>>1229
>It sounds like you reject the notion of implicit conclusions from a text as eisegesis
No, anon, what I reject is taking conclusions from a text that have nothing at all to do with what the author is talking about. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you, but what you're doing is looking at a topic (baptism and salvation) and looking at the text, and the only conclusion you're actually drawing from the text is that the teaching you're looking for will indeed fit in this text, and then you insert your conclusions into the text. This is the very definition of eisegesis. We can't claim that this verse opposes baptismal justification because we are putting words in the apostle's mouth. Where does the apostle say in this passage that baptism does not save? If the answer is 'nowhere' (which it is), then to conclude that from this passage is eisegesis, it is inserted into the text, because the author does not say it.
It is insulting that you proceed to define eisegesis and implication as if I am unaware of what these mean. I won't define eisegesis because what you've been doing all thread is the best example I can give, but I will explain what an implicit teaching is, and why the insertion of baptism into 2 Timothy 3 is not an example of it. Something said is implicit merely if it is not said in those very words. That is an extremely broad category. Something can be implicit if it is the primary intention of a statement and also if it is necessarily alongside it (something not immediately intended by the author but that would contradict what they said were it to be otherwise). Now, something is not an implicit teaching if it is something inferred from their statement about a completely separate topic that is not related to their purpose (for example, to make a conclusion about baptism from 2 Timothy 3:15). So yes, that verse does imply something about wine, because it actually talks about wine. In contrast, we cannot truthfully say that this verse implies something about baptism, because no part of the passage is about baptism in any way, shape, or form (interpret this in the most literal way possible, it is not hyperbole).
>Eisegesis is "reading into" the text
Such as perhaps reading the topics of baptism and salvation into a text about scripture and the end times?
>Instead of giving any reasoning that my application is wrong
If you were paying attention, you would know I've given nothing but
>you're being condescending
And then, without a hint of self-awareness, in the very next sentence, you proceed to explain the words implicit and explicit as if I was completely ignorant of what these words mean, like I was a child.
>Given the timeline, was Timothy saved post-christ without baptism?
Instead of going over a thoroughly ridiculous and now well-refuted interpretation yet again, instead let's go over what I've said so far. Which part of the text tells us whether Timothy was saved before or after Christ? And which part of the text tells us whether it was with or without baptism?
>If you have reason to believe Timothy WAS baptised before salvation, or if you think Timothy was saved pre-christ so didn't need baptism, that would be an argument worth having
Why in the world would I accept the burden of proof instead of just dismissing your entire argument out of hand? Why don't you give me reason to believe this has anything at all to do with 2 Timothy 3, and then to believe that he's making the point you want him to be.
>If you think this implication is invalid, you can say why.
I think I have