Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 1
Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 1
Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 1
This article begins a short series interacting with a short book. This spring, the notable
Reformed Baptist pastor Earl M. Blackburn released the book It Pleased the Lord to Make
a Covenant of Grace: A Critique of 1689 Federalism. The reasons for our engagement are
undeniable. This means that his arguments will be both influential for and indicative
of a number of those with whom we interact and among whom we minister. Second,
ourselves. We not only hold to the Second London; we believe that the covenant
theology that has recently been recovered among Reformed Baptists, often called
“1689 Federalism,” is the most faithful reception of the Scripture’s teaching on the
topic. Third, friendly, intramural dialog is helpful for presenting our arguments.
over his extensive time as a theologian and pastor. While we are looking critically at
his work, we are not seeking to negate this first item. Second, our series will follow his
5 chapters. The entire book is less than 40 pages total. We will simply offer 5 articles
of response, one to each of his chapters. That said, there are another nearly 30 pages
of appendixes. The first three are simply chapter 7 from the Second London,
Westminster, and Savoy. The last two are essays, one by Blackburn on typology and
one by pastor Kenneth Glisch on the progressive revelation of the covenant of grace.
The next three statements introduce us to the review of the book. To continue our
directly. His “Select Bibliography” includes neither Samuel Renihan (two key books,
Mystery of Christ and From Shadow to Substance), Pascal Denault (The Distinctiveness of
Baptist Covenant Theology, which largely set the stage for the recent articulation of the
position), nor Richard Barcellos (Getting the Garden Right and, especially, Recovering a
Covenantal Heritage). He does, at points, interact with some of these directly in the
body of the text, but it is sparse. Fourth, Blackburn largely works around the issues that
does not, in reality, work thoroughly through the question of whether the proposal of
relation to the old covenant as a covenant of works. He claims, several times, that the
position was an oddity in the theology of John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe. This must be
demonstrated, but he does not do so. The fifth point refers to the tone of the book. He
says, “the 1689 Federalism website mistakenly assumes the LBC teaches
question: ‘Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?’ The
answer kindly given is that LBC 7 ‘was written broadly enough to allow a variety of
views to equally confess it.’ Their attitude stems from a superior-minded sequence of
the Scriptures and Confession…” (p. 38). The only reason we bring up this quote is to
say that Blackburn’s work drips with sarcasm, condescension, and “superior-
mindedness.” The book is not written irenically. While our aim will be to offer a careful
Chapter 1: Introduction
After the personal background provided in the preface, this chapter opens with
the covenant of works (pp. 11-12). He states his desire that the term “covenant of
works” had itself been used in the Confession in chapters 6 and 7. This is followed with
unfolding of the covenants. “The first,” he says, “has been named the Substance
Administration view” while “the second regretfully has been named 1689
Federalism.” Why is it regretful? “This name is unfortunate for those (like me), who
unswervingly hold to the LBC and are staunch federalists, but strongly disagree with
certain points of the 1689 Federalist’s branding” (p. 12). The next page begins with a
note that John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe had a unique position that was only taken up
Next, Blackburn moves into his main discussion, namely, a consideration of the thesis
Federalism and a few other Reformed and Calvinistic evangelicals?” (p. 14). This is
developed his view from Gill, Calvin, Dagg, Howell, and Pink; and third, he says that
he believes the covenants of works and grace flow out of the pactum.
Response
What is our response to this first chapter? Since the first chapter is largely laying the
groundwork and providing historical background, there is not a lot to respond to.
However, there are a few issues to immediately point out. First, he says, “To my
knowledge, few 17th century Particular Baptists wrote on the position taken by (now
called) 1689 Federalism.” It may be true that “to [his] knowledge” this is the case, but
the content of what he says is not true. The key work he does not interact with in this
book is Samuel Renihan’s From Shadow to Substance, which is a standard work for
defining the historical origins of 1689 Federalism, nor does he substantively engage
the way people speak in sermons or on podcasts, but he never interacts directly with
that 1689 Federalists would use the term “republicationism,” but it is not often the
Third, and related to the previous two, there is this statement: “Careful attention
should be paid to Richard Gaffin’s observation that Republicationism is, ‘…a relatively
recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of
the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without
precedent in the history of Reformed theology’” (p. 13). Gaffin’s quotation could be
interacted with directly, as some could show that there is precedent for it. However,
we want to address the issue of this comment in the context of our Reformed Baptist
conversation. Much of the work that has been done recently has demonstrated, not
simply asserted, that this view does have precedent. The debate Blackburn is entering
into has been labeled by him with the name “Owen-Coxe” view, which indicates
precedent. The works named above (Renihan and Denault) seek to demonstrate quite
explicitly the precedent for Baptists. Consider, just this quote from no less a Baptist
forefather than Benjamin Keach: “The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-
Covenant, but a Covenant of Works. Thus Mr. Cary argues also. And thus we have
proved from God’s Word, and sound Arguments, that the Covenant of Circumcision
was not a Gospel-Covenant” (Keach, Rector Rectified, 56–57). This quotation wasn’t
“held onto” for this article even. It was taken almost at random. The main point is
simply that to treat this as something obscure, or unique to Owen and Coxe, is already