Abductive Argument Against Classical Covenant Theology
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), albeit with minor administrative adjustments (baptizing infant males and females, whereas circumcision was limited to males, etc.).
1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are merely different administrations of the single, eternal Covenant of Grace.
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) on which (1a) rests is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with their own respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9), each a progressively-revealed, prophetically-typological shadow of the one, eternal covenant in Christ (the New Covenant).
Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or “not true,” for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.
If A, then B.
Therefore Not A.