This is our final article interacting with Earl M. Blackburn’s It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace: A Critique of 1689 Federalism. While there are appendices to the book, we have decided only to interact with the main content. In his final chapter, Blackburn offers five “Pastoral Observations & Concerns” regarding what he has called “Republicationism.” This chapter is a little under three pages, so our article will be short.
Blackburn is concerned that later generations of Reformed Baptists will reject the perpetuity of the moral law. He claims “already some Republicationists are rejecting, or leaning toward rejecting, the validity of the moral law as a rule of life for the Christian” (p. 45).
Blackburn is concerned that “Unbiblical Republicationism has latent within it incipient Dispensationalism!” (p. 46).
Blackburn believes that “Making the Old Testament covenants typological seriously denigrates the relevance and importance for the Old Testament Believers” and that “it undermines the relevance of the Old Testament for believers” today (p. 46).
Blackburn says “Republicationism” and “1689 Federalism” will not, largely, “convert paedobaptists to credobaptists” (pp. 46–47).
Finally, Blackburn says, “do not depreciate and rate me (and other non-Republicationists) as second-class, less-enlightened 20th century confessional Reformed Baptists, with paedobaptist glasses, and those who embrace Republicationism as first-class, more-enlightened 21st century confessional Reformed Baptists, with Particular Baptist glasses” (p. 47).
Response
The personal and pastoral nature of this last chapter requires a little more subjectivity in our response as well. We will respond point-by-point, but we recognize that such responses could be “countered” by other experiences, just as Blackburn’s.
We have not met 1689 Federalists who “reject the perpetuity of the moral law.” In fact, because 1689 Federalism makes a clear distinction between the moral law and positive laws, and allows the latter especially to define the covenants, it has been easier for 1689 Federalists to both maintain the perpetuity of the moral law and resist the arguments of Theonomy. By making a distinction within the Mosaic Covenant, we have been able to answer the question, “why do these remain and not those.”
It would take a lot of work for Blackburn to show that 1689 Federalism has incipient dispensationalism, and it is hard to understand what he means by this. The claims of 1689 Federalism are that there is clear distinction between the old and new covenants. The natural seed of Abraham who believe the promise are among the spiritual seed that make up the one people of the new covenant. There is one people—the spiritual—in the new covenant, so the “Israel-church” distinction that defines dispensationalism does not carry over to 1689 Federalism.
We do not believe that recognizing the types of the old covenant made the OT irrelevant or unimportant. What it did, instead, was draw the eyes of believers to the Christ who was to come, thus ensuring that their faith and ours are the same faith with the same object. It is difficult to know how Blackburn’s critique at this point would not apply to the book of Hebrews.
The question of whether or not it would “convert paedobaptists to credobaptists” is one that we will have to see. What we can say, from our own experience, is that it has helped to guard credobaptists who discover the doctrines of grace and covenant theology from becoming paedobaptists. We know, to go back to a previous point, people who had been dispensationalist or New Covenant Theology (Progressive Covenantalists) who were helped to ‘come over’ to the RB fold because of 1689 Federalism. Will it “convert” paedobaptists? Perhaps. We have found that the “normal” arguments about the regulative principle and the definitions and examples of the New Testament have often been the means by which paedobaptists are moved. What 1689 Federalism does, though, is give a covenant theology undergirding to why the OT community and NT community look different (i.e., why circumcise infants but not baptize them). Renihan’s Mystery of Christ offers some of these connections in the opening chapters.
Our disagreement with the position of Blackburn, and others who agree with him, is not intended to be degrading. We do believe that our position is more faithful (biblically), and more consistent Baptist theology (confessionally). Because of that, we will make our arguments. While we should all be careful not to degrade other positions (something Blackburn does often in his book), it is important that we do not simply allow what we believe to be error to be treated the same as what we believe to be the truth of the Word.
We hope this series has been useful for others.