With this volume Letham has established himself as the leading English-speaking Reformed theologian.
Letham gives the basic Reformed understanding of Scripture.
It’s there, albeit in a mild form. Letham notes that William Bridge, George Gillespie, and John Knox received (or claimed they did; or others claimed they did) prophetic revelation. Letham is quick to point out this is only “providential” illumination of Scripture (127). Letham is correct that the Assembly felt no need to deal with this issue (nor would they have affirmed it), but other studies clearly demonstrate that the Scottish Reformation (both in its First and Second phases) saw manifestation of prophetic gifts beyond that of simply “illuminating” Scripture. When Cargill and Cameron prophcied the deaths of certain (specific) wicked men, they weren’t merely “applying” the general sense of Scripture. If “prophecy” means illumination, then every pastor is a prophet! In which case prophecy is still valid today, but nobody reasons that way.
Part of the Reformed world’s problem here is the presupposition that every prophetic utterance necessarily carries the full binding of God with it. In another place Wayne Grudem shows that is simply not the case.
God the Holy Trinity
Letham is aware that a hard division on God’s not having passions must take into account the fact that the Incarnation brought into true union with humanity. Jesus experiences human thoughts, human emotions, etc (162). Letham is certainly on the correct path, but the problem is much deeper (and this isn’t a slam against Reformed Christology; all Christological traditions hailing from the Chalcedonian definition must face this problem: does our definition of what it means to be a person today include self-reflection? If it does, then we are on the road to Nestorianism. If it doesn’t, is it really coherent to speak of person anymore?)
Letham gives a competent discussion on Creation, though one that will annoy many. He admits, contra many Klineans, that the divines likely held to six solar days, yet he points out that the more pertinent goal was to reject Augustine’s view of instantaneous creation. Further, what we must also admit, no matter where we land on this discussion, is that the divines did presuppose a geocentric cosmology which saw theology in spatial terms. Indeed, one wonders if George Walker even knew that the world is spherical (Letham 191 n.50).
Christ and covenant
- Makes the Klinean meritorious reading strained.
- CoW, while perhaps the correct reading, is not necessary to maintain Reformed theology. It was developed over time and if Kline’s reading is correct, then huge swathes of Reformed theology would have proved defective before Westminster (233).
Covenant of Redemption?
Letham highlights a number of problems. 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? I’m not saying it is a wrong idea, and the CoR certainly preserves a few key values, but it does have problems.
Great section on assurance and he places these (sometimes) painful discussions in their pastoral context, which context is often lost on critics of Reformed assurance. For the record, I agree with Goodwin pace Owen on the Spirit’s sealing.
Law, Liberty, Church and Eschatology
Great section on Law and Liberty–and he avoids getting involved in the painful theonomy disputes. Letham shows how the RPW should be read and interpreted in light of the Laudian imprisonment and persecution of Reformed believers. On another note, he points out how the Presbyterians really failed on clinching and continuing the “liberty of conscience” victory it justly won. I will elaborate:
Did the Solemn League and Covenant bind the consciences of those who didn’t vow it? Said another way, was Cromwell later on obligated to establish Presbyterian government? If he was, how does this square with what (Covenanter) Samuel Rutherford said, “It is in our power to vow, but not in the church’s power to command us to vow” (quoted in Letham 299)? Maybe the two points don’t contradict each other, but the tension is certainly strained.
And it appears the Presbyterians couldn’t maintain this tension. They chose to deal with the tyrant Charles I and supported (to their fatal regret later) the pervert Charles II. Cromwell’s victory at Dunbar is fully justified.
This isn’t a commentary on the Confession. It is a theological exploration of the historical circumstances behind it. Letham’s scholarship is judicious, measured, and quite frankly awe-inspiring.