Another New Systematic Theology on the Way

[bookslover]

Cruising through the new Crossway catalog, I noticed that there will be a new, one-volume systematic theology written by Robert Letham. The official publication date is November 19, 2019. About 750 pages. List price is $50, if I remember rightly.

Letham, who will be 72 four days before the official publication date, is an interesting writer, so this book should be an instructive one to read.

The STs just keep on coming. . .

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am looking forward to this one, though he is a bit too anti-Thomist and pro-EO for my liking. If I am not mistaken, he has some leanings towards ESS or EFS. Still, "Good old Bob" as he is known is always interesting to read.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Letham also was part of the defense of Peter Leithart in his trial and argued for a sort of baptismal regeneration in the Westminster Standards, as I recall.

Regardless, I did enjoy his book on the Trinity, minus a few minor quibbles, and he is always an engaging writer. It will be very interesting to read how he sets forth some of the more controversial loci.

 

[Dachaser]

I am looking forward to this one, though he is a bit too anti-Thomist and pro-EO for my liking. If I am not mistaken, he has some leanings towards ESS or EFS. Still, "Good old Bob" as he is known is always interesting to read.

Just curious as to waht those labels stand for?

 

[arapahoepark]

Just curious as to waht those labels stand for?

Eo=eastern orthodox
Ess/efs= eternal subordination of the son/eternal functional subordination

 

[RamistThomist]

I also think he rejects the Pactum Salutis.

That said, i like Letham.

 

[Dachaser]

Eo=eastern orthodox
Ess/efs= eternal subordination of the son/eternal functional subordination

So he would be in agreement with Dr Grudem views on Trinity expressed in his ST?

 

[RamistThomist]

So he would be in agreement with Dr Grudem views on Trinity expressed in his ST?

I don't want to speak before it's released, but I don't think they are saying exactly the same thing. Letham has read enough of the Church Fathers to know that they spoke of a taxis within the Trinity. Grudem, unfortunately, reads it as an ontological hierarchy instead of a grammatical one. Though I think now Grudem has backed away from that claim.

 

[User20004000]

So much stated about Letham in this thread is simply incorrect. He’s his own man and nuanced. (Though the age assessment seems about right.)

The book will be tremendous.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I do not see anything wildly inaccurate about what has been said above concerning Robert Letham's positions. In his book The Holy Trinity, he argues for a form of eternal subordinationism (probably closer to Mike Ovey's EFS than Wayne Grudem's ESS, but I am not sure) in his response to Kevin Giles (see page 495).

This point is also related to what Jacob says concerning the pactum salutis because Bob does not see the submission of the Son in terms of his economic role as the mediator of the covenant of grace/redemption, but defines it as "the obedience of the incarnate Son in the economy of salvation, reflecting his eternal relation to the Father in loving submission, in identity of being and equality of status." He then goes on to criticise B. B. Warfield for defining the Son's submission in terms of the eternal covenant "between the persons of the Trinity by which the Son submitted himself temporarily to the Father, intending to abandon such submission upon the completion of our salvation." (p. 401)

In the same volume, he also alleges that Thomas Aquinas "failed to challenge Islam at its roots." (p. 446) He also accuses Aquinas of having "a strong bias in a modalist direction" and that "his powerful doctrine of the simplicity of God drastically inhibits his Trinitarianism." (p. 236)

As for giving evidence of his Eastern Orthodox sympathies in both this book and the book on Eastern Orthodoxy itself, you may as well ask me to supply you with evidence that Lionel Messi has ever scored a goal or that Hillary Clinton has ever deleted an e-mail.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is a summary of Letham's critique of the Pactum Salutis from his book on the Westminster Assembly (though I don't have page numbers). While he doesn’t note the problem of person, if person does not include mind (which is usually subsumed under nature), then does it make sense to speak of three individuals who all share the same mind making an agreement?

 

[User20004000]

I'll interact with some various quotes...

“I do not see anything wildly inaccurate about what has been said above concerning Robert Letham's positions.”​

I’m not sure what “wildly inaccurate” means. Accordingly, I cannot try to show that anything that was said was “wildly inaccurate.” What I will try to do is show that several remarks were “simply incorrect.” Again, RL “is his own man and nuanced.”

“anti-Thomist and pro-EO for my liking”​

Give the breadth of Thomas, it’s hard not to be opposed to Thomas on some things. Similarly, it’s unimaginable that a Christian can agree with him on all things. Fair enough?

So, although one can build a case that RL should not be construed as "anti-Thomas,” the subjective nature of “for my liking” makes it seemingly impossible to persuade those who feel that he is. Accordingly, I would think that any burden of proof would be on showing how RL is anti-Thomas? Of course, if he is anti-Thomas on matters in which Thomas is at odds with the Reformed tradition, then those observations mustn't be taken as too “anti-Thomas… for my liking” from anyone who affirms the Reformed tradition. So, I’d be curious to know where RL is anti-Thomas on matters in which Thomas agrees with the Reformed tradition. In other words, why would anyone who is Reformed think RL is too anti-Thomas?

Regarding his “pro-EO” position, to affirm EO wherever it’s in line with historic catholicity is not to be too “pro-EO” (at least from the perspective of anyone who holds to the Reformed tradition). Yet it’s easy to see where RL is not pro-EO due to their departure from evangelical soteriology along with their tendencies toward tri-theism and subordinationism.

“If I am not mistaken, he has some leanings towards ESS or EFS.”​

This is totally false.

“Letham also was part of the defense of Peter Leithart in his trial and argued for a sort of baptismal regeneration in the Westminster Standards, as I recall.”​

RL was called as an expert witness. No more. No less.

He rejects baptismal regeneration and I would defy anyone to bring forth even a single bit of writing that suggests otherwise. Moreover, he does not locate baptismal regeneration in the Standards. What he recognizes (and has referenced) is the intramural debate that took place among the Divines. Yet without ambiguity he affirms with the Confession the distinction between the sign and the thing signified.

“I also think he rejects the Pactum Salutis.”​

Again false. RL rejects certain formulations of the covenant of redemption – in other words, how it is often portrayed or thought of. He is rightly jealous to guard against any notion that might imply that the Three Persons have three distinct wills (as opposed to one undivided will) that required entering an agreement; or that the Holy Spirit was left out of an eternal compact between the two other divine persons. He has no problem affirming the biblical doctrine that sometimes is tagged by the term. He positively affirms that redemption is according to the eternal counsel of the triune God.

 

[User20004000]

Daniel,

Can you help me out here?

Bob does not see the submission of the Son in terms of his economic role as the mediator of the covenant of grace/redemption, but defines it as "the obedience of the incarnate Son in the economy of salvation, reflecting his eternal relation to the Father in loving submission, in identity of being and equality of status."​

How are those two positions contradictory? The incarnate Son is the one mediator between God and man. And, it was fitting that the Son be sent by the Father given their respective personal properties of paternity and generation.

 

[User20004000]

“In his book The Holy Trinity, he argues for a form of eternal subordinationism (probably closer to Mike Ovey's EFS than Wayne Grudem's ESS, but I am not sure) in his response to Kevin Giles (see page 495).”​

Giles now has nothing but praise for RL on the matter. I’m confident that Giles now understands what had been clearly stated by RL all along.

 

[RamistThomist]

but defines it as "the obedience of the incarnate Son in the economy of salvation, reflecting his eternal relation to the Father in loving submission, in identity of being and equality of status."

As I understand Daniel and RL, the submission in the economy reflects a submission in the being. Now, the last clause hedges his bets by "identity of being and equality of status," but it is not clear how that isn't in tension with the economy reflecting the being.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So much stated about Letham in this thread is simply incorrect.

I’m not sure what “wildly inaccurate” means. Accordingly, I cannot try to show that anything that was said was “wildly inaccurate.” What I will try to do is show that several remarks were “simply incorrect.”

Whether we use wildly inaccurate or simply incorrect is deflecting from the point. When someone uses "simply incorrect" one could be forgiven for thinking that said person is claiming that everyone else is flat out wrong. I believe that such an assertion is highly questionable.

Give the breadth of Thomas, it’s hard not to be opposed to Thomas on some things. Similarly, it’s unimaginable that a Christian can agree with him on all things. Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough. I was referring specifically to Thomism in relation to theology proper.

Regarding his “pro-EO” position, to affirm EO wherever it’s in line with historic catholicity is not to be too “pro-EO” (at least from the perspective of anyone who holds to the Reformed tradition). Yet it’s easy to see where RL is not pro-EO due to their departure from evangelical soteriology along with their tendencies toward tri-theism and subordinationism.

His sympathies for Eastern Orthodoxy is something over which reasonable people can agree to differ. My personal opinion is that he is not critical enough of the Eastern Orthodox, though I have read Through Western Eyes twice and recommend it as a useful introduction to the subject.

“If I am not mistaken, he has some leanings towards ESS or EFS.”
This is totally false.

It is not totally false. I have posted references to his writings that clearly lean in that direction. If you wish to dispute the accuracy of such quotations, then feel free to do so. But I would encourage you to desist from making what seems like unsubstantiated claims that we are spreading complete falsehoods. There is a difference between legitimately disagreeing about an author's meaning and saying something that is totally false.

How are those two positions contradictory? The incarnate Son is the one mediator between God and man. And, it was fitting that the Son be sent by the Father given their respective personal properties of paternity and generation.

He does not limit the submission of the Son to his economic role as mediator of the covenant of grace. Those of us who disagree with EFS/ESS believe that the submission of the Son is mediatorial rather than according to the personal properties. I, however, do not go as far as some opponents of EFS/ESS and recognise that it is not heretical to employ such language.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

“In his book The Holy Trinity, he argues for a form of eternal subordinationism (probably closer to Mike Ovey's EFS than Wayne Grudem's ESS, but I am not sure) in his response to Kevin Giles (see page 495).”​

Giles now has nothing but praise for RL on the matter. I’m confident that Giles now understands what had been clearly stated by RL all along.

Just out of interest, where does Kevin Giles praise Bob?

 

[User20004000]

As I understand Daniel and RL, the submission in the economy reflects a submission in the being. Now, the last clause hedges his bets by "identity of being and equality of status," but it is not clear how that isn't in tension with the economy reflecting the being.

A will of concomitance is in view. That’s key. It’s my opinion that it’s somewhat a misnomer to call it “submission” given that the Son perfectly desires what the Father desires. (Numerically one will ordered in the modes of subsistence.) Notwithstanding, given that the Son is “sent” by the Father, what shall we then call it in the happy land of the Trinity (to borrow from Fred Sanders)?

 

[User20004000]

Just out of interest, where does Kevin Giles praise Bob?

Daniel,

At least here Giles lumps him in with Giles’ assessment of Trinitarian orthodoxy. See footnote 2. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

I doubt he would have done that years ago.

There was still some disagreement when RL wrote the forward to a more recent book of Giles’. But if memory serves, I recently read on line in I believe an excerpt from some book or paper that Giles now knows of no disagreements he has with RL on the Trinity. I do recall reading that, but maybe there was a caveat that I don’t recall rightly. I’ll see what I can produce but I have steaks waiting to grill!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

At least here Giles lumps him in with Giles’ assessment of Trinitarian orthodoxy. See footnote 2. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

I doubt he would have done that years ago.

There was still some disagreement when RL wrote the forward to a more recent book of Giles’. But if memory serves, I recently read on line in I believe an excerpt from some book or paper that Giles now knows of no disagreements he has with RL on the Trinity. I do recall reading that, but maybe there was a caveat that I don’t recall rightly. I’ll see what I can produce but I have steaks waiting to grill!

Thanks for the reference, Ron.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Just one further point about Bob Letham and the pre-temporal covenant, in his comments about B. B. Warfield, which I mentioned above, he refers 'to a "covenant" between the persons of the Trinity' (p. 401). The way he places the word covenant in speech-marks makes it look like a pejorative reference to the notion of a pre-temporal covenant. For what it's worth, I too have some objections to certain formulations of the covenant of redemption - such as those that view it as a separate covenant from the covenant of grace.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As for Bob's views of the covenant of redemption, I would refer to his book on The Westminster Assembly, pp 235-36. He makes the following statement on page 236:

"The doctrine of the Trinity should have provided a barrier against the idea of the covenant of redemption. ... to describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant, or to affirm that there was a need for them to enter into covenant - even contractual - arrangements is to open the door to heresy. The will of the Trinity is one; the works of the Trinity are indivisible. For all the good intentions of those who proposed it, the construal of the relations of the three persons of the Trinity in covenantal terms is a departure from classic Trinitarian orthodoxy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Some other language should have been used. However, the [Westminster] Assembly wisely avoided these dangers."

I think this claim is a bit overstated, though I agree that it is better just to stick to the language of the Westminster Standards.

 

[User20004000]

As for Bob's views of the covenant of redemption, I would refer to his book on The Westminster Assembly, pp 235-36. He makes the following statement on page 236:

"The doctrine of the Trinity should have provided a barrier against the idea of the covenant of redemption. ... to describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant, or to affirm that there was a need for them to enter into covenant - even contractual - arrangements is to open the door to heresy. The will of the Trinity is one; the works of the Trinity are indivisible. For all the good intentions of those who proposed it, the construal of the relations of the three persons of the Trinity in covenantal terms is a departure from classic Trinitarian orthodoxy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Some other language should have been used. However, the [Westminster] Assembly wisely avoided these dangers."

I think this claim is a bit overstated, though I agree that it is better just to stick to the language of the Westminster Standards.

If you agree that it was better to stick to the language of the Confession, then why was his remark overstated? How thin can we cut this?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If you agree that it was better to stick to the language of the Confession, then why was his remark overstated?

It is overstated because he claims that it led to Unitarianism. As it stands, his assertion is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I believe it is better to stick to the language of the Confession primarily because arguing for three covenants as opposed to two tends to open the door to those who want to argue that more than the elect are properly speaking in the covenant of grace.

 

[User20004000]

It is overstated because he claims that it led to Unitarianism. As it stands, his assertion is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I believe it is better to stick to the language of the Confession primarily because arguing for three covenants as opposed to two tends to open the door to those who want to argue that more than the elect are properly speaking in the covenant of grace.

If anything, it was a precaution against tritheism, not unitarianism. Moreover, RL never argued by way of post hoc fallacy. He never argued that since b followed a, a caused b.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If anything, it was a precaution against tritheism, not unitarianism. Moreover, RL never argued by way of post hoc fallacy. He never argued that since b followed a, a caused b.

That is exactly what his argument is. He is claiming that certain formulations of the CoR were a departure from orthodox Trinitarianism and subsequently contributed to the emergence of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism. John Fesko rightly criticises him on this point in his book, The Covenant of Redemption.

 

[User20004000]

That is exactly what his argument is. He is claiming that certain formulations of the CoR were a departure from orthodox Trinitarianism and subsequently contributed to the emergence of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism. John Fesko rightly criticises him on this point in his book, The Covenant of Redemption.

“That is exactly what his argument is.”​

Dear Daniel,

You first asserted, “I think this claim is a bit overstated...” Naturally, I took “this claim” to be referring to the quote you provided, which has nothing to do with Unitarianism. What it has to do with is the danger of departing from classical theism, from the one undivided will and indivisible works of God.

“He is claiming that certain formulations of the CoR were a departure from orthodox Trinitarianism and subsequently contributed to the emergence of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism. John Fesko rightly criticises him on this point in his book, The Covenant of Redemption.”​

As I surmised earlier, “If anything, it was a precaution against tritheism, not unitarianism.”

I just grabbed my copy of The Westminster Assembly. Not surprisingly, RL states as much just prior to the quote you provided: “However, [Edward Morris] correctly warns that this construction tends toward tritheism.”

Again, RL’s concern was that representing the Trinity as being comprised of individuals (even two main individuals) “opened the door to Trinitarian heresy.” (Cites Owen’s affirmation of the same.) That is not to suggest that a particular Trinitarian construct must always lead to a particular heresy, not that you’re suggesting otherwise. Nobody thinks heresy works that way. (For instance, I have no idea where a departure from eternal generation might lead to, but it ain’t good.)

Yes, Letham notes that in two generations apostasy occurred within English Presbyterianism. Let’s assume he had Unitarianism in mind. What needs to be appreciated is that he did not offer the following deduction: since Unitarianism followed the Pactum Salutis, therefore, the Pactum Salutis caused Unitarianism.

Some might want to take RL that way, but that is not what is logically implied by his brief historical assessment. We must be reasonable here. At most RL posited an historical correlation, but as any good historian knows, correlation does not imply causation. At worst, RL put forth a spurious correlation but surely that would not be fallacious.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You first asserted, “I think this claim is a bit overstated...” Naturally, I took “this claim” to be referring to the quote you provided, which has nothing to do with Unitarianism.

Actually, Ron, it does. Otherwise, his reference to the subsequent history of English Presbyterianism would be irrelevant.

Some might want to take RL that way, but that is not what is logically implied by his brief historical assessment. We must be reasonable here.

You are not reading him in a fair manner, but explaining away the obvious point.

At most RL posited an historical correlation, but as any good historian knows, correlation does not imply causation. At worst, RL put forth a spurious correlation but surely that would not be fallacious.

His point is that certain constructions of the CoR were partly responsible for causing the rise of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism. He thus commits the very historical error against which you warn.

 

[User20004000]

His point is that certain constructions of the CoR were partly responsible for causing the rise of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism. He thus commits the very historical error against which you warn.​

Daniel,

Your thesis and your defense of it would appear to be the same. That’s viscously circular.

If he committed the informal fallacy you attribute to him (as opposed to putting forth a plausible or implausible correlation), that should be easy enough for you to prove. Would you mind casting his actual words into a syllogism? I’m looking for something that even remotely resembles, “b followed a, therefore, a caused or necessitated b.

I’m merely looking for words, or meanings of words, that convey concepts that resemble: caused, therefore, necessary etc.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Cruising through the new Crossway catalog, I noticed that there will be a new, one-volume systematic theology written by Robert Letham.

I knew Bob when he was still a Baptist. If I'm not mistaken he has become a Calvin scholar since then.