Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt  Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B). |
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant). |
True, but the parenthetical remark is not the justification for seeing that correspondence. There is an explicit link, e.g., in Col. 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 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. |
Yes. Again, this is made explicit in Gal. 3-4 (see links below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B) |
We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 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. |
Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 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). |
What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace. Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 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. |
You have not established "Not B". You've merely asserted it. You might profit by reading
this and
this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.