Considering a Presupposition of New Covenant Theology

Ever seen a dog with a bone? They just can’t seem to let it go. That’s my dog with rawhide.  She’ll make herself sick.

On the surface, I might be seen as a guy who “can’t let it go”, but I don’t think that is the case. Why? First, the issue hasn’t gone away. I interact with people giving me the same argument on different particular issues. Second, I’m continuing to think more deeply about the issue.

The issue? New Covenant Theology. This is a view of the covenants held by a growing number of people that undermines a Reformed understanding of the sacraments (particularly baptism) and the Law. I’ve engaged in some blog discussion and debate with one of the leading proponents of this position, Andrew Farley. It becomes an exercise in futility as we compare biblical texts. I’ve tried to keep those texts in their contexts (this is important!). But the discussion goes nowhere.

The discussion must go deeper- to presuppositions. I noted this in my reviews  of 3 different arguments for baptism.  What is the presupposition, the unproven assumption, made by adherents of the various forms of New Covenant Theology? It sounds like a holdover from Dispensational Theology, but here we go: Nothing from the Old Covenant is binding unless repeated in the New Testament.

Got that? The New replaces the Old, so nothing remains of the Old unless repeated in the New. This is why Farley tosses out tithing, a sabbath rest and the moral law. This is why Calvinistic Baptists toss our infant baptism. It seems logical, right?

But is this presupposition biblical? Is this how the Bible treats the issue? Our call is not be logical, but biblical (though we use reason as well as illumination to properly understand the Bible).

They do not prove their assumption. Can it stand up to a biblical litmus test?

Let’s ask a few questions: Why are the food laws no longer binding? Why is the Aaronic priethood no longer functioning? Why do we no longer offer sacrifices for sin?

The answer is not so simple as we are in a new covenant. The Scriptures explicitly state that those aspects of the Old Covenant are obsolete and no longer binding.

In Mark 7:19 we see that Jesus pronounced all foods clean. He lifted the prohibition on certain foods. In Acts 10:9ff, Peter has a vision that reiterates this. He apparently had a hard time getting the point during Jesus’ earthly ministry. But the purpose of the vision is to show that all the unclean laws have been lifted. Gentiles are no longer unclean in Christ- Peter is sent to give them the gospel at Cornelius’ home.

In Hebrews 7 the author is dealing with no small problem: how can Jesus be our Great High Priest when He’s not from the line of Aaron? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood has been nullified and replaced by the order of Melchizedek (as prophesied in the Old Testament).

He continues in chapters 9 and 10 to show that the sin offerings are no longer valid because Christ has made sufficient atonement for sin.

Do you get the point? The New Testament authors are NOT assuming the New Covenant means a clean slate. They NEVER use that argument, which would have required far less work on their part. They show why particular parts of the Old Covenant are now obsolete.  They argue like Covenant Theologians, not New Covenant Theologians.

So, the basis presupposition of New Covenant Theology finds no basis in Scripture. This means their rationale for determining what laws we obey, and who is to be baptized does not have a biblical leg to stand on. Our presuppositions are what drive our theological buses, but we rarely examine them.

I was teaching my daughter some math today. One of the teachable moments was that when you get part of the equation wrong, you will inevitably get the whole equation wrong. A mistake in the part will lead to a mistake in the whole. If you make a mistake with your theological presuppositions, you will end up with an incorrect, unbiblical theology.