Is Calvinism synonymous with Christianity? Or maybe Augustinian is actually what encapsulates what ‘Christianity’ actuall is? I think the language of ‘Calvinism’ helps to identify a particular tradition within Christianity, but I am not willing to go so far as to say that ‘Calvinism’ constitutes what Christianity is. It appears that Jamie Smith demurs here as well, at least with ‘Calvinism’; he though seems to make the same error by believing that we can reduce Christianity to the language of ‘Augustinian’ in lieu of ‘Calvinist’. Here’s what he says (he is commenting on how Kuyper approached this, and then Smith nods his head at Kuyper, in general):
I came to appreciate this rich, comprehensive understanding of Calvinism from its Dutch stream, and from Abraham Kuyper in particular. Indeed, Kuyper’s 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary — published simply under the title Calvinism — should be an essential part of your library. In his opening lecture, on Calvinism as a “life-system,” Kuyper cautions against reducing Calvinism to a specifically doctrinal matter, and to a specific doctrine in particular. “In this sense,” he notes, “a Calvinist is represented exclusively as the outspoken subscriber to the dogma of fore-ordination” (13). But as he points out, even ardent defenders of predestination such as Charles Hodge resisted the reduction of Calvinism to this one point, and thus preferred to describe themselves as “Augustinians” (as do I). In contrast, throughout these lectures Kuyper articulates Calvinism as, variously, a “complex,” a “life-system,” a “general tendency,” a “general system of life,” and, finally, a “world- and life-view.” As such, he doesn’t think Calvinism’s competitor is something like Arminianism, but radically different, comprehensive life-systems like Islam, Buddhism, and modernism. Every life-system, according to Kuyper, not only spells out how “I” can be saved but spells out an entire vision of and for the totality of human life, ultimately articulating an understanding of three “fundamental relations of all human life”: our relation to God, our relation to other persons (and human flourishing in general), and humanity’s relation to the natural world. And Calvinism, Kuyper claims, is nothing less than such a “complex,” such a “life-system.” Indeed, he thinks Calvinism was, in its own sense, revolutionary . . . . (James K. A. Smith, “Letters To A Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition,” 97-98)
There is much to be commended in what Smith (through briefly sketching Kuyper) has to say; especially in regards to reducing “Calvinism” to the ‘competitor’ of Arminianism as its sole offering to the theological world. Indeed, Smith even states that he can be critical of Kuyper in certain details; yet relative to Kuyper’s general thesis — about Calvinism (or Augustinianism) as “life-system” — Jamie Smith is in full agreement. I would want to demur at this point. While I believe that Evangelical Calvinism, for example, has something very significant and substantial to offer to Christendom; at the same time, I do not think that ‘EC’ is Christianity. Which for all intents and purposes, it does appear that Smith believes that ‘Calvinism’ is in fact Christianity (or that Christianity in its best form can be reduced to ‘Calvinism’); something in line withΒ sentiment thatΒ Charles Spurgeon preached:
I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. (HT: TCC)
I agree with the idea of “life-system,” but I think we shouldn’t use ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Augustinian’ to capture this; instead we should replace that, in contradistinction fromΒ Smith’s accounting, with Christianity. In other words, ‘Christianity’ and ‘Calvinism’ are not synonymous, in my estimation. Yet, this seems to be the implication of what Smith is getting at. This kind of thought, in the end, only has the potential to bottom out in that ugly ditch called Sectarianism.
I think Smith’s devotion is laudable, for sure; I just think that in his zeal he overstates on the reach that ‘Calvinism’ provides relative to its ‘role’ (maybe as a corrective in its ‘Evangelical Calvinist’ form π ) in the broader river known as Christendom!
Hi Bobby! Good stuff!
That’s one small problem that I have with Affective Theology, only in that it seems to lean needlessly on Augustine for support. The affective doctrine, is just one small part of an Augustinian system, most of which, if I understand him at all, I would not wish to be associated with.
As I said, I don’t think the support is necessary, so conceptually, I’m good with Affective Theology.
At first I thought in your conclusion you said that Smith’s devotion is “laughable,” but laudable is what you actually said.
Yes, I once argued similar to Smith when I was first introduced to Calvinism – in fact, even quoting Spurgeon. But I’ve since learned better. Calvinism is simply not synonymous with the Gospel. At best, Calvinism is a system of thought.
Pingback: Don’t repeat this Mistake! | New Leaven
Duane,
Actually, ‘Affective Theology’ as articulated by Frost is indeed Augustine dependent — unapologetically so. I.e. Defining sin as ‘concupiscence’ or ‘self-love’ . . . this is a fundamental piece to ‘Affective Theology’ (so I’m not sure you can have it w/o Augustine π ).
TCR,
Yeah, laudable π .
Yes, I agree, I see “Calvinism” as one among many viable interpretive traditions that make-up the historic and orthodox body of Christendom. Of course I’m partial to its “Evangelical Calvinist” version, but I don’t see affirmation to EC as necessary — of course — to be eternally saved (and a Christian). Yet, I do see terrible consequences arising for folks in their “daily walks” who hold to other interpretive traditions that don’t elevate Christ (in principle) to a central level. Which is why I am motivated, at all, to blog and write about this (w/o pay π ).
Hmmm I take more of an Arminian / Bathian position on Christ then I do a Calvinistic one. My position is well thought out and I don’t see how you can say that it holds terrible consequences for me in my daily walk.
It’s only when you interpret another system of belief through your own lenses that you cannot see nor understand how that other system of belief works in that persons life.
It seems to me that the many Calvinists I know have reduced the Gospel to a series of propositions of belief about the Bible instead of the insistence on having a personal relationship / experience with the God of the Bible.
Hi Bobby,
I think one can agree with Kuyper without thinking that makes other ‘versions’ of Christian theology/ the Christian worldview not Christian. He’s just saying, as a version of Christianity (and from his point of view, obviously, the best one/ the most accurately biblical one, etc.) Calvinism has concerns that stretch out far beyond the issues normally associated with it/ what’s often thought of as its distinctives.
And, in as much as he is using ‘Calvinism’ to talk not about a small number of soteriological issues, but the whole shebang that is reformed theology, I’d totally agree.
Pete
Bobby,
If you’re referring to the pastoral benefits of Calvinism, then I’m with you. But I have trouble agreeing that Calvinism elevates Christ more than say Arminianism.
@Craig,
1) Your comment is a bit presumptuous, but I’ll excuse that since you’re new here; and you obviously haven’t read The Themes of Evangelical Calvinism, which I have “paged” above.
2) Your relating of Arminianism and Barthianism (unless you have another one I haven’t heard of i.e. Bathianism π ) is rather odd; since Barth would see himself squarely grounded in the “Calvinian” swing of things (see his “The Theology of the Reformed Confessions” and then the new book out by David Gibson on Calvin and Barth and election). No doubt, there have been folks who are Arminian who might naively try to appropriate Barth (given his “universalist” reframing of election); but I would say that this would be to fundamentally misunderstand Barth at basic levels.
3) So are you saying that someone can’t critically engage someone else’s position w/o somehow subjectively entering into said position (different from their own) in order to thoroughly understand so they can critique it? This seems really oversimplified, Craig; and actually fallacious or circular. I’m sure that’s not what you mean though, right?
4) On your last point on “reducing” and “Calvinists;” again, this only shows me that you don’t really have a clue about what ‘EC’ is all about. Read “The Themes of Evangelical Calvinism” before you make anymore comments that provide judgment on ‘EC’ . . . ‘EC’ is a highly charged version of Calvinism that takes many of its cues from both Barth and Torrance (esp. on election, vicarious humanity, one will/covenant theology, etc. these are all ‘personalising’ realities that EC is an advocate for — which again, lets me know that you haven’t spent enough time here to make the judgments that you’re making in your comment).
@Pete,
All I was reporting on was what Smith quoted from Kuyper and then how Smith grabs that and develops that in his short communique in his book. If that’s all I have to work with, then what else am I to conclude?
@TCR,
I would reiterate what I just said to Craig, only in softer tones with you π (since you aren’t presuming as much as Craig). ‘EC’ is really a whole other ball of wax from Classic Calvinism (this is a drum that I have beat over and over again at the blog here). To be frank, TC, I don’t think either Classic Calvinism or Arminianism elevates Christ to the primary position that he deserves (per Col. 1 etc); i.e. they can’t, given prior philosophical commitments that shape their theologizing (i.e. Thomism, Ramism, Agricolaism, etc.). They assume a Monadic doctrine of God (full of essence and energies or accidents) that do not cohere with the Trinitarian and personalising understanding of God disclosed in Scripture and Revealed in Jesus Christ.
If you haven’t, I would suggest (at your leisure of course) that you read “The Themes of Evangelical Calvinism” as well. Again, I only came off a little strong with Craig; because that’s how he came off, my intent with you, TC is soft — because I see you as someone who is careful in what you have to say. (PS. Having said that, I often pop-off like Craig in many blog venues myself π — so I’m a hypocrite π ).
Jamie… a little touchy are we not π
In my understanding of Barth, I lay hold of him in his understanding of the primacy of election in pointing to Christ. This is a firm foundation of my Arminian understanding.
I would also propose that Barth’s poorly understood universal thought of election is also closer to that of the Arminian’s thought then it is a classic Calvinistic thought… indeed most Calvinists will hold Barth at arms length.
I see Barth claiming to be reformed in the same camp as Arminius also claimed to be of the reformed faith..and therefore can clearly claim his theology as part of my own.
As for my reductionistic claims… they were against your happy clappy claim that only a calvinist has the right method of interpreting Scripture and has the only systematic thought process that makes sense of life…. and that within this sense most calvinists have reinvented the Gospel by saying the Gospel is actually TULIP or what ever other version you might have.
Craig,
I’m Bobby. It looks like you have assumed that I agree with Jamie by what you’re saying throughout your comment. Please re-read the post.
Barth’s his own man, if anything he’s “Evangelical Calvinist” more than either Arminianism/Calvinism.
But lets forget it, as you can see from most recent post I’m hiatusing from blogging for quite some time. You are free to respond back to this, but I’ve put all comments on moderation; and won’t be approving any new comments for the forseeable future.
Thanks, brother.