The thing about believer’s only baptism is…
… that its argument often begins with a logical fallacy. Other fallacies are then stacked upon the original one (which is funny in a wry sort of way because baptists love to accuse their paedo/credo brothers of the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.
Baptist: Did you hear? For the first time ever in the history of creation – newborn children of believing parents aren’t in covenant with God!
Presby: Really!? Do you have any proof of this claim?
Baptist: How about you prove that infants should still be included in the covenant?
This is the logical fallacy of the burden of proof. If someone makes a claim that is contrary to an accepted or easily verifiable understanding (in this case, that children of believers have always been in covenant with God) then it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to demonstrate how this is true. Often times baptist shift the burden to the paedo/credo baptist by insisting they prove that children should still be included.
