# The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2009)

Upon opening a book with solid construction (for a paperback), exceeding 500 pages, with glossary, bibliography and indices, and disclosing to a quick glance a large number of footnotes, a certain comfortable feeling arises that here one has come across a book which will be intelligent, informative, interesting - especially when the cover design is tastefully understated in shades of brown. The title and the table of contents reinforce this delightful impression. So that I began to read Robert Letham's book, _The Holy Trinity_, with some pretty high expectations, especially given the almost universal praise I had heard for the book. Unfortunately, it did not take long for those expectations to be disappointed, and to continue to be disappointed, time and again throughout the book. The chapter on "Trinity, Creation and Missions" was a respectably good chapter - but to get there one has had to get through 18 preceding chapters, a preface and an introduction, and the expectancy of delight and learning is too long gone to be recovered.

Part One, on Biblical foundations for the doctrine of the Trinity was neither terrible nor brilliant; not as thorough as some treatments, nor as incisive as others. Part Four and the Appendices (with the previously mentioned exception of the chapter on "Trinity, Creation and Missions") were largely unremarkable. I don't think there is much question as to Letham's own orthodoxy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. His ambivalence towards the _filioque_ clause is unfortunate, and of course as someone who subscribes the Westminster Confession of Faith he is not free to be Orthodox rather than Catholic on this point; but that is not a matter for this review. It is in parts two and three that the book most clearly reveals a fundamental weakness, although this weakness appears already in the preface, in the misguided and misleading way that Letham treats previous teachers of the doctrine of the Trinity.

In Part Two Letham discusses historical treatments of the doctrine of the Trinity, going from "Early Trinitarianism" to "John Calvin" and Part Three proceeds to "Modern Discussion," covering Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, Pannenberg, Bulgakov, Lossky, Staniloae and Torrance. And it is here that the ominous hints of the preface and introduction came to their bitter fulfilment in a thoroughly inadequate treatment of those who preceded Letham in writing books on the Trinity. To be clear, the problem is not that he distorts what authors said. As far as I could tell his summaries of them are reasonably accurate, though mostly unilluminating as they tend to be renditions of each teacher's vocabulary without much explanation or contextualisation. The objectionable parts are not so much what could be considered the book reports that make up a large portion of this book, as the evaluations given to the books once they've been reported on: and when it comes to that, there are grave problems which made reading this book a very frustrating experience.

There is a problem with Letham's grasp of some of his material. It would be my preference to say that Letham is nescient of certain points, but given his willingness to go into print with remarks about historical figures whose works are not that hard to obtain I cannot refrain from using the stronger term, ignorant. Letham displays either ignorance of or a failure to understand theologians one would have thought he would be better acquainted with. Consider this, from the preface (pp. ix,x): 
Sadly, since the time of Calvin, little of significance has been contributed to the development of Trinitarian doctrine by conservative Reformed theologians. John Owen and Jonathan Edwards both wrote on the Trinity, and Owen's treatise Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is without peer in its treatment of communion with the three persons, but they did not contribute anything significant to the advancement of the doctrine. This dearth is evident from the lack of such sources quoted in this book, and it is in keeping with the neglect of the Trinity, until recently, in the entire Western church.​First of all, a glance at the bibliography will reveal that there are many sources which were not quoted: the fact that Letham reveals scant acquaintance with, for instance, Thomas Goodwin's works cannot be construed as evidence that Goodwin didn't write about the Trinity (there is a reference to Goodwin's exposition of Ephesians on p.512). 
Secondly, Reformed theology is Trinitarian, so it can hardly be said that the Reformed have neglected the Trinity. Soteriology is an area of doctrine on which the Reformed have always laid tremendous emphasis, but it is a fact it would be rather difficult to conceal that Reformed soteriology is Trinitarian in structure. This is seen, for instance, in so accessible and classical a source as the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, VIII.5,8; X.1.
Thirdly, it is precisely in Reformed circles that the doctrine of the covenant of redemption was developed, and short of denying the truth of the covenant of redemption there seems no way not to consider it an advance in our doctrine of the Trinity.

Another point which might seem frustrating, but probably is good in the long run, is that he skips from Calvin directly to Karl Barth. This is quite a gap, as it neglects an enormous horde of Reformed theologians who occupied the interim, and whose contribution to Trinitarian theology it seems foolhardy to ignore or dismiss; but given how his treatment of other beloved figures made my blood pressure rise, his omission here might have prevented my early death from stroke.

I puzzled for some time over the attitude that seemed to lie behind the willingness to charge almost anyone with falling into or tending towards almost any error. (E.g., the remark on p.255 that Calvin's comments on 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 "have a definitely Nestorian ring to them", which is followed on p. 256 by the statement "It is as if...he has momentarily lost his grasp of the union of the two natures of the incarnate Christ.") It seems that this tendency is part of modern scholarship, which like the script writers for Mexican soap operas, must have conflict somewhere or it cannot rest content. But this was fundamentally disappointing to me, because our visions of the history of the church on this point are ultimately incompatible. When I look back to teachers on the Trinity, I see a broad stream of teachers who upheld and taught the Biblical faith with regard to God: to some it was given to make remarkable advances in terminology, to crush error, to clarify our conceptions; some maintained what they had been given and held it fast; some made suggestions that are to be distinguished from positive teaching, and in the pressure upon them some may have made careless remarks. But by and large you have a succession of men who, faced with the same Biblical data, derived very similar and very appropriate conclusions. Letham, on the other hand, seems to see a chaotic, jumbled mass of people striving in opposite directions, often getting it wrong, in bondage from their predecessor's mistakes, and rarely agreeing. Although honorable mention goes out to Athanasius, Calvin and Torrance, the overall impression is that almost everyone was wrong somewhere, but particularly the West. These methodological and attitudinal problems come to very clear expression in his treatment of Aquinas.

Letham criticizes Aquinas for separating his treatment of the one God from his treatment of the triune God (pp.4, 229, 253). Consider the following (p.230):
In part 1a [of the Summa Theologica -RZ], he discussed the one God in questions 2-26, while only with question 27 does he turn to the Trinity. Aquinas follows the tradition established by Augustine in proceeding from the axiomatic basis of the one divine essence. He does discuss the persons and their relations at length, for this is where the problem for Aquinas lies.​Now that this should be levelled as a criticism seems rather fantastic (that it is a criticism becomes quite clear on p.292 where this sort of separation is said to foster a misconception). For one thing, it is necessary to begin discussion somewhere. Unless we are to read multiple columns of print at one and the same time, human limitations demand that we discuss the doctrine of God in some kind of order. Beginning with the essence is logical, because the essence is common to all three Persons, and so what is true of the essence (as immutability, eternity, and so forth) will be true of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And Letham has already observed that the reason Aquinas starts with the one divine essence is that the unity of God is a truth of natural religion. It could also be pointed out that the Scriptures themselves come to a clear statement of the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) before they come to a comparably clear statement of the triunity of God (Isaiah 48:16). 
Letham also claims that in Aquinas the persons "are reduced to relations" (pp.345,346). It seems to me that this overlooks the fact that Aquinas conceives of these relations as subsistent (see _Summa Theologica_, Part 1, Question 29, Article 4).

Such criticisms could be multiplied; however, since it is impossible to submit an invoice for the time spent reading the book, it seems best not to multiply the time spent reviewing it. One additional example is appended, to demonstrate that there are serious problems with the book. Even Letham's praise of Calvin is wrongheaded. On p. 253 he writes: "...we gather that the Trinity is his doctrine of God. It contains nothing expressly on God other than a section on the Trinity." If that were true, this would be quite a condemnation of Calvin. Consider the words of one of the numerous Reformed theologians Letham thought best to bypass, James Durham (in The Ten Commandments):


> It [the first commandment -RZ] requires the right knowledge of God; for there can be no true worship given to him, there can be right thought or conception of him, or faith in him, till he be known: He must be known to be one God in essence, and three persons. He must be known in his attributes and essential properties, infiniteness, immenseness, unchangeableness, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, wisdom, goodness, justice and faithfulness. He must also be known in his special works, whereby his sovereignty and majesty appears; as his works of creation, providence, redemption, and what concerns it; as the covenant of grace, and its terms; the Mediator, and his offices. No service or worship can be offered to God, nor can we have any ground of faith in him, without some measure of distinct knowledge of these.



To conclude, if one is already familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity, this book will add little to that familiarity beyond some summaries of certain books; and if one is not familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity, there are better places to begin.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 12, 2009)

Why do you think your review is so different from everyone else?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2009)

It could well be because I'm just contrary.
But I think there is probably a difference in expectations. Someone who accepts that scholars ought to be taken seriously solely because they are scholars is presumably not going to be as frustrated by that as I am. Maybe I'm lacking charity myself here, but it seems to me that a desire for notoriety through novelty, agenda-driven criticism, a lack of charity towards those who aren't around to defend themselves, and an inability to understand things in any terms other than those of conflict are more important engines in large swaths of modern scholarship than real learning or love of the truth. If you think it's a good thing that Letham would have gotten bad grades for ignoring Gunton or LaCugna or Torrance or Bobrinskoy then you won't mind that he wasted space discussing their views. But when I see how dull many creative works are, it's no surprise that derivative works are often worthless, and therefore properly to be ignored.
I also think that puffing books on dust jackets or covers or reviews is something that has become so accepted that it's a matter of course, and inevitably leads to an inflation of language; which means that few commendations have the weight of Owen praising Guthrie, or Hervey lauding Marshall.
I have also noticed that some contemporary Reformed seem sympathetic to Orthodoxy, and that is very distressing to me, because such sympathy is dangerous to the unstable among us, disgusting because it undervalues our Catholic heritage for something which is no better, and despicable because it treats the _filioque_ clause as unimportant.
On specific issues, I like Aquinas; think that if Barth had a profound and urgent message he would have found a way to state it clearly and briefly (like indisputably brilliant theologians before him had done with their vital doctrines); don't think we need a distinctively contemporary treatment of every topic; and believe that "of making many books there is no end" is not a challenge to publishers. On all of those points I suspect I'm in a tiny minority.
I recognize, of course, that the fact that I recommend against the book hardly counterbalances the people who recommend for it; but I hope that if people do read the book they will go back to the sources and see that the criticisms are sometimes wrong, and the praise sometimes misguided. (E.g., Letham states that Warfield toyed with but "happily" rejected the supposedly modalistic idea that some aspects of the relationship between the Father and the Son are due to a covenant between them, rather than being reflective of ontological realities; but the doctrine of federal transactions between the persons is pretty clearly not modalistic, as it requires distinctions deep and real enough to create the possibility of a pact between two parties! Owen, whom Letham praises for his work on communion with the Trinity, maintains the very point we are told Warfield rejected quite strongly in his Excercitation on federal transactions between the Father and the Son.)


----------

