« Previous Post | Next Post »
« Previous post in category | Next post in category »

Theology - Covenant: Letham Contra Kline

[Print] | [PDF] | [Email]

Robert Letham is among the best Reformed theologians writing today. His books are deeply researched, up-to-date, his conclusions judicious and balanced; he knows the Reformed tradition, but is not narrow in either his reading or sympathies; he is resolutely Reformed, but makes bold in his recent book on the Westminster Assembly (The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Westminster Assembly and the Reformed Faith)) to speak of “weaknesses” in the Westminster Standards (e.g., he agrees with Torrance that the chapter on God should begin with the Trinity, and he expresses astonishment that the Shorter Catechism never explicitly speaks of God as the God of love) and he pleads for reading the Standards in the context of the development of Reformed theology.

The book is full of historical information: digressions that summarize the development of controverted issues within Reformed theology up to the mid-seventeenth century, summaries of debates at the Assembly (drawn largely from Chad van Dixhoorn’s work on the minutes), and outlines of the basic theology of the Confession. At several points, he notes the flexibility of the Assembly, its effort “to reach the widest measure of agreement possible, within acceptable limits of doctrine and practice” and its refusal to blackball and exclude members who took positions that were finally not represented by the Confession itself.

I was disappointed that I didn’t find more Letham.

As he wisely says in the introduction, he set out to expound the theology of the Assembly and its Confessional standards, not to project his own theology onto those standards; still, more Letham would have been helpful. For instance, he gives a detailed summary of the debate concerning “hypothetical universalism” (defended by a third of those who participated in the Assembly debate), a debate that touches on a number of hot-buttons in contemporary Reformed theology, but he refrains from any detail analysis of the theological conclusions. Perhaps Letham simply agrees with the majority, but it would be helpful to know more about his reasons.

When he does offer his own analysis, it’s extremely rewarding. In a discussion of the covenant of works, he suggests that Murray’s objections could have been dealt with by the simply expedient of adopting the Shorter Catechism’s “covenant of life” terminology. But he spends several pages rebutting Meredith Kline’s views on the covenant of works. For Kline, “the promises are, in effect, ancillary to law” and this reflects God’s character: Kline write, “Merciful he may be according to his sovereign will but all his works are in righteousness and truth.” Adam would have merited life if he had obeyed during his probation; he “would have earned life as a just reward.” This entails a view of the atonement, since according to Kline “for the pre-fall situation to be construed other than in terms of law and merit leads inexorably to the abandonment of the meritorious obedience of the second Adam and an undermining of the atonement and justification by faith.”

It is a mistake, Letham says, to read the Assembly’s covenant of works doctrine from Kline’s angle. The covenant of works, like all covenants, is a “condescension” on God’s part, an act of grace. Further, for the assembly “law and grace were not polar opposites.” He mentions John Ball’s 1645 treatise on the covenant of grace, published during the Assembly and widely accepted by the Assembly participants, which “denied that Adam’s works were meritorious and insisted on the grace of God permeating this covenant.” Further, Kline’s charge that the atonement will be debased by any abandonment of his particular version of the covenant of works is untenable: “Lutheranism had no covenant of works, yet that of itself did not precipitate a headlong flight from a biblical view of the atonement.” Even Reformed theology would fall under Kline’s strictures, since “the doctrine of the covenant of works developed over time.” Even Calvin falls short. On the crucial theological point, “Kline is simply wrong. The Westminster documents clearly affirm that grace was present before the fall. This no more undermines the doctrine of the atonement than Kline does.”

Though he does not make the point, Letham’s argument has great contemporary importance: For a fair number in the Reformed world today, Kline’s view of the covenant of works is the view of the Westminster Standards. Letham shows that it isn’t, and also demonstrates throughout his book that those attempting to impose Kline’s views as the sole form of orthodoxy are violating the spirit of the Assembly they claim to defend.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, November 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.

« Previous Post | Next Post » « Previous post in category | Next post in category »

Theology - Covenant: Letham Contra Kline

« Previous Post | Next Post »
« Previous post in category | Next post in category »