In this fourth article, we respond to the chapter “Objections to Republicationism” in our continued interaction with Earl Blackburn’s It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace. To recap, the important question appears in Chapter 1. Blackburn says, “For the purposes of this monograph, Republication hinges upon this question: Is the Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant a republication of the Covenant of works as it is supposedly taught by 1689 Federalism and a few other Reformed and Calvinistic evangelicals?” (p. 14).
The fourth chapter is his longest by far, amounting to more than half of the main text of his book. This chapter has seven objections, so the chapter may simply be easiest to summarize by listing those out. This article is about twice the length of our previous articles since the chapter is so lengthy.
“Republicationism does not take into full consideration the true nature of the Covenant of Works” (p. 25). By this, he seems to assume that 1689 Federalism simply asserts an absolute identity between the Sinaitic Covenant and the Covenant of Works.
Republication “confuses the issues.” To this, Blackburn has four sub-points.
“It confuses the nature of salvation and justification. Are salvation and justification by works, or by works and grace?” (p. 26) Those who hold to 1689 Federalism claim that the Siniatic covenant was a covenant of works for the land while affirming that a remnant is saved by receiving the promises (i.e., salvation by a coming Seed) by faith. Blackburn seems to conclude that these claims from 1689 Federalism confuse “works and grace.” One item to note here, though we are not yet responding to the chapter directly, is that he includes a large block quote from the late pastor Walt Chantry that seems to go directly against what he says in chapter 2 about distinguishing the moral law and the covenant of works (p. 27; cf. p. 18). (See our summary of/response to that chapter here).
“It confuses the nature of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace, as claimed by 1689 Federalism” (p. 28).
“Republicationism can potentially confuse people as to who is the federal head and representative of all humanity. Did the fallen Israelites have the same ability as unfallen Adam to keep God’s covenant? Was Israel’s eternal life dependent upon a perfect obedience as it was with Adam, or a sincere but imperfect obedience? If not, then how can Sinai be a republication of the Covenant of Works without it distorting the original Covenant of Works?” (p. 29)
“If the Covenant of Works is republished in the Sinaitic covenant, it has the subtle implication that once someone believes in Christ that person is not under the moral Law of God as a rule of life.” (p. 30)
Republicationism “obscures the original intent of why the Law was given at Mt. Sinai. . . it was initially given to show God’s people how to live in a pagan and heathen culture.” (p. 31)
“Republicationism is extremely inconsistent, to say the least” (p. 34).
“Not all the 17th century Particular Baptists embraced Republicationism. It has been erroneously claimed in writing that all our forefathers (allegedly following John Owen) believed in some form of Republicationism, and 1689 Federalism was the position of all 17th century Particular Baptists. Thankfully, the position of all has been modified to ‘the majority opinion of Particular Baptists’” (p. 37).
“Republicationism is neither evidently or noticeably spelled out in our Confession to any degree” (p. 40).
“Republicationism has too many close companions with other aberrant views. What one aberrant thread does Dispensationalism, New Perspective of [sic] Paul, Federal Vision, and New Covenant Theology have in common? The Mosaic or Sinaitic Covenant is a Covenant of Works” (p. 42).
Response
Because this chapter includes more content than the others, and because it is more directly concerned with critiquing ‘1689 Federalism,’ or what he calls ‘Republicationism,’ our response will necessarily be lengthier than our responses to the other chapters.
1) While there are ways he may be confused by the conversation about the covenant of works, it is actually not the case that the weight of the covenant of works with Adam is dismissed. While the Sinaitic covenant is, at bottom, a covenant of works (i.e., based on the stipulation, “do this and live”), it is not claimed to be the covenant of works. As Renihan says, “Based on the laws, the promises, and the threats of the covenant, the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan” (Mystery of Christ, p. 110). However, he continues,
The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of obedience for life in the land of Canaan. But it is not the original covenant of works made with Adam in the garden of Eden. The Mosaic Covenant echoes Adam’s covenant in Eden and revives the Covenant of Works in key ways, but it is not the same covenant. The place is different, the parties are different, the promises are different, and the positive laws are entirely different. The threats, though, are very different. The threats of the Mosaic Covenant demonstrate one aspect of the kindness of this covenant. In Adam’s covenant, he was threatened with immediate and complete condemnation if he disobeyed. It was an all or nothing arrangement dealing with perfect absolute righteousness. In the Mosaic Covenant, God makes demands of obedience and threatens curses based on Israel’s performance, but there are many things about the Mosaic Covenant that make it a kinder covenant than Adam’s covenant (p. 111).
2) Blackburn's accusations of confusion stem from a lack of engagement with good source material. For instance, many of charges are answered and explained in Renihan's From Shadow to Substance, not to mention other works representing the position.
2.1) Our response to the question about grace and/or works is, quite simply, we believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We distinguish between salvation in the covenant of grace, which is by grace alone through faith alone, and what is going on in the Mosaic covenant, which required obedience in order to stay in the land of Israel even though it pointed to Christ and the covenant of grace. Since we do not simply collapse the Mosaic Covenant into the covenant of grace, we have not confused the issues. For a clear affirmation of justification by faith alone, simply read the “republicationist” Benjamin Keach’s Marrow of True Justification.
2.2) It is strange that he would deny that the new covenant is “the” covenant of grace. Are we to assume that the saints of the Old Testament were saved by a different covenant? Not only that, we confess specifically that, “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and today and for ever” (2LBCF 8.6). The benefit of Christ’s work extends backward to all who looked with the eyes of faith upon those types and shadows that made up the old covenant’s picture of the Christ who was to come, and believed in him.
2.3) Our response to this section can be seen in the quotes from Samuel Renihan above.
2.4) As mentioned above, it is not clear how Blackburn sees a denial of “the moral Law of God as a rule of life” to be a danger if we affirm a distinction between moral law and covenants.
3) In section 3, Blackburn quotes Pink saying,
What was the nature and design of that covenant? Did God mock His fallen creatures by formally renewing the (Adamic) covenant of works, which they had already broken, under the curse of which all by nature lay, and which He knew they could not keep for a single hour? Such a question answers itself. Or did God do with Israel then as He does with His people now; first redeem, and then put them under the law as a rule of life, a standard of conduct (A. W. Pink, The Divine Covenants, 142, quoted in Blackburn, p. 33).
Here, Blackburn is treating the Mosaic covenant like it is purely within the third use of the law. But he cuts Pink off. Pink continues shortly after this statement by saying,
There is no doubt in my mind that many have been led astray when considering the typical teaching of Israel’s history and the antitype in the experience of Christians, by failing to duly note the contrasts as well as the comparisons between them. It is true that God’s deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt blessedly foreshadowed the redemption of His elect from sin and Satan; yet let it not be forgotten that the majority of those who were emancipated from Pharaoh’s slavery perished in the wilderness, not being suffered to enter the promised land. Nor are we left to mere reasoning at this point: it is placed upon the inspired record that ‘behold, the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant. . .’ (Heb. 8:8, 9). Thus we have divine authority for saying that God’s dealings with Israel at Sinai were not a parallel with His dealings with His people under the gospel, but a contrast!
Blackburn says that Pink called Witsius’s mixed covenant view “plausible” but erroneous and, actually highly dangerous (Blackburn p. 33). But is this what Pink says? No. He actually says that insofar as Witsius’s view that the Sinaitic covenant was neither the covenant of works, nor the covenant of grace, “but a national covenant which presupposed them both” and that it promised both temporal and eternal blessings, it was “So far so good” (Pink p. 143). Pink was very specific in what he was rejecting. He rejected the idea that the covenant allowed for sincere but imperfect obedience.
To see someone walking through many texts from earlier writers, including Gill and Pink, feel free to take a look at Brandon Adams’ website.
At several points, Blackburn speaks of republicationism as including the idea of “sincere, albeit imperfect” obedience. However, consider, again, the fact that an actual text representing our view (Samuel Renihan’s From Shadow to Substance quoting Nehemiah Coxe’s Discourse of the Covenants), includes this statement: “Though God vouchesafed ‘for the Ensurance of the Promises. . .a strict and intire Obedience to his Precepts is required in order to the Inheritance of the good things that were to be given by this Covenant” (Renihan, p. 247, emphasis original). Likewise, in The Mystery of Christ, Renihan says, “God never changed his standard of justice. The law never became more lenient, but the sacrifices accounted for Israel’s sin and provided a way of atonement” (p. 114).
4) While he calls “republicationism” inconsistent, it is not clear that he has interacted honestly with the literature. He largely seems to miss the distinction labeled “two-level typology” by Samuel Renihan, who explains how it is present in the earlier Baptists and gives language to what we are trying to affirm today.
5) While Blackburn admits that the claim to ‘exclusivity’ has been modified to ‘majority,’ the fact that he opens with the claim is misleading. Again, the fact that he does not interact with any works directly makes it difficult to know who he is referring to, but, for the sake of argument, we will assume that he is referring to Pascal Denault (Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology). The problem here is that Denault modified his claim in 2017, which was six years ago. Not only that, he fully acknowledges the change as one of the very first things he mentions in his “Forward to the Revised Edition” (p. 19).
Further, while he includes a long quote from Robert Steed, three things are worth noting. First, Renihan interacts with Steed plenty in From Shadow to Substance and helps us to understand more clearly what is going on in the context of credobaptist–paedobaptist polemics (esp. pp. 138–147). Second, in the quote Blackburn himself uses, Steed calls the old covenant “altogether of another nature” than the new covenant (Blackburn, 39). Third, in the sentence just after what Blackburn quotes, Steed calls the covenant of circumcision a “ministering” covenant in distinction from the new covenant (Steed, 13), which coincides with what we find elsewhere in writers who use the language of “subservient” covenant. Again, see Renihan for a more thorough presentation of Steed.
6) There are several responses to Blackburn’s statements in this section. First, he asks several times why the view is “not clear in our Confession” (p. 40-41). He assumes that it would be foisted upon all by the majority. He says, “It would have been easy for the supposed majority to amend its final publication at the London General Assembly in 1689 and have their position clearly stated in the LBC” (p. 41). Is this how Confessions work? Are they the simple enforcement of majority opinion on all and the exclusion of others? Is it not rather that confessions serve as consensus documents?
Second, at several points, he repeats paedobaptists saying that “republication doctrine” was a minority in the Reformed community, and he even quotes Letham saying, “no version of this doctrine was adopted by any Reformed confession” (Blackburn, p. 40). The issue here is twofold. First, Letham also denies the covenant of redemption and claims that it was not included in any Reformed confession, obviously excluding the Savoy and, even more obvious and important here, the Second London. Second, a minority in the Reformed community is not what we are dealing with; we are dealing with what the majority opinion of the Particular Baptist community was. Is it true that congregationalism was a majority or minority among the Reformed community? Is it true that credobaptism was a majority or minority among the Reformed community? Is it true that a requirement of ordination for public proclamation of the Word was the majority or minority in the Reformed community? There are many areas where we can point to “majorities” and “minorities” within the Reformed community broadly considered, but we are focused on the Baptists (or “baptistic congregationalists”).
Third, and this could be in reference to either his fifth point or his sixth, his dismissal of the idea of reading “with the right glasses on” dismisses a very important aspect of hermeneutics (as a general discipline, not just in biblical interpretation). He mentions a few people, like Owen and Coxe, who may have held to the view he is rejecting. He asks if “anyone earnestly reading the LBC” would ever come to these positions. The problem, of course, is that Owen was a major influence on the thinking behind those who constructed the Savoy Declaration, the immediate parent document to the Second London. Goodwin, another major influence, held to basically the same position, as seen in his Of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation (Works 6.354-58; begins at the bottom of p. 600 in Monergism version). Coxe was, it has been strongly suggested, the primary editor of the Second London Confession. If we dismiss their views as though they have no bearing on how we understand the phrasing and terminology of the Confession, we are being naïve at best. We must do this with earlier documents like the Nicene Creed as well. We do not (or ought not to) read it and come to the conclusion that the Son is lesser than the Father, and the Spirit is lesser than the Father and the Son, or that there is not one will, one power, one authority. Proponents of all sorts of different Trinitarian positions might claim that no one “earnestly reading” the Creed would come to our conclusions. We can make logical arguments, but we could also make historical ones in which we say, “Look, the men that put this together mean these things by these words.”
Fourth, and this is to more simply point out another way in which Blackburn does not seem to be pursuing consistency. He includes a large quote from Samuel Bolton. However, Bolton appreciated and affirmed John Cameron’s arguments, as seen in, again, Samuel Renihan’s From Shadow to Substance. To be fair at this point, Blackburn does admit in a footnote that he is aware of this and simply agrees with these earlier statements by Bolton.
7) The most obvious response we can make to his last point is that guilt by association is a bad argument. We could make a number of counterarguments to one’s covenant theology due to some guilt by association, but that would be poor argumentation.
In our next article, we will conclude this response to Blackburn’s Critique by looking at his short chapter 5, entitled, “Pastoral Observations & Concerns.”
