LockTheDeadbolt
Puritan Board Freshman
I thought I'd put it up an argument here and just let people poke holes in it for awhile. So without any further ado, have at it:
Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).
1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).
1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.
Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)
2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.
2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).
Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore Not A.
Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).
1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).
1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.
Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)
2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.
2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).
Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore Not A.