I'm not even sure where to start...I guess I'll go with your accusation of a logical fallacy. First off, argument from silence is NOT a logical fallacy; it CAN be used in certain situations as evidence (but never as proof) based on what evidence IS available. It's not the best evidence and must be used with caution, but sometimes it the only evidence we have with which to form a theory. Secondly, argument from silence is exactly what the believer-baptism camp (of which you seem to be a member) uses as primary evidence for their position. The overview explicitly says this, but does not condemn them for doing it. Mr Holstrom simply asserts in his book that the silence is actually in favor infant baptism; it's up to the reader to decide if the silence supports infant baptism, believer baptism, or something else entirely. However, there are some logical fallacies involved here. This review misrepresents Mr. Holstom's position in order to attack it (straw man), uses the supposed argument from silence fallacy (which isn't a fallacy) as proof that the position is wrong (the fallacy fallacy), and I detect a hint of the "personal incredulity" fallacy (the idea is false because it's difficult to understand how or why it's true). The first two are solid cases of fallacy, but the last one may be a bit of a stretch. Let the reader decide. The review also overlooks basic tenets of Biblical interpretation. While the Bible doesn't give us specific instructions for every aspect of our lives, it DOES provide theological principles to guide us. Divine revelation doesn't tell me what kind of car to buy, but I can assume from what it says about riches, boasting, stewardship, care for the poor, etc. that I probably shouldn't get a $350k limited edition Ferrari. Saying nothing doesn't mean being silent. So, even though Scripture doesn't specifically mention infant baptism, we can still look at the available evidence to construct an informed (even if not definitive) opinion. Both sides of the argument legitimately do this; the author just thinks that the available evidence actually favors infant baptism contra the way it's normally used. Likewise, Scripture interprets Scripture. That's the entire basis of Systematic Theology which "follows a systematic overlay with selected texts in view with parallels to" whatever topic is being studied, in this case baptism. It's a legitimate and widely practiced theological discipline. We MUST study and compare Scripture in this way or we'd never know anything about it that isn't explicitly spelled out for us...such as the Trinity. The wording of the review implies that it's based entirely on the brief synopsis of the book rather than on the book itself. I think we would all do well to be a bit more careful in reviewing books we haven't read. If they clearly involve false teaching, fine, but let us give pause before publicly posting a scathing review based on an acknowledged gray area. Each person should be allowed to decide for themselves without being discouraged from a likely edifying and possibly correct treatise of an unsure topic because of an erroneous and emotionally charged review...from someone who hasn't even read it.

1 Cor 10:2-3 points to Old Testament baptism of infantst. Additionally, Jewish conversion practice of Gentiles included infants in tevileh baptism. The regulative silence of infant baptism after the Day of Pentecost, therefore places the weight of proof on the credo-only camp. Infant inclusion was assumed, not created.

For everyone's quick reference to 1 Cor 10:  2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food. 4and drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. So, 1. Did the Jews get physically wet during the crossing, or were they on dry ground? So would simple proximity of anyone near water be analogous to New Testament Baptism as exemplified by John, Jesus, or the Epistles? 2. Do we need to practice communion in a sense or carry rocks around as well? 3. Is just referencing 1 Cor. 10 a practical analogy to the New Testament practice of baptism, let alone infant baptism? If we continue to present analogies as propositional teaching, we will continue to see the downgrade of Christianity in churches. Illustrations and analogies are not the "thing" in themselves. There should be clarity when discussing doctrine and making claims of "ought" or "this is it." People who have exposure to logic and reason will cry "indoctrination" and "control." When I listen to deconstruction testimonies, they rarely deconstruct from what the Bible teaches; they begin by tearing into "interpretations," "dogma," "controversial theology," and "traditions" that they received as the "clear core teaching of Christian Scripture." It's only afterward that they reject the resurrection and a particular commandment.