Overview:
-This is a helpful and solid introductory Systematic Theology. It’s easy to read, well-organized (a summary is provided at the heading of each chapter), concise, and faithful to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Although I’d rate it above popular level Systematics like Grudem, Frame, or MacArthur, it’s a bit behind the likes of Horton and Berkhof and Bavinck and Turretin. As a confessional Baptist, I differ at some key points, but recognize that he adheres very closely to the WCF. Some of this will come out in my comments below.
Misc. Thoughts:
-He’s fairly light on sources, and he often mentions things in passing without going into much detail or offering an opinion (which can be confusing to the reader). He’s also repetitive at times; it’s clear that some of the sections were written separately, probably even at different times in his life, without relation to the other sections. This disrupts the flow from time to time.
-He seems to love Barth and John Frame, especially in theology proper, as he quotes them extensively. Although he does also critique them here and there. He also speaks as though Calvin = the entire Reformed tradition, which is annoying given the diversity of Reformed Theology.
-The primacy of the church is clear throughout, as each section has relation to this central idea. This is one of the strengths of the work. (However, I found the actual section on the doctrine of the church and its government to be shallow and weak.)
-The sections on perseverance, assurance, and Lord’s Supper sections are excellent.
-I found it odd that he has a very long section on the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, and is extremely sympathetic toward it.
-Perhaps my favorite section in the entire book is his treatment of preaching as a means of grace. He argues thoroughly and persuasively that preaching is the way in which Christ Himself speaks to His church. I highly commend what he says here, as it’s much needed in our day! (And his section on Calling, in relation to that, is fantastic as well!) He seems to really oppose the rampant individualism in our day, as this is clear throughout.
Doctrine of God/Trinity:
-He’s is solid here, but a bit sparse. It’s good, but nothing more than a basic introduction that can be found elsewhere. He opposes ESS (EFS), but only gives a few sentences of explanation why. Given the recent controversies and his role in them, I found it odd that he barely even mentioned it.
Covenant of Works (CoW):
-This is one of the most disappointing sections in the entire work. What’s concerning to me here: he essentially argues that the CoW is a Covenant of Grace, and speaks of it that way throughout; at times he fundamentally rejects the Law-gospel distinction, which has significant implications; because of this, he regularly confuses justification with sanctification.
-I agree with Meredith Kline that the CoW is central to getting the gospel right (Law vs. Gospel, Faith and Works, Justification and Sanctification, etc.) –a position that he scoffs at, outright dismissing Kline’s approach to the subject. This is a major flaw in this work: avoid this section!
Republication:
-He strongly opposes all forms of republication, which is the position consistent with the WCF, in my opinion. But republication has a formidable history in the Reformed tradition, and I was very disappointed at his arguments against it, which were poorly constructed, dismissive, and lacking in any real interaction with republicationists (except when he wholeheartedly dismisses Kline, again). Simply put, he just disagrees with republication, and fails to give any sort of substantial or detailed argument why. That’s just not helpful.
Creation:
-He’s really solid on creation (p280), and in the appendix he gives a very helpful, balanced overview of the various positions on the length of days. He doesn’t officially endorse a position, but pretty clearly calls the 6/24hour view into question.
Original Sin:
-This section is detailed and helpful, but there’s a paucity of historical analysis, which would’ve made it much better.
Two-Kingdom Theology (2KT):
-This is another area of strong disagreement I have here (though I admit, Letham does seem to be in line with the WCF in this).
-Some of the shocking things he says about 2KT: It’s radical dualism; it rests on a literalistic, dispensational hermeneutic; it has Christological problems that limit His lordship, and he even likens it to Nestoriamism; it makes the bible ‘not applicable’ to the common kingdom; it produces a ‘quietisic tendency’ and ‘encourages passivity’ and paves the way for tyranny (he even cites the Nazi regime as a fallout of 2KT in Germany); it runs contrary to the Reformed tradition; it has a naïve and complacent view of fallen people; and he ends by calling Kline and David VanDrunen ‘reformed dispensationals’.
-Look, I understand if he disagrees with 2KT, but this type of rhetoric is just plain ridiculous. Just an unhelpful section overall, as he doesn’t even engage in arguments against 2KT; he just rails against it, kind of like he does with Republication.
Pactum Salutis/Covenant of Redemption (CoR):
-Another major disappointment here, as he calls the Pactum Salutis simply a ‘theological opinion’, and says that it has no confessional support, apparently overlooking its articulation in the 1689 LBCF.
-He clearly takes a hostile, polemical tone against it, astonishingly claiming that it veers towards subordinationism or tritheism, that it’s too Law-centered, and that it led to Arianism and Unitarianism among American Presbyterians! That on top of how he implies that the CoR and the ESS/EFS position go hand and hand. Just a horrible section/argument here throughout. However, at the end he does commend JV Fesko’s recent book on the subject. But that’s far too little, too late given his strong language above.
Union with Christ/Justification/Sanctification:
-Taking a firm WTS position on union with Christ, he talks about baptism and union with Christ and then writes, “union with Christ is to be cultivated, developed, nourished.” This makes it clear that he wants to put union with Christ as the ground and centrality of our salvation, in contrast to justification.
-Clearly, the ideal/norm/expectation with Letham is that the normal way of salvation/conversion is being baptized as an infant, where that union with Christ is then cultivated and nourished in the church, leading to faith one day. For a Baptist (and some Presbyterians I’m sure), this raises some serious concerns.
-He uses Calvin to argue that sanctification is the fruit of union with Christ, not justification. Again, this can and has been taken to some dangerous extremes.
-Related to this, throughout Letham continually speaks of ‘faith’ as ‘faithfulness’. When defining faith, he says trust and obedience are synonymous. That is, he conflates repentance and faith as ‘two sides of the same coin’, NOT in the sense that true faith produces repentance/good works, but in that they are essentially the same thing. For example, he says the promise (Galatians 3) and the Law “go together.” (P676). Again, rejecting a fundamental law-gospel distinction, this has serious gospel implications.
-Letham also argues that good works are the way God brings us to full salvation in the future, and that salvation is incomplete until the last day. Here he quotes Turretin to argue that good works aren’t included in our justification, but are essential to ‘final salvation.’ That is, good works aren’t essential for “initial justification, but final salvation.” This leaves the door wide open for a doctrine of future justification and a return to Rome.
-He questions outright whether justification is the cause of sanctification, and says both are given simultaneously and symmetrically. But then he does say that justification is the necessary condition for sanctification. I found his language to be confusing at times.
-Overall, he’ solid on Justification. My only qualm here is that he fails to explain the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in much detail, particularly in relation to Christ being the second Adam.
-He has a great response to NPP and NT Wright on these issues, which was somewhat surprising given how at times he adopts their language re: union, justification, sanctification, final salvation.
-Thankfully, Letham does emphasize that Christ in our place, as our substitute, is our salvation. The various landmines throughout notwithstanding, he does faithfully uphold the gospel at the end of the day.
Baptism/The Sacraments:
-His treatment on baptism is actually pretty good –most of what’s there a credo-baptist can agree with, and I commend it.
-He says that baptism most likely means ‘immerse’ or ‘to dip’. A hearty ‘Amen’ here. He even references Greek orthodoxy and how they know their own language, haha.
-He says that baptism is instrumental in giving the Holy Spirit, and what follows is a great treatment of baptism as a means of grace.
-However, he does come really close to saying that the grace of baptism is given in baptism. He’s not real clear on this (which, as a Baptist listening to a Presbyterian try to explain this in relation to infants, is not surprising).
-One troubling statement is how he argues that baptism ‘contains a curse as well as a blessing.’ This conflates Law and Gospel.
-He argues that “both” faith and baptism unite us to Christ. “Both receive the righteousness of Christ…both receive the Holy Spirit…both save.” This can be taken in some very troubling directions, towards Rome, Federal Vision, and baptismal regeneration.
-Sacraments are means of grace, “only to those who fulfill the conditions of the covenant.” Again, there is a sense in which this is true, but overall it’s a troubling statement that can lead in some dangerous directions.
-Noteworthy in all this is that he puts the chapter on the sacraments before calling, regeneration, and justification. The implication of this is very troubling.
Treatment of Reformed Baptists:
-He takes several cheap shots at particular (1689) Baptists that make it crystal-clear he’s never read or seriously engaged with the original sources. For example, he implies that the PBs were given over to a private, personal interpretation of scripture in contrast to going through parliament to form a confession (p233-34). These types of allegations/insinuations appears all throughout, like when he says (p445-446) that credo-baptists have an unhealthy focus on individual responsibility; that credo-baptists don’t believe in a mixed congregation (has he even read the 1689 Confession??); that Baptists are de-facto memorialists who “refuse” to use the word ‘sacrament’ (again showing he’s never read PBs); etc. Although this is somewhat to be expected coming from a Presbyterian, it’s disappointing that not only does he never interact with actual particular Baptists, but as a supposed scholar, he hasn’t even taken the time to properly understand the position he critiques.
-He writes that if infants were debarred from the covenant sign in the NT after receiving it in the OT, “Pentecost would’ve been the greatest mass excommunication in history.” This is one of the most ignorant statements regarding the issue I’ve ever read. He simply presupposes his own position and then rails against a straw man. If Letham actually read Baptist doctrine and Baptist arguments, he’d never say such foolish things. How a learned theologian can say such a thing, that even on the face of it doesn’t even make sense from a Presbyterian perspective, just boggles my mind.
-He argues that women are entrusted with childbirth and the nurture of children, which is “integral to the Covenant of Grace.” Then, that “to belittle this great privilege is to assault God’s covenant, which is advanced along household lines.” A classic Presbyterian position that I find to be very troubling. This along with what I mentioned above, that the normal way of conversion is ‘union with Christ in infant baptism and then that union is cultivated until saving faith later on’, clearly shows that he believes the church is built and the great commission is fulfilled by having babies, not by going into all the world and preaching the gospel.
-Says on p882 that the salvation of infants is included in the Covenant of Grace, with believers and their children. This raises many questions that he doesn’t take the time to answer.
-Thankfully, he opposes Paedocommunion. But like most Presbyterian arguments against paedocommunion, his reasons for such are very formidable against infant baptism as ell (even while recognizing that they are different sacraments).
Conclusion:
There are some serious landmines in this work: his treatment of the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption, Union with Christ, and relation of Justification and Sanctification. However, knowing his theological commitments going in can help one sidestep here and there, in order to eat the meat and spit out the bones. As I mentioned above, if you’re looking for a solid introductory ST, this is a good option –much better than the widely popular Grudem (by the way, he has a great section refuting Grudem’s views on prophecy). But why not just go with Berkof, a much safer bet? I fail to see how this work contributes much beyond Berkhof, hence the 3 star rating. There are better options, notwithstanding that in the grand scheme of things, this work isn’t that bad.