Argumentum A Silentio

"Argumentum a silentio" or "Argumentum ex silentio" is Latin for what is called in hermeneutics and logic an "argument from silence." Is this a valid argument at any time? Or, is it, as some affirm, always a fallacious argument?

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews 1: 5 KJV)

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Verse 13)

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7: 3 KJV)

"Without" means "without any statement of scripture."

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Hebrews 7:14 KJV)

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." (Jeremiah 7: 31 KJV)

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." (19: 5)

"Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"" (II Samuel 7: 7 NIV)

All these verses make some kind of argument based upon silence. To deny that they do is to put one in an undesirable position. If they are not valid arguments from silence, what are they?

In what cases are arguments from silence valid and justified?

An argument from silence is valid and proper in contexts where one would not normally expect silence. Thus, in such cases, the silence becomes "striking," unexpected or unusual.

Look at all the scriptural examples above. Were they not all made because they were examples of silence IN CONTEXTS OR SITUATIONS WHERE ONE WOULD NOT NORMALLY EXPECT SILENCE?

When there is silence at times when it is least expected, then the silence says something!

The question becomes, what is meant by the unexpected silence? What can we infer from it?

There is no question but that there are examples of invalid arguments from silence, especially from those who are "patternists" or who go by what is called the "regulative principle." Those who promote these systems "go to seed" in their attempts to use the argument from silence. But, the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself of no valid use!

"Arguments from silence are always weak at best."

"We should not rely upon arguments from silence."

"Arguments from silence are rarely conclusive."

These are some cautions that one will hear from logicians about the argument from silence. A sound logician will NOT however "throw the baby out with the bath water" and say that there is NEVER any validity to an argument from silence. What a logician will do is to give rules for how to discern when an argument from silence is valid and when it is not. The rule I gave above is the most critical. Is the silence "striking"?

In a debate I had in the early 90's with Pat Donahue of the "Church of Christ" on the subject of whether water baptism were essential to salvation, I made what I consider a valid argument from silence, and one that other Baptists have made against the "Campbellites" on the issue. It is ironic too because the "Campbellites" are generally overusers of the argument from silence, abusing it with their "patternism."

In that debate I showed that for everything necessary for eternal salvation, in the bible, we have both a positive and a negative statement. Is faith necessary? The scriptures give us both the negative and the positive.

Believe and be saved versus believe not and be damned. The same with repentance, confession of Christ, of the blood of Christ, etc. But, there is no negative for water baptism. There is no text that says "he that is not baptized shall be damned." I still believe that such is a valid argument from silence. Why? Because we would expect this negative! For there not to be such a negative is indeed "striking"!