have to look at Heb. 6 and 7 closer and get back to you, I don't have time tonight.
 
There's absolutely no argument against what you are saying about needing to be "real" sons of Abraham - that is essential. Of course, circumcision always pointed to that as well - that is why we are told in Rom. 4:11 that Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of his faith. What we are shown in Gen. 17 is that also his whole house received the sign because of HIS faith. That is the headship principle we are talking about - and it is entirely biblical.
We Baptists contend that that headship principle was only for the pre-messianic time, and that time is no longer. It is too late at night to hash that all out again. I wish you a good night.
 
We Baptists contend that that headship principle was only for the pre-messianic time, and that time is no longer. It is too late at night to hash that all out again. I wish you a good night.

It is indeed too late, but the presence of household baptisms in the NT, following the 2,000 year history of the Jews would seem to argue otherwise. ;)

Good night good sir.

:)
 
To me, one of the saddest and most disturbing aspects of credobaptist theology is the necessity of a profession in order to receive the covenant sign. Are all presumed unregenerate without the profession? Not only are children excluded, but also, necessarily, the mentally disabled.
 
Last edited:
It is indeed too late, but the presence of household baptisms in the NT, following the 2,000 year history of the Jews would seem to argue otherwise. ;)

Good night good sir.

:)
As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on, especially when the entire preponderance of what the old covenant was leading up to and what the new covenant sign means signals otherwise. However, further debate is probably fruitless, since after four-odd centuries of it out two camps still exist.
 
As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on...

Actually, it doesn’t matter at all if “household” included children or infants or not. I don’t know why some of us paedobaptists keep making that argument. The reality is that if a household baptism included even one person—whether child or adult—who did not make a confession of faith, our case is made. To me, Acts 16:34 at the very least (depending on how you translate it) seems to indicate that this occurred since the household seemed to be baptized on the basis of the head’s faith, not everyone’s.
 
To me, one of the saddest and most disturbing aspects of credobaptist theology is the necessity of a profession in order to receive the covenant sign. Are all presumed unregenrate without the profession? Not only are children excluded, but also, necessarily, the mentally disabled.
Tom, do you believe that the children of believers are born already regenerate? If so, why?
If it's "because God promised it," what do we say of those who turn out clearly to have been unregenerate? Does God's promise fail? Absurd. He simply never promised that.
The doctrine of original sin shows that all indeed are to be presumed unregenerate until it is shown otherwise. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a necessary judicial notion when fallible human judges are involved. Before the Righteous Judge, all mankind is indeed guilty until declared innocent. The Bible clearly teaches that (As in Adam all sinned; death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned; there is none good, no, not one, etc).
Because it is neither the profession nor the sign that saves, even if they die unbaptized, all the elect, be they unborn children, infants, the mentally disabled, or thieves on crosses, are still received into glory. The sign does nothing to recommend them to God; it is a visible thing for the people around (and for them). So be comforted, knowing that no failure of men in discerning the state of man's heart can impede his salvation, which is a sovereign work of God alone.
 
Actually, it doesn’t matter at all if “household” included children or infants or not. I don’t know why some of us paedobaptists keep making that argument. The reality is that if a household baptism included even one person—whether child or adult—who did not make a confession of faith, our case is made. To me, Acts 16:34 at the very least (depending on how you translate it) seems to indicate that this occurred since the household seemed to be baptized on the basis of the head’s faith, not everyone’s.
Or maybe God poured out His Spirit in an extraordinary way (those were extraordinary days, after all), and saved them all then and there, just like He saved thousands at one moment on Pentecost. Does that seem unlikely to you? With God, all things are possible.
Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.
 
Or maybe God poured out His Spirit in an extraordinary way (those were extraordinary days, after all), and saved them all then and there, just like He saved thousands at one moment on Pentecost. Does that seem unlikely to you? With God, all things are possible.

All I am saying is that our position, at minimum, doesn’t go against the text.

Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.

Again, as you just pointed out in your first paragraph, just because it wasn’t recorded doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That’s my whole point: we need to be fair in our handling of what the text says and does not say, as well as our conclusions based upon those facts. We can’t change our demands of the text in the middle of our argument, as I think you’ve done here. For Acts 16:34, you said, “Well, the mass conversion could have happened, although not recorded.” But then you bring up the eunuch and say, “See, no mass baptism was recorded, and therefore didn’t happen!” This seems unfair to me.
 
It is neither the profession nor the sign that saves, even if they die unbaptized, all the elect, be they unborn children, infants, the mentally disabled, or thieves on crosses, are still received into glory. The sign does nothing to recommend them to God... So be comforted, knowing that no failure of men in discerning the state of man's heart can impede his salvation, which is a sovereign work of God alone.

Considering your own words, I do not see how it follows that we should deny the sign of the covenant to children or those incapable of making a profession. You have effectively admitted that there are some who belong to the covenant whom you would bar from baptism. Is that not a sad thing?
 
Last edited:
As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on, especially when the entire preponderance of what the old covenant was leading up to and what the new covenant sign means signals otherwise. However, further debate is probably fruitless, since after four-odd centuries of it out two camps still exist.

God's word is not vague and he does not provide frivolous details.

The Holy Spirit made sure we have the account of household baptisms for a good reason.
 
Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.

I would doubt that the E. Eunuch owned these slaves; hence, it would have been out of his position to do what u are suggesting. He was essentially, their boss-man.
 
Tom, do you believe that the children of believers are born already regenerate? If so, why?
If it's "because God promised it," what do we say of those who turn out clearly to have been unregenerate?

God forbid, God lies! The creature is to believe God. Any deficiencies, fall to the creature.


The doctrine of original sin shows that all indeed are to be presumed unregenerate until it is shown otherwise. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a necessary judicial notion when fallible human judges are involved.

Do u really think that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't understand this concept???

The sign does nothing to recommend them to God

Wrong. See Gen 17.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top