The following was lifted from a blog quoting Doug Wilson. The argument from silence is VERY strong.
"The question for our baptistic brethren is this. Are you prepared to maintain that an infant brought to your congregation (formally and covenantally excluded) is in the same position as an infant brought to a believing synagogue in Jerusalem in AD 52? Not only would the believing synagogue not exclude such an infant, I believe that they would have difficulty even comprehending the concept of excluding the infants. And if there was such a generation-long uproar over the inclusion of the Gentiles, what would the commotion have been if the apostles really were teaching the Jews that not only must you start admitting the Gentile adults, but you must start excluding your own children? I have trouble believing that this would not have caused the Mother of all Theological Controversies. But there is not a word about such a controversy in the New Testament".
3 comments:
There's a discussion beginning on that same Doug Wilson quote right here . . .
http://www.derekwebb.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14943
I always take Doug Wilson with a grain of salt-and while that is not the determining point in whether infant baptism as practiced by Presbyterian & Reformed churches is biblical (which I believe it is) but it is a valid argument.
Of course, the argument from silence is also used by believer's baptism folk to show that the New Testament is silent on baptizing children unable to believe and confess their own faith in Christ.
I will also note that among logicians, the argument from silence is the weakest of arguments. One cannot prove positively much from silence.
Post a Comment