The problem with logic: a critique of covenant theology

Over on FaceBook we were discussing a session which I recently taught which I entitled "The problem with logic: a critique of covenant theology." In that session, I challenged covenant theology in its use of theological constructs taken from logical inference and not explicitly from the Biblical text. My views have been largely influenced by the works of John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel. I consider Fred a friend, and John, too, but I have not had the same amount of personal contact with John that I have had with Fred. I consider both men as excellent examples of devoted Christian men and theologians. It was during a month or two of debating with John over on the Sound of Grace discussion forum that I first was persuaded to rethink my covenant theology, a system of Biblical interpretation that I had held for many years. Though I was not fully persuaded of new covenant theology at that point in time, after I left those discussions, I began to rethink the things I had come to believe.

Among the things that I had great difficulty in defending about covenant theology when debating with John was the issue of the covenant of works. In fact, John argued that the entire covenant theology framework was built upon the [sandy?] foundation of the covenant of works, despite the fact that such a covenant is not mentioned in the very text from which it is argued by covenant theology, namely the first three chapters of Genesis. Indeed, John argued that I was creating the existence of that covenant by what the covenant theologians call “good and necessary consequences,” that is, logical inferences from the Scriptures rather than the Biblical texts. Later, I would fully agree with him on that point.

Since that time, I have come to recognize that covenant theology in fact bases much more [infant baptism, their doctrine of “church,” Sabbath, eldership, etc] of their system of theology on just such inferences, which are often not at all evident from the Biblical text. It is that which stimulated the title I used, “The problem with logic.”

Mind you, as I said, I am not dissing logic; indeed, I insist on proper logic as a foundational concept of Christianity. But logic is NOT Scripture, nor should we elevate logical consequences and inferences to the same authority as the Biblical text. Human handling of logic even in the best minds is uneven, even seriously flawed due to the fallen nature of man. Even the regenerate person is not rendered infallible in terms of logic and reason; we still tend to “grope along the wall” at times, and as a result we ought to be modest in our claims of understanding even logic. We especially need to caution ourselves to not allow us to elevate logical inferences which appear to be “good and necessary” to the same authority as the Biblical text. Here is the very crux of the “problem” with the logic of which I speak. Often, logical inferences are neither good nor necessary, especially when there are explicit Biblical texts that differ with or outright refute such inferences.

It is this discussion that I want to take up here on the blog. It will afford me to write some of the things that I have been unable – or perhaps unwilling –

to write up to this point. I am not sure why, but I have been reluctant to set forth my thoughts under the notion that all that I could say had already been said by men much better than myself. That still remains true. But those other writers do not always have the attention of those folks in my own network of contacts, and it is often unlikely that everyone that I speak to are going to read the many books I have read on the issues. So, perhaps there is a reason why it might be useful to set forth some of the issues here. It will afford a healthy and vigorous debate and an opportunity for some of us to hone our understanding of the issues.

With that said, I will begin to set forth some of my thoughts in the near future. I pray that God will grant us the needed patience and ability to describe the issues fairly and as comprehensively as possible. I look forward to the opportunity to express some things I have been holding in for a long time now. I do not change easily. Indeed, my transport from classic covenant theology over to new covenant theology has taken almost 15 years. Even now I have some questions about NCT [new covenant theology]. But at this point I can say that I am about a 95 percenter, as I like to call it. I have pretty much made the transition from CT to NCT by now and as a result I have more confidence in what I preach and teach.

Just a few notes before I go. During our conversations, I will purposely NOT capitalize the words Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. I have chided my covenant theology friends about their propensity to capitalize words which they give particular meaning. For instance, the word “law” is almost invariably rendered “Law” by covenant theologians. Knowing that they think that the ten commandments [which they also always capitalize] is the ultimate and unchangeable moral law of God, that capitalization has a peculiar effect of making the term mean a priori what CT wants it to mean rather than what the meaning of the word might be in the context of the Biblical text.

You will notice a slight inconsistency because I capitalize CT and NCT, the shorthand way of referring to the two primary systems of biblical interpretation in which I am interested here. I hope you will indulge me with that small inconsistency, though in the end I think it is actually grammatically correct to capitalize an abbreviation such as CT and NCT.

With that settled for the most part, let us begin.