What do you think?
Rate this book
Cartas a um Jovem Calvinista: Um Convite à Tradição Reformada
Há vários livros por aí que descrevem a teologia reformada e convidam as pessoas a se tornarem parte da tradição reformada. Entretanto, muitos desses livros são produtos dos anos anteriores ao advento dessa jovem e inquieta realidade reformada muito popular na atualidade. A maioria deles é anterior ao novo calvinismo. Cartas a um jovem calvinista, por James K. A. Smith, é novo para o campo e muito distinto do restante. Trata-se de um dos poucos livros que falam diretamente com esse novo e inquieto movimento reformado. Escrito como se fossem cartas de um mentor ao aprendiz, que está investigando a teologia reformada, o livro oferece 125 cativantes páginas introdutórias à tradição e a seu funcionamento na vida real.
― Tim Challies
Autor de Discernimento Espiritual
― Tim Challies
Autor de Discernimento Espiritual
156 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
38 people are currently reading
581 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
January 4, 2015
I read Letters to a Young Calvinist because I’d already enjoyed quite a few of James Smith’s other books. But unlike his other works, Letters is written in a popular style and is intended, largely, for young folks already captivated by the reformed tradition and eager to learn more about it. As a number of reviewers have already mentioned and as is clear from the title, Letters consists of a number of ‘letters’ to a certain Jesse who, coming from a Pentecostal tradition, is new to reformed/Calvinist theology. Throughout, Smith offers some useful advice, such as a warning to avoid pride – “[n]ow is as good a time as any to warn you about one of the foremost temptations that accompanies Reformed theology: pride” (6) – and to continue attending church – “it’s as if you’re saying you’re ‘too Reformed’ for any church!” (87). Further, Smith provides some historical background, tracing Reformed theology back to Augustine, drawing a distinction between Scottish and Dutch Calvinism, and arguing that Calvinism should be embraced holistically, as something more than TULIP and a belief in predestination.
I have three main criticisms. The first is almost insignificant but I’ll mention it anyway. I think Smith should have waited before writing this book. He’s a very prolific author and the idea of writing ‘letters’ seems to suggest, at least in my mind, a correspondence between an older ‘wise’ figure and much younger ‘naive’ reader. Though Smith writes from his own experience, I felt he wasn’t yet old enough to really lend the force needed to his arguments. Along the same lines, it seems that Smith is trying perhaps too hard to be relevant to his young reader, adding Lord of the Rings analogies and whatnot.
The second criticism has to do with Smith’s insistence on the modernism/post-modernism distinction that divides so-called primitivists who want to go straight back to the Bible, leaping over tradition, and catholics who want to accept the authority of various church creeds, fathers, and theologians. Smith argues that the former are caught in the illusion of modernity, thinking they can access the source – scripture – without any mediation. Catholics, on the other hand – and he uses this term very loosely – realize that we can never approach scripture directly and without the influence of tradition. As Smith writes, “the Reformers were not revolutionaries; that is, they were not out to raze the church to the ground, get back to some ‘pure’ set of New Testament church principles, and start from scratch. In short, they didn’t see themselves as leapfrogging over the centuries of post-apostolic tradition . . . they understood the Spirit as unfolding the wisdom of the Word over the centuries in the voices of Augustine and Gregory the Great, in Chysostom and Anselm. To say the Reformed tradition is ‘catholic’ is just to say that it affirms this operation of the Spirit in history” (46). Later he writes that “[f]or folks like you and me . . . I think this is one of the hardest things to absorb. By ‘primitivist’ I mean Christian traditions that have a basically negative view of history and instead see themselves as repristinating ‘pure’ biblical teaching or ‘New Testament church principles.’ I absorbed this through my conversion amongst the Plymouth Brethren, but the same primitivism characterized the Pentecostal churches of which you and I were a part. It’s the leapfrogging I’ve suggested before: leaping over the gifts of teachers like Augustine and Ambrose, as if we are somehow better equipped to read the Scriptures on our own. In a strange way, such hubris reflects the chronological snobbery of the Enlightenment, which saw liberation from tradition as the mark of ‘rational’ maturity. Paradoxically, this is why such primitivism is actually quite modern” (46-47). I want to point out two problems with Smith’s analysis. First, he seems to argue that ‘primitivism’ involves both (a) not acknowledging the church fathers as authoritative and (b) ignoring the church fathers. Second, he seems to think that we can overcome modernism’s obsession with achieving an impossible ‘direct access’ to scripture by reading it through the church fathers. The first point is wrong because primitivist traditions only reject (a) and not (b). They believe that the church fathers and others may or may not have interesting insights and they are also willing to challenge them. The difference between primitivists and catholics – as Smith defines them – is not about whether one position reads historical theologians while the other does not. The difference, rather, has to do with whether these historical theologians are or are not above criticism. It is precisely the virtue of the primitivist position that primitivists do not add to scripture all kinds of historical documents – creeds, commentaries, sermons, and so on – that only seminary- or university-educated theologians have the time to read and understand. Primitivists thereby allow scripture to be more accessible to lay people and leave the church fathers open to criticism; they do not bind their members to texts difficult to access. Further, the difference between modern ‘direct access’ and post-modern ‘mediated access’ does not disappear once we add the authority of church fathers to the authority of scripture. If we cannot read scripture directly or without a certain perspective and tradition, neither can we read the creeds or Augustine or Calvin directly. If we must take as authoritative the writings of the church fathers in order to overcome the naïve notion of a ‘direct access’ to scripture then we must also take as authoritative the writings about Augustine in order to understand Augustine. Further, we must take the writings about the wrings about Augustine in order to understand the writings about Augustine. The difference between ‘direct access’ and ‘mediated access’ I argue does not have to do with how many historical sources we take to be authoritative; it has to do, rather, with whether or not we take as final any one interpretation of scripture. In other words, the modernist is the one who believes that her or his own reading of scripture is the final reading of scripture to which nothing can be taken away or added. The less naïve reader, by contrast, is the one who tries to develop the most coherent and convincing interpretation of scripture as possible while realizing that God might completely surprise us.
My third criticism has to do with Smith’s disregard for dispensationalism. In Letters Smith rightfully contrasts dispensational theology with covenant theology. Whereas dispensationalism is largely a grassroots movement and is not endorsed by many if any ‘self-respecting university professors of theology’ (see the introduction to Loraine Boettner’s book The Millennium) covenant theology is closely associated with the reformed tradition. In general, Smith again associates dispensationalism with his roots among the Plymouth Brethren and, like primitivism, rejects it as problematic. So far so good. But Smith’s arguments against dispensationalism are quite bad. First, like too many others, he poisons the well by associating dispensationalism with the Left Behind series. And of course, anything associated with the Left Behind series must automatically be wrong . . . . “it buys into the Jesus-and-me picture of individual salvation . . . . [I]n other words, it fails to see that since creation, and even in spite of the fall, God has been creating and calling one ‘people’ to be his own” (72). Further, he argues that covenant theology is superior to dispensationalism because it “helps us see the Scriptures as one narrative, one unfolding drama in multiple acts or chapters, rather than seeing it as either a series of private dealings between God and individuals or a chopped-up conglomeration of discrete epochs or dispensations in which God seems to keep changing the rules” (73-74). This really isn’t a charitable reading of dispensationalism. Again, if Smith wants to argue against a position, he should present the position in as convincing a light as possible. I’m not sure who Smith is reading when he claims that dispensationalism ignores the continuity of scripture or God’s covenants with his people but I don’t recognize dispensationalism in his critique. I think he’s criticizing something else, something he thinks is dispensationalism. I don’t mind if Smith finds dispensationalism unconvincing but he should at least demonstrate why. To me, he only seems to be demonstrating that he really doesn’t know much about it. Maybe he should begin with Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism.
I have three main criticisms. The first is almost insignificant but I’ll mention it anyway. I think Smith should have waited before writing this book. He’s a very prolific author and the idea of writing ‘letters’ seems to suggest, at least in my mind, a correspondence between an older ‘wise’ figure and much younger ‘naive’ reader. Though Smith writes from his own experience, I felt he wasn’t yet old enough to really lend the force needed to his arguments. Along the same lines, it seems that Smith is trying perhaps too hard to be relevant to his young reader, adding Lord of the Rings analogies and whatnot.
The second criticism has to do with Smith’s insistence on the modernism/post-modernism distinction that divides so-called primitivists who want to go straight back to the Bible, leaping over tradition, and catholics who want to accept the authority of various church creeds, fathers, and theologians. Smith argues that the former are caught in the illusion of modernity, thinking they can access the source – scripture – without any mediation. Catholics, on the other hand – and he uses this term very loosely – realize that we can never approach scripture directly and without the influence of tradition. As Smith writes, “the Reformers were not revolutionaries; that is, they were not out to raze the church to the ground, get back to some ‘pure’ set of New Testament church principles, and start from scratch. In short, they didn’t see themselves as leapfrogging over the centuries of post-apostolic tradition . . . they understood the Spirit as unfolding the wisdom of the Word over the centuries in the voices of Augustine and Gregory the Great, in Chysostom and Anselm. To say the Reformed tradition is ‘catholic’ is just to say that it affirms this operation of the Spirit in history” (46). Later he writes that “[f]or folks like you and me . . . I think this is one of the hardest things to absorb. By ‘primitivist’ I mean Christian traditions that have a basically negative view of history and instead see themselves as repristinating ‘pure’ biblical teaching or ‘New Testament church principles.’ I absorbed this through my conversion amongst the Plymouth Brethren, but the same primitivism characterized the Pentecostal churches of which you and I were a part. It’s the leapfrogging I’ve suggested before: leaping over the gifts of teachers like Augustine and Ambrose, as if we are somehow better equipped to read the Scriptures on our own. In a strange way, such hubris reflects the chronological snobbery of the Enlightenment, which saw liberation from tradition as the mark of ‘rational’ maturity. Paradoxically, this is why such primitivism is actually quite modern” (46-47). I want to point out two problems with Smith’s analysis. First, he seems to argue that ‘primitivism’ involves both (a) not acknowledging the church fathers as authoritative and (b) ignoring the church fathers. Second, he seems to think that we can overcome modernism’s obsession with achieving an impossible ‘direct access’ to scripture by reading it through the church fathers. The first point is wrong because primitivist traditions only reject (a) and not (b). They believe that the church fathers and others may or may not have interesting insights and they are also willing to challenge them. The difference between primitivists and catholics – as Smith defines them – is not about whether one position reads historical theologians while the other does not. The difference, rather, has to do with whether these historical theologians are or are not above criticism. It is precisely the virtue of the primitivist position that primitivists do not add to scripture all kinds of historical documents – creeds, commentaries, sermons, and so on – that only seminary- or university-educated theologians have the time to read and understand. Primitivists thereby allow scripture to be more accessible to lay people and leave the church fathers open to criticism; they do not bind their members to texts difficult to access. Further, the difference between modern ‘direct access’ and post-modern ‘mediated access’ does not disappear once we add the authority of church fathers to the authority of scripture. If we cannot read scripture directly or without a certain perspective and tradition, neither can we read the creeds or Augustine or Calvin directly. If we must take as authoritative the writings of the church fathers in order to overcome the naïve notion of a ‘direct access’ to scripture then we must also take as authoritative the writings about Augustine in order to understand Augustine. Further, we must take the writings about the wrings about Augustine in order to understand the writings about Augustine. The difference between ‘direct access’ and ‘mediated access’ I argue does not have to do with how many historical sources we take to be authoritative; it has to do, rather, with whether or not we take as final any one interpretation of scripture. In other words, the modernist is the one who believes that her or his own reading of scripture is the final reading of scripture to which nothing can be taken away or added. The less naïve reader, by contrast, is the one who tries to develop the most coherent and convincing interpretation of scripture as possible while realizing that God might completely surprise us.
My third criticism has to do with Smith’s disregard for dispensationalism. In Letters Smith rightfully contrasts dispensational theology with covenant theology. Whereas dispensationalism is largely a grassroots movement and is not endorsed by many if any ‘self-respecting university professors of theology’ (see the introduction to Loraine Boettner’s book The Millennium) covenant theology is closely associated with the reformed tradition. In general, Smith again associates dispensationalism with his roots among the Plymouth Brethren and, like primitivism, rejects it as problematic. So far so good. But Smith’s arguments against dispensationalism are quite bad. First, like too many others, he poisons the well by associating dispensationalism with the Left Behind series. And of course, anything associated with the Left Behind series must automatically be wrong . . . . “it buys into the Jesus-and-me picture of individual salvation . . . . [I]n other words, it fails to see that since creation, and even in spite of the fall, God has been creating and calling one ‘people’ to be his own” (72). Further, he argues that covenant theology is superior to dispensationalism because it “helps us see the Scriptures as one narrative, one unfolding drama in multiple acts or chapters, rather than seeing it as either a series of private dealings between God and individuals or a chopped-up conglomeration of discrete epochs or dispensations in which God seems to keep changing the rules” (73-74). This really isn’t a charitable reading of dispensationalism. Again, if Smith wants to argue against a position, he should present the position in as convincing a light as possible. I’m not sure who Smith is reading when he claims that dispensationalism ignores the continuity of scripture or God’s covenants with his people but I don’t recognize dispensationalism in his critique. I think he’s criticizing something else, something he thinks is dispensationalism. I don’t mind if Smith finds dispensationalism unconvincing but he should at least demonstrate why. To me, he only seems to be demonstrating that he really doesn’t know much about it. Maybe he should begin with Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism.
July 16, 2023
Bottom line—not mad I read this, I think Smith accomplished what he set out to do, but there are probably more worthwhile books on this topic. What this book has going for it, though, is the length (short), scope (fairly wide; high-level), and accessibility. Works as a primer on the history and distinguishing marks of the reformed tradition.
Particularly interesting are Smith’s thoughts on differences bw continental and Anglo confessions and schools of thought, and the paragraphs on Kuyper on Luther v Calvin; particularly lovely is the discussion of the cultural mandate and cultivation as unfurling all that is “packed into creation.”
The book also contains a nice bibliography. I could have done without the letter format.
Particularly interesting are Smith’s thoughts on differences bw continental and Anglo confessions and schools of thought, and the paragraphs on Kuyper on Luther v Calvin; particularly lovely is the discussion of the cultural mandate and cultivation as unfurling all that is “packed into creation.”
The book also contains a nice bibliography. I could have done without the letter format.
January 29, 2020
As the name suggest this was an informative and helpful book for a young Calvinist, such as myself. Smith does an great job of both giving advice and educating his readers on the reformed tradition in a concise manner. However, occasionally Smith would start on a topic and would never fully expand on it or come to a conclusion.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this book and plan on hopefully reading more of Smith's work in the near future.
3/5.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this book and plan on hopefully reading more of Smith's work in the near future.
3/5.
April 12, 2017
Fantastic introduction to the reformed tradition. Short and accessible. Read this annually with leadership training for our church.
December 22, 2012
An interesting & creative introduction to [radical] "wide-angle" Calvinism, this book is presented as a string of pastoral letters to a budding Calvinist who is too narrowly fixed on the [important] doctrines of election & predestination. The author does a great job of patiently explaining how Calvinism encompasses much more than TULIP, enabling you to see the grander picture of redemption & the extension of grace to the whole of creation, not just individual salvation. Also good is the introduction to covenant theology, the promise of God's redemptive work weaved throughout the whole narrative of Scripture, emphasizing the wonderful providence & sovereignty of God. In a chapter titled God's "Social" Gospel he says, ". . .But God's interest in his creatures is more than just the sum of the individual parts. God creates a people. ... God also saves a people."
Having just recently read the Confessions, I really enjoyed his frequent references to Augustine & his idea of creation as a means of enjoying God (quoting Jonathan Edwards as well); & also, making the point that Reformed theology at its root is the re-awakening of Augustinian theology, the father of predestination. One of my favorite chapters is Grace All the Way Down, chapter 4, where he says, "This theology of radical grace is captured in one of Augustine's favorite verses, 1 Corinthians 4:7: 'What do you have that you did not receive?' The answer, of course, is nothing; or, stated positively, everything we have is something we have received as a gift. So we have no reason to "boast," Paul says, as if anything was "ours" in the first place."
Later in the chapter he follows that up with Pascal's adage: "God owes us nothing."
His unabashed use of the word "catholic" to describe Reformed theology was refreshing. What surprised me though was his statement: "In contrast to this, the Reformers are "catholic" because they are incarnational." Didn't see that one coming--but it was indeed fun to see "incarnational" freely used to express the role of the church as Christ's body--His ambassadors here on earth.
You'll be surprised to learn about the two streams of Reformed theology: the Dutch & the Scottish streams that developed under Luther, Calvin, & Knox, painting a brief but clear picture of historical sixteenth century Reformation. He talks about the role creeds & confessions play in Reformed churches (e.g., Apostles' Creed, Belgium Confession, Westminster Cats, Canons of Dort, etc.), suggesting that you read the Heidelberg Catechism in one sitting (which I did) & stating that they are guides & helps for articulating orthodoxy but emphasizing their right place, which is never above the authority & true guiding light of the inspired Word of God.
He admits to having a provocative tone at times--a rather edgy Calvinist I would say (which is not all bad). And you won't agree--as I didn't--to everything he says. For example, in one of his postscripts (PS), he says that the Reformed hermeneutic allowed him to conclude in favor of egalitarianism. In spite of that comment, & maybe one or two more awkward remarks, it was a fun & engaging read. Most helpful are the honest warnings to his protégé against the ever-present dangers of pride & condescension towards brethren of non-Reformed views. Mental assent to Calvinism is not a requirement for salvation, nor a means by which we presume on the faith of others. Also, Calvinism (which is not synonymous with Reformed theology, as the author rightfully points) speaks to much more than our "intellectual passions" & "theological curiosities," & to more than just "election"; rather, what John Calvin had in mind was a holistic reformation of our worship & devotion towards God--a true piety--& finally, the awareness of our great need of grace (the receiving & giving of).
PS. The author is generous in providing several helpful titles (e.g. Kuyper) for further exploring, which I found myself jotting down.
Having just recently read the Confessions, I really enjoyed his frequent references to Augustine & his idea of creation as a means of enjoying God (quoting Jonathan Edwards as well); & also, making the point that Reformed theology at its root is the re-awakening of Augustinian theology, the father of predestination. One of my favorite chapters is Grace All the Way Down, chapter 4, where he says, "This theology of radical grace is captured in one of Augustine's favorite verses, 1 Corinthians 4:7: 'What do you have that you did not receive?' The answer, of course, is nothing; or, stated positively, everything we have is something we have received as a gift. So we have no reason to "boast," Paul says, as if anything was "ours" in the first place."
Later in the chapter he follows that up with Pascal's adage: "God owes us nothing."
His unabashed use of the word "catholic" to describe Reformed theology was refreshing. What surprised me though was his statement: "In contrast to this, the Reformers are "catholic" because they are incarnational." Didn't see that one coming--but it was indeed fun to see "incarnational" freely used to express the role of the church as Christ's body--His ambassadors here on earth.
You'll be surprised to learn about the two streams of Reformed theology: the Dutch & the Scottish streams that developed under Luther, Calvin, & Knox, painting a brief but clear picture of historical sixteenth century Reformation. He talks about the role creeds & confessions play in Reformed churches (e.g., Apostles' Creed, Belgium Confession, Westminster Cats, Canons of Dort, etc.), suggesting that you read the Heidelberg Catechism in one sitting (which I did) & stating that they are guides & helps for articulating orthodoxy but emphasizing their right place, which is never above the authority & true guiding light of the inspired Word of God.
He admits to having a provocative tone at times--a rather edgy Calvinist I would say (which is not all bad). And you won't agree--as I didn't--to everything he says. For example, in one of his postscripts (PS), he says that the Reformed hermeneutic allowed him to conclude in favor of egalitarianism. In spite of that comment, & maybe one or two more awkward remarks, it was a fun & engaging read. Most helpful are the honest warnings to his protégé against the ever-present dangers of pride & condescension towards brethren of non-Reformed views. Mental assent to Calvinism is not a requirement for salvation, nor a means by which we presume on the faith of others. Also, Calvinism (which is not synonymous with Reformed theology, as the author rightfully points) speaks to much more than our "intellectual passions" & "theological curiosities," & to more than just "election"; rather, what John Calvin had in mind was a holistic reformation of our worship & devotion towards God--a true piety--& finally, the awareness of our great need of grace (the receiving & giving of).
PS. The author is generous in providing several helpful titles (e.g. Kuyper) for further exploring, which I found myself jotting down.
July 1, 2015
“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.
August 19, 2012
James K. A. Smith thinks deeply and writes well. However, he spends just as much time talking about Calvinists as Calvinism. And at times he seems to play that game of Removed Contrarian--in which one refuses to take sides in a disagreement so that one can then sit above the fray and “dish” on both sides, thus avoiding risk and granting oneself the right to judge the less-enlightened partisans. Now, the book is far from worthless and does give an interesting picture of contemporary Calvinism and some historical background to the Reformed tradition. However, Smith makes it clear that he’s more comfortable calling himself an Augustinian than a Calvinist. And he confesses he’s more concerned about secular social issues than he is about certain fine points of right doctrine--these being such social issues as the “threats” of capitalism and nationalism (“I have a hard time believing that the denial of limited atonement is the most pressing matter of discipleship right now. We should be more worried about WalMart.”) Also, his valuing of art and culture is incredibly high and, I think, not very well supported (“In short, the creational work of culture . . . is what we’re made for”; “. . . good culture-making is also what we’re saved for.”) Finally, the book ends with the letters just petering out, which points up the fact that there was never much of an emotional or dramatic arc to this creative-epistolary work.
I recommend skipping this one and trying something just a bit longer: Michael Horton's For Calvinism.
I recommend skipping this one and trying something just a bit longer: Michael Horton's For Calvinism.
March 25, 2014
I'm not a Calvinist but I enjoy Smith's work and couldn't resist this book at 2.99 for the kindle. My big wish after reading this book is that more Calvinists of the "young, restless and reformed" variety would pick it up and read it. Though not a Calvinist, I agreed with over 90% of what he wrote in this book Much of it centers on topics like the redemption of culture, the place of creeds and the importance of worship and spiritual formation. I suppose there will always be disagreements between Christians on unconditional election, prevenient grace and other such topics. And I still have trouble seeing how the way some Calvinists portray God could give us a God who is “loving” in any sense of the word. That aside, if you’re a Calvinist read this book and if you’re not a Calvinist you might want to give it a go too.
September 27, 2013
Great primer on the Reformed tradition. Smith frames the book as a series of letters to a young man (Smith said that the young man is the younger version of himself, in some ways) who is learning more about Reformed Christianity. Smith touches on some basics while also warning against the arrogance that usually comes at that stage. Smith really does a nice job pointing out how inviting the Reformed tradition is supposed to be, which is a wonderful reminder. (Especially since my denomination seems to be raising lots of angry, divisive people.)
April 17, 2014
Must-read for all who consider themselves Calvinists. Jamie Smith does an impressive job here helping cover the landscape of Calvinism, including the "New Calvinism," and urges Calvinists to consider the riches of an all-of-creation, Kuyperian, world-reformative Christianity.
Recommended for Seminarians and for Christians who are relatively versed in basic theology.
Recommended for Seminarians and for Christians who are relatively versed in basic theology.
June 22, 2014
Uma bela introdução e advertência àqueles que estão conhecendo a teologia reformada.
August 28, 2021
How would an elder believer help a Cage-Stage Calvinist grow into mature manhood? What are the pitfalls and blind spots that often accompany the zeal of a new Calvinist? James K. A. Smith answers these questions by writing a series of short letters to his younger self, sharing wisdom won through years in the saddle.
“Despite this tendency [toward pride] amongst young Calvinists, humility should in fact be the primary Calvinist virtue.”
The author did a great job of diagnosing and addressing the most common lapses of young Calvinists like pride and lack of charity, providing genuinely useful advice like, “True friends are those who encourage you in the fruit of the Spirit,” “Battling other Christians should not be a very high priority,” and (somewhat surprisingly) “It seems to me very un-Reformed to prop up Reformed theology as a timeless ideal, a consummated achievement, when one of the Reformers’ mantras was semper reformanda—always reforming.”
A major strength of the book was its conversational, shepherding tone, allowing Smith to teach and admonish with gentleness and empathy. He exemplified the character traits that he taught, allowing us to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
Smith also took the opportunity to expand the scope of the conversation about Calvinism.
“The scope of God’s redemptive work is bigger and wider than the rescue of individual souls. Christ’s redemption is cosmic—it effects not only the redemption of our souls but the redemption of every aspect of this entire groaning creation (Rom. 8:22). Through the cross, God reconciles all things to himself, “whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col. 1:20).”
He addressed the larger redemptive, world-reforming vision of Calvinism, and even made time to chart the development of Reformed theology, both to situate the reader in the larger story and demonstrate Calvinism’s far-reaching implications (which reach well beyond the doctrines of grace).
While I didn’t agree with every one of Smith’s conclusions, I learned more in this 100-page book than in any other book on the subject; I would be eager to lend this book to any of my brothers and sisters! Though I would recommend some knowledge of Reformed theology before you begin.
To quote Augustine, Smith’s favorite theologian:
“So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.”
“Despite this tendency [toward pride] amongst young Calvinists, humility should in fact be the primary Calvinist virtue.”
The author did a great job of diagnosing and addressing the most common lapses of young Calvinists like pride and lack of charity, providing genuinely useful advice like, “True friends are those who encourage you in the fruit of the Spirit,” “Battling other Christians should not be a very high priority,” and (somewhat surprisingly) “It seems to me very un-Reformed to prop up Reformed theology as a timeless ideal, a consummated achievement, when one of the Reformers’ mantras was semper reformanda—always reforming.”
A major strength of the book was its conversational, shepherding tone, allowing Smith to teach and admonish with gentleness and empathy. He exemplified the character traits that he taught, allowing us to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
Smith also took the opportunity to expand the scope of the conversation about Calvinism.
“The scope of God’s redemptive work is bigger and wider than the rescue of individual souls. Christ’s redemption is cosmic—it effects not only the redemption of our souls but the redemption of every aspect of this entire groaning creation (Rom. 8:22). Through the cross, God reconciles all things to himself, “whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col. 1:20).”
He addressed the larger redemptive, world-reforming vision of Calvinism, and even made time to chart the development of Reformed theology, both to situate the reader in the larger story and demonstrate Calvinism’s far-reaching implications (which reach well beyond the doctrines of grace).
While I didn’t agree with every one of Smith’s conclusions, I learned more in this 100-page book than in any other book on the subject; I would be eager to lend this book to any of my brothers and sisters! Though I would recommend some knowledge of Reformed theology before you begin.
To quote Augustine, Smith’s favorite theologian:
“So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.”
September 28, 2019
Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith
I bought this from a Goodwill along with Richard Mouw's Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport. Unlike Mouw's book, this book isn't a defense of Calvinism but rather an internal monologue between the author and a younger version of himself (and also younger people he knows) about discovering what he considers to be the fullness of Calvinism. I'm not sure the audience of this book or who I would gift it to. The chapters are the authors letters to a fictional younger person in a years-long dialogue in which we never get to see the other person's exact thoughts. The book can be a source of further readings into Calvinism, which gets to the heart of Calvinists themselves-- they do a lot of reading. There is a lot of navel-gazing that is evident in this book, giving it a pretty limited audience. In my observation, Calvinists spend more time studying and thinking about Calvinist theology than they do actually practicing the things Jesus taught. They are like string theorist physicists who spend long hours in mathematical constructs refining equations that can never be tested because we'd have to build a Hadron Collider bigger than the universe to test them. That universe is indeed big and beautiful, but you get so lost in the minutia that you really wonder if it's a worthwhile endeavor.
Smith is clearly a fan of Abraham Kuyper, and this book may give you more inspiration to read him. He also juxtaposes Luther's and Calvin's theology more than other Calvinist authors I have read. Smith also makes some cautionary statements about the Young Calvinist movement and certain Calvinist teachers (who largely go unnamed) that he feels are dangerous in their particular bent and dogmatism.
I give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
I bought this from a Goodwill along with Richard Mouw's Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport. Unlike Mouw's book, this book isn't a defense of Calvinism but rather an internal monologue between the author and a younger version of himself (and also younger people he knows) about discovering what he considers to be the fullness of Calvinism. I'm not sure the audience of this book or who I would gift it to. The chapters are the authors letters to a fictional younger person in a years-long dialogue in which we never get to see the other person's exact thoughts. The book can be a source of further readings into Calvinism, which gets to the heart of Calvinists themselves-- they do a lot of reading. There is a lot of navel-gazing that is evident in this book, giving it a pretty limited audience. In my observation, Calvinists spend more time studying and thinking about Calvinist theology than they do actually practicing the things Jesus taught. They are like string theorist physicists who spend long hours in mathematical constructs refining equations that can never be tested because we'd have to build a Hadron Collider bigger than the universe to test them. That universe is indeed big and beautiful, but you get so lost in the minutia that you really wonder if it's a worthwhile endeavor.
Smith is clearly a fan of Abraham Kuyper, and this book may give you more inspiration to read him. He also juxtaposes Luther's and Calvin's theology more than other Calvinist authors I have read. Smith also makes some cautionary statements about the Young Calvinist movement and certain Calvinist teachers (who largely go unnamed) that he feels are dangerous in their particular bent and dogmatism.
I give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
July 29, 2017
Livro muito legal sobre o que é ter uma perspectiva reformada do mundo e como lidar com outros cristãos que não a tenham. Devia ter lido esse livro assim que eu descobri a teologia reformada... rsrs. Destaco as cartas VI, XV e XXIII.
March 18, 2019
Um bom livro com bons conselhos.
February 28, 2020
Dr. Smith has again adjusted my inner compass to true north again.Great read, found 15 more books I need to read.
June 20, 2016
Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith reminds me of the last time I went to see the San Francisco Giants play baseball. I remember purchasing the tickets with my Dad, approaching the park, and watching the Giants play the Dodgers in what was then, Candlestick Park. This is a great memory from my childhood because I got a chance to see some of the Dodger greats like Dusty Baker, Ron Cey, Steve Garvey, and Pedro Guerrero. This is a day I’ll never forget.
Unfortunately, what I remember most about that day was the frigid cold weather that sent our family to the parking lot by the beginning of the seventh inning. I never knew it could get so cold in the summer months — in California!
So how is James K.A. Smith’s book like that fateful day in San Francisco? First, the positive. Smith’s idea of writing short letters to a rookie Reformed theologian is brilliant. He understands the pitfalls and vulnerabilities to newcomers to the Reformed faith. He patiently admonishes his friend to avoid pride and challenges him to pursue a path of humility.
Smith’s overview of Reformed theology, while short, is done in a winsome and insightful way. He also gives good historical background and laces his treatment with reading suggestions for his friend.
Smith’s summary of Kuyper’s brand of Calvinism is worth the price of the book. He explores Kuyper’s explanation of Calvinism as a “life-system” or “worldview.” The Dutch statesman is cited approvingly: “There is not a single square inch of creation concerning which Christ does not say, ‘Mine!'” Smith adds, “This is just another way of saying that Christ is not only Lord of our souls, but Lord of our bodies, Lord of our families, Lord of our commerce and recreation and education. He is the Lord of science and art, dance and dipthongs, eating, and drinking. There’s no corner of creation that is immune from his lordship, no ‘secular’ sphere of life that is neutral with respect to the Creator’s sovereignty.”
The author continues to affirm the goodness of God’s creation (a reality that is forgotten by many evangelicals): “Christ’s redemption is cosmic – it effects not only the redemption of our souls but the redemption of every aspect of this entire groaning creation.”
The author shatters the neo-gnostic view that some evangelicals hold: “God is not only interested in soul-saving; God is interested in ‘nation-building,’ calling and re-creating a people, making a people out of individuals who were not otherwise a ‘people.'”
However, this work has some troubling themes that need to be explored; themes that remind me of the wind and rain in Candlestick Park. In a post-script, Smith makes reference to the egalitarian/complementarian controversy. In a shocking statement, he argues that the “Reformed hermeneutic” led him to embrace egalitarianism. The author is clearly out of step with a majority of Reformed theologians. He undoubtedly understands this and makes the following appeal at the end of his letter: ” … I only hope you might appreciate how someone could take this position [egalitarianism], not as a “liberal” departure from the Reformed tradition, but actually as a concrete working-out of a Reformed understanding of Scripture.”
In another post-script, the author surprisingly makes reference to the New Perspective on Paul controversy. He remarks, “… For the record, it seems to me that Wright’s account of justification resonates with covenant theology.” Again, such a remark is out of step with the general consensus among Reformed thinkers. The author at this point seems like he has an axe to grind. This “axe” does not fit into the overall scope of his otherwise excellent and creative book. It has an awkward “edginess” that detracts from the main themes and purpose of the book.
The author continues to swing his “axe” in an unfair swipe against Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He maintains that Southern has “absorbed Calvinism without it affecting the shape of their worship or polity.” One wonders when this pettiness will stop! Perhaps the author ought to take a few swings against false teachers instead of chopping his fellow Calvinists!
The promotion of egalitarianism and the New Perspective on Paul are deeply disturbing, not to mention the petty comments about Southern Seminary. One wonders how such a creative book could turn into a mini-treatise that promotes a personal agenda and theological views which are outside the pale of Reformed theology.
I was originally excited to read this creative introduction to Reformed theology. While making it to the end, I was tempted to leave at the bottom of the seventh inning. At least I didn’t get wet!
Unfortunately, what I remember most about that day was the frigid cold weather that sent our family to the parking lot by the beginning of the seventh inning. I never knew it could get so cold in the summer months — in California!
So how is James K.A. Smith’s book like that fateful day in San Francisco? First, the positive. Smith’s idea of writing short letters to a rookie Reformed theologian is brilliant. He understands the pitfalls and vulnerabilities to newcomers to the Reformed faith. He patiently admonishes his friend to avoid pride and challenges him to pursue a path of humility.
Smith’s overview of Reformed theology, while short, is done in a winsome and insightful way. He also gives good historical background and laces his treatment with reading suggestions for his friend.
Smith’s summary of Kuyper’s brand of Calvinism is worth the price of the book. He explores Kuyper’s explanation of Calvinism as a “life-system” or “worldview.” The Dutch statesman is cited approvingly: “There is not a single square inch of creation concerning which Christ does not say, ‘Mine!'” Smith adds, “This is just another way of saying that Christ is not only Lord of our souls, but Lord of our bodies, Lord of our families, Lord of our commerce and recreation and education. He is the Lord of science and art, dance and dipthongs, eating, and drinking. There’s no corner of creation that is immune from his lordship, no ‘secular’ sphere of life that is neutral with respect to the Creator’s sovereignty.”
The author continues to affirm the goodness of God’s creation (a reality that is forgotten by many evangelicals): “Christ’s redemption is cosmic – it effects not only the redemption of our souls but the redemption of every aspect of this entire groaning creation.”
The author shatters the neo-gnostic view that some evangelicals hold: “God is not only interested in soul-saving; God is interested in ‘nation-building,’ calling and re-creating a people, making a people out of individuals who were not otherwise a ‘people.'”
However, this work has some troubling themes that need to be explored; themes that remind me of the wind and rain in Candlestick Park. In a post-script, Smith makes reference to the egalitarian/complementarian controversy. In a shocking statement, he argues that the “Reformed hermeneutic” led him to embrace egalitarianism. The author is clearly out of step with a majority of Reformed theologians. He undoubtedly understands this and makes the following appeal at the end of his letter: ” … I only hope you might appreciate how someone could take this position [egalitarianism], not as a “liberal” departure from the Reformed tradition, but actually as a concrete working-out of a Reformed understanding of Scripture.”
In another post-script, the author surprisingly makes reference to the New Perspective on Paul controversy. He remarks, “… For the record, it seems to me that Wright’s account of justification resonates with covenant theology.” Again, such a remark is out of step with the general consensus among Reformed thinkers. The author at this point seems like he has an axe to grind. This “axe” does not fit into the overall scope of his otherwise excellent and creative book. It has an awkward “edginess” that detracts from the main themes and purpose of the book.
The author continues to swing his “axe” in an unfair swipe against Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He maintains that Southern has “absorbed Calvinism without it affecting the shape of their worship or polity.” One wonders when this pettiness will stop! Perhaps the author ought to take a few swings against false teachers instead of chopping his fellow Calvinists!
The promotion of egalitarianism and the New Perspective on Paul are deeply disturbing, not to mention the petty comments about Southern Seminary. One wonders how such a creative book could turn into a mini-treatise that promotes a personal agenda and theological views which are outside the pale of Reformed theology.
I was originally excited to read this creative introduction to Reformed theology. While making it to the end, I was tempted to leave at the bottom of the seventh inning. At least I didn’t get wet!
August 15, 2011
A great introduction to Calvinism but not 'dumbed-down' too much for those already acquainted with theologies. Since it's written in letter format, the style is engaging and each chapter thorough while still managing to be delightfully concise. The emphasis was less on the 'intellectual-ness' that an understanding of Calvinism tends to generate and more on the broader beauty of the catholicity and engagement of the heart in relationship to a beautiful Saviour that is typically misunderstood or entirely overlooked in current perspectives on Calvinism.
In light of recent developments of neo-Calvinists, New Calvinists, and even emergent thought, I think traditional Calvinism (or broader, "Reformed" or even broader, as the author prefers, "Augustinianism") gets a bad rap for being cold, intellectual, and overly concerned with predestination and how a loving God could possibly predestine some to hell. This small book serves as a warm and gentle defense to shed light on some misperceptions of Calvin himself and his theology, which was certainly not original thought during the Reformation,
I could have stopped after the second chapter, in which Smith addresses theological pride. Even in my own Dutch Reformed background I have often come across arrogance from an individual level to entire bodies and denominations - the subtle attitude that "finally, we've got it right, and everyone else will catch up if they keep studying." Smith shows that this attitude, which is sadly characteristic of many Calvinists, is actually opposite to Calvin's intention and to the heart of Reformed teaching, which rightly turns the focus from ourselves (and adding the 'work' of theological understanding and doctrine to grace) and towards the glory of a great, gracious, and benevolent God.
In light of recent developments of neo-Calvinists, New Calvinists, and even emergent thought, I think traditional Calvinism (or broader, "Reformed" or even broader, as the author prefers, "Augustinianism") gets a bad rap for being cold, intellectual, and overly concerned with predestination and how a loving God could possibly predestine some to hell. This small book serves as a warm and gentle defense to shed light on some misperceptions of Calvin himself and his theology, which was certainly not original thought during the Reformation,
I could have stopped after the second chapter, in which Smith addresses theological pride. Even in my own Dutch Reformed background I have often come across arrogance from an individual level to entire bodies and denominations - the subtle attitude that "finally, we've got it right, and everyone else will catch up if they keep studying." Smith shows that this attitude, which is sadly characteristic of many Calvinists, is actually opposite to Calvin's intention and to the heart of Reformed teaching, which rightly turns the focus from ourselves (and adding the 'work' of theological understanding and doctrine to grace) and towards the glory of a great, gracious, and benevolent God.
September 1, 2013
Written similarly to the Screwtape Letters (C.S.Lewis), Smith presents a very good survey of the reformed doctrines and tradition in history. Smith correctly states that the reformed doctrines come directly from Scripture, through the letters of Paul, to Saint Augustine, then on toward Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation era. Smith goes through some the denominational backgrounds and controversies; just leaving you with enough information to want to learn more.
Smith didn't clearly define the difference between true "Calvinism" and "Neo-Calvinism." That was a bit confusing since neo-Calvinism is barely Calvinism at all (think an unfounded hybrid of Calvinism and works righteousness). Also, he briefly mentioned two opposite doctrines concerning women in the church/state without defining both or saying which was biblical. Smith did say that to learn the reformed tradition correctly, one must directly read from Saint Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and Scripture itself. He emphasized studying Ephesians 2 and the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the early church (he prefers Heidelberg and Belgic to the Westminster). Overall, a fairly good summary of basic reformed doctrines.
Smith didn't clearly define the difference between true "Calvinism" and "Neo-Calvinism." That was a bit confusing since neo-Calvinism is barely Calvinism at all (think an unfounded hybrid of Calvinism and works righteousness). Also, he briefly mentioned two opposite doctrines concerning women in the church/state without defining both or saying which was biblical. Smith did say that to learn the reformed tradition correctly, one must directly read from Saint Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and Scripture itself. He emphasized studying Ephesians 2 and the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the early church (he prefers Heidelberg and Belgic to the Westminster). Overall, a fairly good summary of basic reformed doctrines.
October 7, 2014
Short Review: I had intended to read this several years ago when it first came out and I was exploring the rise of the new reformed movement. In some ways I wish I had, because I might have better understood the differenced within the Reformed movement. But in other ways I am glad that I did not because I think I am better able to understand Smith now with greater context to his work and I now appreciate some of his focus on the Reformed movement as covenantal theology, not soteriology.
These letters really are more about discipleship and maturity than Reformed theology. So any Christian can really gain from reading about how one more mature Christian writes to another that is seeking their own path. The one sided letter method reminds me of CS Lewis' Letters to Malcolm because I haven't read any of the many other 'Letters to a young..." that this is roughly based on.
As always, even though I am not reformed, nor likely to move very far in that direction, I am continually impressed and encouraged by Smith's work.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/letters-to-a-young-c...
These letters really are more about discipleship and maturity than Reformed theology. So any Christian can really gain from reading about how one more mature Christian writes to another that is seeking their own path. The one sided letter method reminds me of CS Lewis' Letters to Malcolm because I haven't read any of the many other 'Letters to a young..." that this is roughly based on.
As always, even though I am not reformed, nor likely to move very far in that direction, I am continually impressed and encouraged by Smith's work.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/letters-to-a-young-c...
November 21, 2010
Letters to a Young Calvinist is a nice read. It's done in the format of letters, which makes it interesting to read and pretty engaging. The author makes some good points, mostly in the beginning of the book. Some of those points are the dangers of pride, the need for humility, and the centrality of grace within reformed theology. However the book, in my opinion is marred somewhat by the author's perspective, or lack of clarification on some points. Some of those points are his views of women, especially as they pertain to the ministry of the church. He seems to be offering a different view than the complementarian position. Also, in one section he brings up N.T. Wright and his "new perspective on Paul", but fails to define the issues involve and leaves it open for the reader that perhaps Wright is offering a fresh view. I felt the book could have been helped if the author just stated where he stood instead of, seemingly, raising a bunch of questions and then leaving them unanswered.
March 6, 2012
Written as a series of letters to a "young Calvinist," Smith offers a tour of Reformed Theology, from the doctrines of grace (very briefly) to historical confessions of Reformed theology and even Reformed ecclesiology. Smith's purpose here is to invite evangelical Calvinists to the depths of the Reformed tradition (beyond the five-points of Calvinism to confessionalism, convenant theology, and more). While interesting and - at some points - helpful (e.g. the differences between Scottish and Dutch Reformed theologies), this is more of a personal confession (highlighting Smith's theological baises, assumptions, and soapboxes) than thoughtful theological invitation. Rather than giving the reader a grander vision of Reformed Theology, Smith paints a narrow and exclusive picture of a rich theological tradition. C
April 10, 2022
I really loved this book. This wasn't a dull and dry explanation of TULIP; it was a warm and enjoyable introduction to the full scope of Calvinism. A big takeaway for me was this: Calvinism is so much more than TULIP (individual salvation). It is a total vision of God and creation: God as sovereign King of the universe; creation as His very good gift, given to be enjoyed for His sake. This idea changed the world because God's Word is world-changing.
"It seems to me very un-Reformed to prop up Reformed theology as a timeless ideal, a consummated achievement, when one of the Reformers' mantras was semper reformanda—always reforming. You shouldn't expect a lifetime of pursuing the truth to result in constant entrenchment into what you thought when you were twenty. Wouldn't you expect the Spirit to lead you to grow and change?"
"It seems to me very un-Reformed to prop up Reformed theology as a timeless ideal, a consummated achievement, when one of the Reformers' mantras was semper reformanda—always reforming. You shouldn't expect a lifetime of pursuing the truth to result in constant entrenchment into what you thought when you were twenty. Wouldn't you expect the Spirit to lead you to grow and change?"
December 24, 2016
Oh, how I wish there were more popular "Calvinists" like James Smith....
In this little book, he defends 'egalitarian' ministry roles, sensitively explains doctrines like 'predestination' and 'election' with an ear to those who struggle with them (like me!) and even agrees with the 'New Perspective.' Who is this man, and why aren't more Calvinist teachers talking like this??
All this to say, if you are well-versed in the topics above, this book won't offer much new. As the subtitle says, it's an "introduction." I would only recommend it to someone who is relatively new to these traditions, although perhaps someone who is familiar would find this entry refreshing....
In this little book, he defends 'egalitarian' ministry roles, sensitively explains doctrines like 'predestination' and 'election' with an ear to those who struggle with them (like me!) and even agrees with the 'New Perspective.' Who is this man, and why aren't more Calvinist teachers talking like this??
All this to say, if you are well-versed in the topics above, this book won't offer much new. As the subtitle says, it's an "introduction." I would only recommend it to someone who is relatively new to these traditions, although perhaps someone who is familiar would find this entry refreshing....
October 18, 2014
Helpful little book for young Calvinists, and really for any who want to see the breadth of Calvinism as a worldview instead of as a particular understanding of salvation alone (TULIP). I've had a similar church background and doctrinal journey to Smith, especially at the start, but we have ended up in different church traditions and come down on a few matters on different sides of the fence. Overall, his cosmic, earthy, cultural-engaging Calvinism is welcome.
September 20, 2016
I'd probably give it around 3.5. It's a nice intro to many concepts and ideas with the author's commentary. At points out feels a little dated and may not age the best, but it was a helpful thing to read. I especially liked the chapter titled "Grace All the Way Down." The warnings against pride also seemed very applicable.
January 20, 2016
Somewhere between 3 and 4 stars. Smith writes well, and it certainly is helpful in gaining a clearer picture of the broad brushstrokes of Reformed theology. In fact, at the moment, this is the book I would recommend to someone seeking a basic introduction to the Reformed tradition.
December 23, 2010
One of those books I should have read several years ago, but it didn't exist. Very helpful for new calvinists.
July 27, 2012
Een degelijke insiders view voor zij die interesse hebben in de Calvinistische Traditie/theologie. Pastoraal als academisch georiënteerd.
May 16, 2015
Brief and likable. An expansive view of life.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews