RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Smith, James K. A. Letters to a Young Calvinist. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2010.
“Grace all the way down”
Smith avoids the stereotypes of Reformed theology by beginning with creation. Creation is radically dependent on God’s existence (Col. 1:16-17) and all of our existence is a gift (donum, 1 Cor. 4:7). Seeing our whole existence as radically dependent on God, it is something we can’t boast about. Smith has come very close to cutting off synergism at the pass. I’m impressed (Smith 14ff).
However, Smith skirts dangerously close to saying creation--and hence nature--is grace. Is he saying nature = grace? Not necessarily, but he comes very close.
“Confession(alism)”
*The Confessions are the grammar of the Church. They are not meant to be the language.
Hooray
Smith, like the Dutch Reformed in general, is strong on creation. He notes that God’s creation is laden with plurals (66). This is death to chain of being ontologies which sees plurality and multiplicity as a metaphysical fall from oneness.
*Smith comes down hard on the “New Calvinists” (“They seem so grumpy! p.90).
*Smith correctly refuses (and even ridicules) the idea that Reformed = Calvinism = TULIP. I
Yikes
He loves the Heidelberg Catechism (which is good) but compares it to “the arid scholasticism of Westminster” (55). On one hand, different strokes for different folks, but Smith earlier complained about how Dutch/German and Scottish Calvinism never seem to get along. It’s not hard to see why.
He says the main difference between Westminster and the Heidelberg is that the latter’s inclusion of the Apostles’ Creed means that it receives “tradition” as a gift. I have no problem with “receiving” tradition as a gift, and indeed it cuts hard against Anchorite claims, but it seems a rather simplistic analysis.
Conclusion
I would give this to a “yung’un” in Reformed theology or someone interested in it. There isn’t much depth theologically, but it isn’t a bad read. I read it in two sittings.
“Grace all the way down”
Smith avoids the stereotypes of Reformed theology by beginning with creation. Creation is radically dependent on God’s existence (Col. 1:16-17) and all of our existence is a gift (donum, 1 Cor. 4:7). Seeing our whole existence as radically dependent on God, it is something we can’t boast about. Smith has come very close to cutting off synergism at the pass. I’m impressed (Smith 14ff).
However, Smith skirts dangerously close to saying creation--and hence nature--is grace. Is he saying nature = grace? Not necessarily, but he comes very close.
“Confession(alism)”
*The Confessions are the grammar of the Church. They are not meant to be the language.
Hooray
Smith, like the Dutch Reformed in general, is strong on creation. He notes that God’s creation is laden with plurals (66). This is death to chain of being ontologies which sees plurality and multiplicity as a metaphysical fall from oneness.
*Smith comes down hard on the “New Calvinists” (“They seem so grumpy! p.90).
*Smith correctly refuses (and even ridicules) the idea that Reformed = Calvinism = TULIP. I
Yikes
He loves the Heidelberg Catechism (which is good) but compares it to “the arid scholasticism of Westminster” (55). On one hand, different strokes for different folks, but Smith earlier complained about how Dutch/German and Scottish Calvinism never seem to get along. It’s not hard to see why.
He says the main difference between Westminster and the Heidelberg is that the latter’s inclusion of the Apostles’ Creed means that it receives “tradition” as a gift. I have no problem with “receiving” tradition as a gift, and indeed it cuts hard against Anchorite claims, but it seems a rather simplistic analysis.
Conclusion
I would give this to a “yung’un” in Reformed theology or someone interested in it. There isn’t much depth theologically, but it isn’t a bad read. I read it in two sittings.
