Letham on the Trinity

[py3ak]

At the library today I unexpectedly came across Robert Letham's book on the Trinity, so I borrowed it. I know that many people have expressed great appreciation for it. But what I would like to know is if there are any problems with it. What did you dislike?

 

[CharlieJ]

With the dearth of evangelical resources on the Trinity, that book is a Godsend. Some people, though, have thought that Letham concedes too much to the Eastern conception of the filioque clause, but I didn't think it was a real issue. His reflections on Trinity and worship are fantastic.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I've read large portions so far, but not the whole thing. I found his review of significant non-Reformed theologians and traditions very helpful and informative. It's a very good study grounded in the Reformed faith. I haven't heard of any criticisms yet.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I have read the whole thing and Charlie is correct in that the only criticisms I have heard are that Letham tends to err on the Eastern side in some of the ways he describes things. Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Archlute]

I thought at times that Letham was almost a bit ashamed of his Western heritage, and gave a little too much credibility to the complaints of Eastern (and other) theologians. I have not felt that EO critiques have real theological substance as much as they are ongoing political statements against other grudges that they have with the Western church.

There is a good appendix in which he disassembles Gilbert Bilzekian's feminist critiques against complimentarians and the Trinity. For those of you who may be unaware, Bilzekian has served in the past as the "go to" theology guy for Willow Creek, and has provided them with their justification for allowing women to serve as teaching pastors.

 

[py3ak]

I'll keep my eyes open for EO influences, then. Anything else?

Updated 9/5/09

My question has changed somewhat. Is there anything I can only learn from this book?

On p. ix he says, "Sadly, since the time of Calvin, little of significance has been contributed to the development of Trinitarian doctrine by conservative Reformed theologians."

He mentions Owen and Edwards, but does not bring in any other theologians. However, this is a bit absurd. After all, to take only one instance, the opera a certo modo personalia received quite a bit of discussion and elaboration in connection with the covenant of redemption, and by more than just Owen and Edwards.

In addition, on pp.3 and 4 he says that modalism can come about:
"...by a reluctance to recognize that God's revelation in human history tells us anything about who he is eternally. (...)
Even B.B. Warfield toys with a modalist positon when he suggests, but then--happily--rejects, the possibility that certain aspects of the relation between the Father and the Son in human history may have been the result of a covenant between the persons of the Trinity and thus may not represent eternal realities in God."

Although he speaks highly of Owen's treatise on communion with God, evidently he did not make it to v.18, Exercitation 28, Section 9 (quoted below). There Owen entirely rules out all hint of modalism by pointing out that a covenant can only be between distinct persons! And for that, I have heard him accused of functionally denying God's simplicity, which is an error quite opposite that of modalism.

Furthermore, I find it unpleasant for there to be such quickness to assume modalistic thinking and make disparaging remarks about the Western / Reformed tradition. So I ask, "Is there something I can only learn from this book?"

First, Unto a proper covenant it is required that it be made between
distinct persons. Such have I elsewhere proved the Father and Son to be, and in this discourse I do take that fundamental principle of our profession as granted. That there were eternal transactions in general between those distinct persons, with respect unto the salvation of mankind, hath been evinced in the foregoing Exercitation. That these were federal, or had in them the nature of a covenant, is now further to be manifested. And in general this is that which the Scripture intends, where God, that is the Father, is called by the Son his God, and where he says that he will be unto him a God and a Father; for this expression of being a God unto any one is declarative of a covenant, and is the word whereby God constantly declares his relation unto any in a way of covenant, Jeremiah 31:33, 32:38; Hosea 2:23.
For God, declaring that he will be a God unto any, engageth himself unto the exercise of his holy properties, which belong unto him as God, in their behalf and for their good; and this is not without an engagement of obedience from them. Now, this declaration the Scripture abounds in:
Psalm 16:2, “Thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord.”
These are the words of the Son unto the Father, as is evident from verses
9-11.
Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God.”
Psalm 40:8, “I delight to do thy will, O my God.”
Psalm 45:7, “God, thy God, hath anointed thee.”
Micah 5:4, “He shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.”
John 20:17, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”
Revelation 3:12, “I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; ..... and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God.” All which expressions argue both a covenant and a subordination therein.
And on this account it is that our Savior says his Father is greater than he, John 14:28. This place, I confess, the ancients expound unanimously of the human nature only, to obviate the Arians, who ascribed unto him a divine nature, but made, and absolutely in itself inferior to the nature of God. But the inferiority of the human nature unto God or the Father is a thing so unquestionable as needed no declaration or solemn attestation, and the mention of it is no way suited unto the design of the place. But our Savior speaks with respect unto the covenant engagement that was between the Father and himself as to the work which he had to do: for therein, as we shall further manifest, the Father was the prescriber, the promiser, and lawgiver; and the Son was the undertaker upon his prescription, law, and promises. He is, indeed, in respect of his divine personality, said to be “God of God.” No more is intended hereby but that the person of the Son, as to his personality, was of the person of the Father, who communicated his nature and life unto him by eternal generation. But the Father on that account is not said to be his God, or to be a God unto him, which includes the acting of divine properties on his behalf, and a dependence on the other side on him who is so a God unto him. And this hath its sole foundation on that covenant and the execution of it which we are in the consideration of.