Another New Systematic Theology on the Way

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

Ron, no I am comprehending the plain meaning of words. Bob Letham argues that the CoR was at odds with orthodox Trinitarianism and to adopt it is to "open the door to heresy" (his words). He goes on to say, "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."

So, he argues that the CoR opened the door for heresy.

He also says that an anti-Trinitarian heresy occurred two generations later within English Presbyterianism (the heresy that occurred two generations later was Unitarianism).

How can we read him as saying anything else than the CoR caused Unitarianism? There is simply no fair way to read him as saying anything other than the CoR was partly responsible for the rise of Unitarianism within English Presbyterianism.

 

[User20004000]

This is how far RL takes us:

“To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism.”

I’ve twice pasted those remarks immediately below, adding different italicized conclusions to the original. If neither italicized addition contradicts what’s before it (i.e., if both can comport with the original), then it stands to reason that his words don’t necessitate your inference. (This is no longer a matter of theology but merely a matter of patterns of plausible inference.)

Your interpretation:

1. To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Therefore, the covenant construct caused the apostasy. (Informal Fallacy)

A less dogmatic rendering:

2. To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Therefore, it is possible (if not probable) the covenant construct caused the apostasy. (Non fallacious inference)

You reject the plausibility of variation 2.

My point is, given that variation 2 does not contradict the original, we may not conclude that the original commits the fallacy in view. The reason being, if the original did commit the fallacy in view, then variation 2 would have to be internally contradictory because its addendum to the original contradicts your interpretation of the original (as reflected in variation 1).

Now of course there are ways of contradicting the import of the original. Here’s one:

3. To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Therefore, the covenant construct had nothing to do with the apostasy.

We find nothing so stained in variation 2 (or variation 1 for that matter). Again, the original only leads us so far. Both variations 1 and 2 comport. Variation 3 does not.

Personally, aside from RL’s words, I find it absurd for anyone to think that RL actually thought that he knew that a caused b. Obviously he would have been more humbly tentative than that. In fact, please go back and read variation 1. The “therefore... caused” comes out of nowhere. That’s because such a dogmatic conclusion is nowhere logically implied in the premises that RL provides! So, it’s most uncharitable to attribute this to him: Therefore, the covenant construct caused the apostasy. (Informal Fallacy)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ron, we are going to have to agree to differ for the time being. I recall listening to an audio lecture where he may have gone into this matter in more detail, though it might have been 8 or 9 years since I heard it. I will try to locate it again in the near future.

 

[RamistThomist]

Whether or not CoR caused Unitarianism is beside the point. Rather, Letham did seem to say (if not actually said, which I think he did), that it did lead to Unitarianism. That's his point. He's against the CoR. We can say whether he is wrong or not, but I think all Daniel is trying to do is show that Bob said it.

The CoR is very close to being settled orthodoxy in Reformed circles. Letham is against it.

 

[User20004000]

Whether or not CoR caused Unitarianism is beside the point. Rather, Letham did seem to say (if not actually said, which I think he did), that it did lead to Unitarianism. That's his point. He's against the CoR. We can say whether he is wrong or not, but I think all Daniel is trying to do is show that Bob said it.

The CoR is very close to being settled orthodoxy in Reformed circles. Letham is against it.

“Whether or not CoR caused Unitarianism is beside the point.”​

It wasn’t “beside the point” Daniel was trying to make.

It was asserted that a brother was resting a conclusion upon a fallacious form of argument. I asked Daniel to put forth a simple syllogism, using RL’s words, that would corroborate Daniel’s claim. He didn’t.

So, I provided a post that detailed the fact that RL did not commit a post hoc fallacy. Here it is again, now in the form of modus tollens.

P1. If RL’s argument committed a post hoc fallacy, then Variation 2 rendering would end in contradiction:

Variation 2: To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Therefore, it is possible (if not probable) the covenant construct caused the apostasy.”

P2. Variation 2 does not end in contradiction

Conclusion: RL’s post did not commit a post hoc fallacy.

That’s a pretty straight forward argument. It essentially shows that RL should not be impugned with having argued: “To describe the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant... is to open the door to heresy. In two generations that was precisely what occurred in English Presbyterianism. Therefore, the covenant construct caused the apostasy.”

“He's against the CoR.”​

RL positively affirms that the plan of redemption is according to the eternal counsel of the triune God. Is that sufficient to adhere to your understanding of the CoR?

Letham’s concern is that traditional formulations easily lend themselves to Tritheism. Notwithstanding, he affirms the theology of a correct understanding of the CoR.

It’s a sad day when Confessional men who clearly are not looking to obfuscate are treated so recklessly. Passion without nuance is never under good regulation.

 

[User20004000]

Ron, we are going to have to agree to differ for the time being. I recall listening to an audio lecture where he may have gone into this matter in more detail, though it might have been 8 or 9 years since I heard it. I will try to locate it again in the near future.

Thanks, Brother.

 

[RamistThomist]

RL positively affirms that the plan of redemption is according to the eternal counsel of the triune God. Is that sufficient to adhere to your understanding of the CoR?

My understanding of CoR is irrelevant. We're discussing Letham's views, and Letham is quite critical of it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Letham is saying:

However, 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 covenantal - even contractual - arrangements is to open the door to heresy. The will of the Trinity is one; the works of the Trinity are indivisible. (236).

Did the Persons enter into a covenantal agreement? I don't see how one can deny it. That is what Letham is attacking, not the broad understanding that our salvation is Trinitarian and reaches into eternity past.

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul Helm also understands Letham to be saying what everyone else understands him to be saying.
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-plan-of-god-covenant-of-redemption.html

 

[User20004000]

Jacob,

I’ll deal with your three consecutive posts here.

“My understanding of CoR is irrelevant. We're discussing Letham's views, and Letham is quite critical of it.”​

I find it a bit naive to think that your understanding of the CoR is irrelevant to your criticism of Letham’s view of the CoR. After all, that which will govern your criticism of Letham is precisely your understanding of the CoR!

But aside from the obvious, I’m afraid that this too shows uncritical analyses:

“Did the Persons enter into a covenantal agreement? I don't see how one can deny it.”​

To “enter into” an agreement has temporal overtones. It suggests that the agreement entered into was not always agreed upon.

That’s why RL prefers to say that the plan of redemption is according to the eternal counsel of the triune God. What he denies is that the Father and the Son, apart from the Holy Spirit, entered into a (non-eternal) compact. My suspicion is you do too(!), which if true would make your disagreement with Letham not over theology but rather over his caution for using non-confessional language that implies temporality etc. (See Helm)

But, if you truly disagree with Letham’s theology - i.e. what he believes, then perhaps you believe the CoR was entered into temporally and by only two persons of the Trinity. I sincerely doubt that is your position.

Regarding your use of Paul Helm, I was already familiar with his post. Did you actually read it? It’s favorable of Letham.

First, Helm puts forth his own concerns.

“For arriving at such an agreement is central to the idea of a covenant of redemption. But if this is treated literally, not as anthropomorphism, but as dogma or doctrine, then before we know where we are we are committing ourselves to tri-theism.... But to move in that direction is, as I say, to court tritheism, and a social trinitarianism, in which the divinity of the Trinity refers not to one divine essence, but to a nature shared among the persons of the Trinity, like you and I and Barak Obama share human nature. And (unless we throw a spanner in the works) it is to to take a step towards divine temporality in which God in three persons enjoys not an eternal life, but an unending life.”

Sound familiar?

Next, Helm interacts with Letham’s view.

“Robert Letham’s worry...

In his book The Westminster Assembly (P and R, 2009), Robert Letham has some paragraphs which I think point us in the right direction on this matter... Here Letham seems to be making the point that as it is usually understood, making a covenantal agreement implies ignorance of the outcome until it is made, or the more general points that such an arrangement implies Trinitarian non-unity, or even that it implies three-mindedness. Whatever the precise point, the general worry that covenantal language of the Trinity in se courts tritheism is surely sound. (The Westminster Confession just about avoids referring to the covenant of redemption; the Savoy Declaration (1658) and the Baptist Confession of 1677/1689 were not so fortunate).”

 

[RamistThomist]

I find it a bit naive to think that your understanding of the CoR is irrelevant to your criticism of Letham’s view of the CoR.

I am not criticizing Letham. I am quoting him word for word.

But, if you truly disagree with Letham’s theology

Who even said that? I've read his book on the Trinity at least a dozen times. I am not offering a "critique" of Letham. I am simply quoting him.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Somewhat from the general theme of the thread, but for those interested in this subject, see Thomas Boston on the covenant of grace and covenant of redemption. Of course, Boston recognises that there were other opinions among orthodox Reformed divines, but the Westminster Standards do not demand that we believe in a covenant of redemption separate from the covenant of grace.

 

[RamistThomist]

And as for rejecting Letham's theology, I made a conscious effort to read everything he has written. I read his book on the Trinity about 10-12 times. He is writing on levels about church history that most Reformed can't even understand (Gregory of Nazianzus? Who's that?). Granted, I disagree with some of his patristic formulations because I don't think de Regnon's thesis is tenable, but that's beside the point.

I also enjoyed his book on Union with Christ and Westminster Assembly. He is truly a master theologian, so when he advances criticisms of the Pactum salutis, I pay attention. That's why I quoted him. Word for word.

 

[User20004000]

Jacob,

These posts are getting increasingly bizarre.

You have said that Letham is “quite critical of [the CoR]. You also stated that he’s “against” what “is very close to be settled orthodoxy in Reformed circles.” You’ve also said, “Did the Persons enter into a covenantal agreement? I don't see how one can deny it. That is what Letham is attacking...”

So, by your standards, Letham is against, quite critical of, and even attacking a doctrine that “is very close to... settled orthodoxy in Reformed circles.”

Those aren’t quotes of Letham’s, but they are critical assessments of his position. So, please don’t say, “I am not criticizing Letham. I am quoting him word for word.”

Now can we get back to the discussion?

Again, you have two alternatives before you. Please slow down and try to grasp this.

1. You can agree with Letham’s theology - i.e. what he believes, and thereby affirm with him that the plan of redemption is according to the eternal counsel of the triune God. In doing so you’ll be denying (with him) that the Father and the Son, apart from the Holy Spirit, entered into a (non-eternal) compact.

Or

2. You can disagree with his theology and thereby affirm that the CoR was entered into temporally and by only two persons of the Trinity.

The point you seemed to have overlooked, which I have belabored, is that to affirm the CoR one must at least qualify the temporal and tritheistic overtones of the construct in order to maintain orthodoxy. All orthodox-Reformed theologians who affirm the CoR do just that! And in doing so, they agree with Letham’s theological position. They agree with option 1 and deny option 2. That’s why I find it reckless when people just put out there that Bob Letham rejects the CoR. What he rejects is the misleading verbiage that all orthodox Calvinists must reject.

All this nonsense is over Bob rightly noting that the way in which the construct is traditionally formulated is problematic.

 

[RamistThomist]

All this nonsense is over Bob rightly noting that the way in which the construct is traditionally formulated is problematic.

As I am speaking as a purveyor of nonsense, I have to wonder then the whole problem is simply one of verbal constructs and that we all agree deep down? Okay. I guess that's fine. That doesn't seem to be the way that Fesko and Helm understand Letham, but I will defer to your judgment on that.

No one is attacking Bob's orthodoxy. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.