I recently read a book—generously given by a friend—that critiques the covenant theology framework I hold. As someone who has spent several years reading the key proponents of 1689 Federalism, I approached the book with interest but also with a fair degree of familiarity with the position it sought to challenge.

From that standpoint, I found Blackburn's work to be a significant misreading of 1689 Federalism, particularly as it has been carefully articulated by figures like Nehemiah Coxe, John Owen, Pascal Denault, Richard Barcellos, Jeff Johnson, and the Renihans (Jim and Sam).1 The theological and historical nuance present in these writers seemed either overlooked or flattened in Blackburn's presentation.

To my surprise—and relief—I discovered that Baptist Dogmatics has already offered a thorough response to the book. Given the strength and clarity of that reply, I see no pressing need to write my own critique. I'm grateful that others have taken up the task of engaging with the arguments, ensuring that the richness and integrity of the 1689 Federalist framework are fairly represented and defended.

Below are the links to the five-part critique of Earl Blackburn's It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace: A Critique of 1689 Federalism and pertinent quotes from each chapter (of Baptist Dogmatics) that are worth considering whether Blackburn has truly provided a substantial critique of 1689 Federalism (note: all quotes are from Baptist Dogmatics, not Blackburn):

Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 1

"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 Denault's Distinctiveness. This is closely related to another issue. Blackburn laments the way people speak in sermons or on podcasts, but he never interacts directly with the key published works."

"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).

Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 2

Blackburn's argument here is actually quite fascinating, not because we disagree, but because it seems to further evidence a lack of substantive engagement with published (i.e., written and printed) 1689 Federalist material. S. Renihan says, "As Coxe had laid out previously, covenants do not arise from man's natural relation to God, nor is man's obedience inherently meritorious. The covenant of works was introduced by God in a positive command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Samuel Renihan, From Shadow to Substance, 233–34).

In a real sense, this chapter seems like a red herring because it implies that it is addressing a disagreement that is not actually present between his view and ours.

Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 3

The covenant of grace is revealed in the various promises stretching back to the protoevangelium. He "interpret[s] our Confession through the lens" of his predetermined conclusions (to borrow his own accusation [p. 21, n. 16]). When he asks for an uncomplicated explanation, then, our response is to simply say that we mean what the words say: The covenant of grace is revealed in the gospel; this gospel revelation is progressive; this progressive revelation of the covenant of grace comes to its completion in the new covenant.

Blackburn's claim that we do not affirm earlier covenants were real (or "actual" or "bona fide"). This is simply untrue. We do not deny that these covenants are real. God really made a covenant with Abraham, with Israel, with David.

Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 4

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?… 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.

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.

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.

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). (emphasis mine)

Blackburn's "Critique," Chapter 5

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… so the "Israel-church" distinction that defines dispensationalism does not carry over to 1689 Federalism.

It wouldn't take long for anyone to read Blackburn's book—it's just 80 pages, including the appendix. But brevity aside, what's truly lacking is the depth of engagement with the position he critiques. I would argue that Blackburn does not offer a substantial or fair critique of 1689 Federalism. His arguments often lean on misrepresentations or oversimplifications, which unfortunately have been picked up and echoed by others who are similarly dismissive of the position.

It's disappointing to see how some of the arguments presented in the book have been used—not to engage thoughtfully—but to caricature and marginalize 1689 Federalism. Rather than presenting it as a historically grounded and theologically rigorous covenantal system (which it is), critics often portray it as confused or inconsistent. This not only misleads readers unfamiliar with the tradition but also hinders meaningful theological dialogue among those seeking to understand the Reformed Baptist heritage.

Footnotes

  1. Visit the official website: https://www.1689federalism.com/. Brandon Adam's blog helps readers to have a fair and accurate grasp of this view: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/ ↩