Robin
I thought I would try to show you why I agree with Pilgrim about "deduction"
In your allegory about normal dogs having four legs. You stated some facts about normal dogs having four legs. Your saying that Spot is a normal dog, requires us to deduct that Spot has four legs.
In the case of the Trinity we are given a lot of facts about it. From those facts, we can put them all together and see where they take us. But that process is a deduction of where those facts take us.

In the case of infant baptism, Paedo-Baptists say that good and neccessary inference from the facts of Scripture leads to infant baptism. Yet when I examine those facts, I see no more than a speculative possibility that their deduction is biblically sound.

This to me is the crux of the matter between the two sides.

To add a little more to that you said:
Quote
The London Baptist Confession describes it as "either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture." In short, Reformed Baptists don't "deduce."

I definitely agree with the first part, right up to where it says "In short, Reformed Baptists don't "deduce."
For I believe that in order for something to be a "good and necessary consequence." It must be "either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture."

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:00 AM.