As a Baptist on the ropes, feeling the effects of an Ali flurry of hooks and jabs from the Paedo's, I was wondering if someone could lay the knock blow to me.

I understand the argument from silence used by the Paedo camp, and it is devastating "to me." Call it my partial preterist need to place myself within the context of 1st century Christians, and make experience intelligible to them first, and me second. My question is this: If I grant the argument from silence, is this the only time we can grant an argument from silence? The reason I ask is because in a conversation with a Baptist brother he said that "for some reason, this is the only time Paedo's would ever grant any argument from silence in scripture...any other time they would jump all over someone for making that move, but when it comes to Baptism they are totally arbitrary."

Any thoughts? Is it true that no place else in scripture would a Paedo, or Baptist in this case, allow an argument from silence to be so deafening?

I also understand that Baptist, in some sense use an argument from silence when they proclaim that "only" professing believers are to be Baptized. So maybe I could have pointed that out to him.

__________________
B.J. Edenfield
Member of Independent Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Savannah, Ga.
"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave"- Stonewall Jackson

To me, it's not at all an argument from silence but a reflection of poor hermeneutics on the Credo's part.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

The true argument from silence is the Baptist assertion that infant inclusion in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace has been rescinded in the New Testament. God has spoken with regard to placing the sign of the CoG on infants, namely in Genesis 17. Baptists also don't understand the difference between substance and administration. So I agree with Scott; it's an issue of hermeneutics - not arguments from silence (at least as far as the Paedobaptist arguments are concerned ).

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

In my experience the "argument from silence" comes from the credo side. Baptist often say to me, "How can you baptize infants when there is no explicit mention of such to be found in the NT?" There's an argument from silence if I ever heard one.

__________________
Jim Polk
Former/resigned Ruling Elder, Pilgrim Church, PCA
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Jud 1:3 . . .contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

God does whatever is right . . . right is whatever God does.

But is really not an argument but a poor hermeneutic or an argument based upon ignorance.

A couple of questions, Paul, if I may.

If I understand this correctly this is saying that we are to worship only as God has commanded and if he has not commanded it (the silence part) then we are not to do it, which is what I believe you just said. But another way one could argue from silence would be to say that because God has not said that we can't worship him in such-and-such a way (the silence part again) then it is ok to do so.

Am I understanding you correctly, in that you are saying the first? And the second is never valid for this situation?

Moving on to Christian liberty:
So if God has not forbidden it (the silence part) then we are free to do it. But could one look at it this way: if God has not permitted it then we are not allowed to do it?

I have always been confused about the argument from silence because it seems that it gets used frequently on the PB in both ways. One of the recent EP threads used it, so maybe it applies differently depending on whether we are referring to the RPW or Christian liberty. I understand your wiki example but I am confused when you say that the infant baptism issue is not a 'deductive' argument.

And I'll take my answer off the air.

__________________
Gerry Winebrenner
member Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Janesville WI

Psalm 95:6-7
Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!
For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.

Thanks to Bahnsen's sermons (just listened to) on this subject I learned a couple of other arguments Baptist have to make from silence if one is to play this game.


1) Where do Baptist find NT scripture for a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper?

answer: There are none. However, ther are not any Baptist I know of that refuse to give the Lord's Supper to a women. Hence, to permit and be justified in said action would lead to an argument from silence.


2) There are no NT text that show a child repenting of sin, and being baptized, only adults. However, when Baptist children profess they are baptized. A Baptist could argue that there were children in the household examples, but I am not sure if they want to go that route. So to be stuborn, if need be, a Peado could press these two silly examples, and it would place the Baptist in the same boat they think they have the Paedo in. Welcome aboard!


There are still some points I have to explore in the Bahnsen series. They were very insightful as to better understanding the Paedo position. I have R.C. Sproul's series on the way for more insight.

Exactly; If this is the norm, and almost all credo churches have young people coming to faith, why is it, if that is the norm, that we see no examples in scripture stating such, i.e. "and Simon's 14 year old son John came to faith and was baptized..."?

We've been through this before, Paul. Where does the Old Testament say "repent and be circumcised"? Where do we see a profession of faith immediately followed by circumcision? Were the circumcised households, including adult circumcision, upon a profession of faith like the household of baptisms?

Or are you simply making an argument of silence regarding the profession of those who were circumcised?

Baptism and circumcision symbolize the same thing, but if you do a quick comparison, there are a LOT of differences in how they were applied in practice. You cannot simply assume a one-to-one correlation.

__________________
[IMGL]http://x79.xanga.com/144c6b7b05d37172179798/w130772988.gif[/IMGL]

[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL][URL="http://www.harborpc.org/"]Harbor Presbyterian Church[/URL] (PCA)
[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL]San Diego, CA
[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL][url]http://www.xanga.com/elnwood[/url]

Down goes Frazier....1-2-3.....

As I told a good friend the other night...If one thing is new about the New Covenant it is that children are obviously out, according to my current (yet dwindling) Baptistic theology. To which my friend responded by saying, "So."

Actually, those were your twisting of my words. (Nice strawman argument). I said nothing of the kind. You made an assumption that because someone was willing to do something painful, that this was a profession of faith. And that's an argument from silence.

When Jonah went to preach to the Ninevites, and they all repented, were they also all circumcised?

And there are no verses that explicitly say that there are some that don't repent who may be baptized. I'm willing to admit that the arguments from silence regarding baptism in the New Testament cuts both ways. I am not willing to say, though, that because circumcision worked a certain way in the Old Covenant, that therefore baptism should as well, which is the crux of the paedobaptist argument.

I've never discussed this with my pastor, but I don't speak for him, nor does he speak for me. But if you're interested, I'll ask him if he thinks that adult household servants had to give a profession of faith in order to be circumcised in the Old Covenant.

BJ,
I'm not sure I understand why your Baptistic theology would conclude that.
Bob

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

I'll add to what Bob said: "Obviously"? If thats true, I guess no children were ever saved during the churchs' initial stages as there is no scriptural evidence of such conversions anywhere.

Let's just apply the favored hermeneutical principle of using historical narratives to form doctrinal understandings.

Look in Genesis 24 for the answer of whether adult servants had faith for your answer. I'm not aware of any example where a servant didn't have faith in Scripture. No need to speculate in the least.

Also, is it not interesting that Paul calls unbelief uncircumcision several times in the Scripture? You may have trouble acknowledging that circumcision required faith but the Scriptures are dripping with it.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

THAT, my friend, is what makes this theology so sad. Not only does it cheapen the COG in the promise to Abraham (it was for land and faith is continually deprecated) but there is this eery, cold detachment from the fact that a Baptist argues that spiritual fellowship with one's own children is immaterial!

I've never understood how a Baptist can read anything in Proverbs and find much use for it to apply to their own children. I don't know how they read the Psalms that speak of the inheritance of faith and the joy of seeing your children's children call upon the name of the Lord.

Pfftt...So?!

Perhaps one just becomes numb to such things after chanting the "repent and believe" mantra enough times.

I'm not saying that there weren't faithful servants. I'm saying that we don't see a profession of faith prior to circumcision in the Old Testament in the same way we see for baptism in the New Testament.

Did they require faith before they circumcised infants? Your argument proves too much.

I believe you're correct that they weren't circumcised because they weren't a part of Israel, but why shouldn't they have been brought into the covenant?

Your analogy doesn't seem to fit because it was Jonah, a prophet from God, who preached to them, and not a gospel track. Surely Jonah could have circumcised them.

While we have a command to make disciples of all nations and baptize them, in the Old Covenant, there was no such directive to make disciples and circumcise them. This is a major difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant!

You missed the point. By your hermeneutical rule, I demonstrated that only servants that had faith were circumcised. Indeed, by your formula of historical narrative, the only examples we have demonstrate that all circumcised servants had faith. Your wooden formula of profession is desperate. It reminds me of a Calvary Chapel person I once heard say that Calvin wasn't a Christian because he never said he was "born again".

I prove only that Paul links belief with circumcision. The Jewish community always required it of proselytes. You're the only "reformed" person I've ever encountered who would present the impious argument that faith was immaterial to the application of the Covenant sign to adults.

The discipling of all nations is implicit in the Abrahamic covenant just as the "Gospel preached beforehand" is implicit. The fact that there was a means for the stranger to enter into Covenant demonstrates this. Israel was clearly commanded to be a blessing to the surrounding nations. The New Covenant is a flowering of that promise which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, allowed the Gospel to proceed and expand. It is inaccurate to say that there was no command to make disciples and circumcise except that you seem to have a wooden approach to the Scriptures that causes you to misread the Covenant of Grace. Your pastor is much less given to dispensationalism. You should tune into his Thursday podcasts.