
   This is no less logical than the assumption that if something is
_not_ in the Bible, then it _must not_ be done.  But I don't really
think that's what he's saying anyway.  See below.


   What about the letter to Philemon?  In it Paul at least hints that a
certain slave be released.  Also, slavery in those times was not the
same as the type of slavery we had in the U.S.  I think a better
comparison would be to indentured servitude.  I don't really want to get
into a discussion on slavery.  Anyway, although it does demonstrate your
point, I don't think it is relevent, because the original poster did not
say that absence of specific condemenation proves something is not
immoral.

   Back to the original poster's assertion.  He is not in fact making
the logical error of which you accuse him.  He stated the fact that the
Bible does not say that babies cannot be baptized.  Also, we know that
the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
_Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the
Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.  And so we
baptize infants.

   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be
asserting that since the Bible does not forbid, _you cannot prove_,
using the Bible, that it is _not_ OK.  There is a difference between
proving whether or not something can be proven or disproven (there are
theories on provability in the field of Logic, by the way) and actually
proving or disproving it.  The other logical error we must avoid falling
into is the converse: that if something cannot be proven, then it is
false.  This seems to be the error of many _sola scriptura_ believers.

   I think the only thing that can be proven here is that one cannot use
Scripture alone to prove something either way about infant Baptism,
although the evidence seems to me to favor it.