# 3 Types of Reformed Christianity



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2007)

I got this idea from Daryl Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk. I can get the page number later. 

He posits three types of Reformed Christianity in America and in the West

1) The Piety branch (Banner of Truth, Mentor Press, etc).
2) The Good Doctrine branch (Modern Reformation, WTS, Machen, OPC)
3) The Kuyperian branch (Van Til, Theonomy)

Is this generally accurate (I know, the devil is in the details). In my own limited experience within Presbyterianism I have seen all three branches (and sadly a clashing between them). Now, do these branches necessarily exclude one another (please don't point that theonomy is bad doctrine and so is disallowed--don't turn this into a debate).

For a similar approach, consult the book edited by David Wells: Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development

The sections in that book are:

1. Princeton branch 
2. Dutch branch
3. Southern Presbyterian branch.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2007)

No they do not necessarily clash and some theologians may identify with aspects of all three of these camps.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I got this idea from Daryl Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk. I can get the page number later.
> 
> He posits three types of Reformed Christianity in America and in the West
> 
> ...



Certainly in my experience they don't have to clash. Maybe it's different among the Reformed Baptists I know, but my circle typically loves the Banner of Truth periodical (we subscribe), loves Machen, and thinks Van Til is pretty cool too.

I freely admit eclecticism in almost everything I touch. More likely I'm just thick headed. When the branches go at each other's throats I prefer to ignore them. On their own they all are great in many ways.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 27, 2007)

This analysis was originally applied to the CRC:

Pies - Pietists
Docs - Doctrinalists 
and 
Kuyps - Kuyperians

I first heard it from Derke Bergsma in the early 80s and it probably dates to the '40s or '50s.

It's reasonably sound, as far as it goes. 

rsc


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> This analysis was originally applied to the CRC:
> 
> Pies - Pietists
> Docs - Doctrinalists
> ...



I was told there was an article--maybe Presbyterian Journal that labeled it "Piets, Kuyps, and Doc" that dates from late 70s early 80s.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Jul 28, 2007)

Wouldn't it be better to say that these three "types" are three different emphases on the same basic theology? As far as I am aware, there are no major doctrinal differences between these three groups, except for more or less radical individuals or fringe sub-groups.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 28, 2007)

I think James Bratt used it in his book on Dutch Reformed Christianity.

rsc


----------



## crhoades (Jul 28, 2007)

I think you find all three branches simultaneously in Calvin.

Rigor for doctrine and piety as well as seeing all spheres of life shaped by God's Word as its starting point.

I would also argue that you also find the same balance in Kuyper. His output is voluminous. He had huge concern over doctrine and published tons of devotional material in one of his weekly newspapers. And of course he was king of sphere sovereignty. One may disagree with his views on a couple of doctrinal matters but to posit him as a third school without an emphasis in the first 2 may be a better analysis of his followers than of himself. Same could be said of Van Til.


----------



## x.spasitel (Jul 28, 2007)

Where do the exclusive Psalmodists come in? They probably deserve their own division.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 28, 2007)

These categories are fine as sociology of the 19th- and 20th-century Reformed movement, but they don't work well as history or theology.

1) Calvin was none of these things, exactly. It is anachronistic to read them back into the 16th century. Transformationalism was a 19th- and 20th-century response to the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment began about a century after Calvin's death.

2) Pietism describes a movement that reacted to orthodoxy. It marginalized orthodoxy. Many of the pietists were orthodox initially but their children and grandchildren were not! What animates Pietism is religious experience.

3) "Doctrinalist" is a way of marginalizing commitment to confession or propositional truth. "Oh, he's just a doctrinalist." As if one could be a Christian or Reformed without being "doctrinal." 

Here are three reasons why "confessional(ist)" and "non-confessional" are better categories of analysis.

rsc


----------



## crhoades (Jul 28, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 1) Calvin was none of these things, exactly. It is anachronistic to read them back into the 16th century. Transformationalism was a 19th- and 20th-century response to the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment began about a century after Calvin's death.
> rsc


 
How do you define _transformationalist? _Depending how you define it, I would argue that Calvin _was_ a transformationalist. He did want to see society transformed more to a theocratic model. Look at Geneva. Bucer and Beza wanted it as well. Not trying to be contrarian but I would think that Calvin was wanting more than _just_ to purify the church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 28, 2007)

Calvin lived and thought and saw the world from within Christendom. 

The very notion of "transformationalism" came into existence after Christendom.

Was Calvin a theocrat? Sure. Does that make him a "transformationalist"? No. 

That Calvin was a theocrat does not mean, as David VanDrunen has argued in several places, that he didn't distinguish the ways by which God exercises his sovereignty.

As a matter of history, it's not helpful to read back modern categories into Calvin in order to validate them. Those categories and claims need to be established on their own.

rsc


----------



## jbergsing (Jul 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I got this idea from Daryl Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk. I can get the page number later.
> 
> He posits three types of Reformed Christianity in America and in the West
> 
> ...


I see the OPC listed. Where would you say the PCA lands in this definition?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> I see the OPC listed. Where would you say the PCA lands in this definition?



Wherever they want to land. 

The PCA is a little harder to pin down.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I got this idea from Daryl Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk. I can get the page number later.
> 
> He posits three types of Reformed Christianity in America and in the West
> 
> ...



It seems to me that you can divide the Dutch Reformed into four general branches:

Ante-Kuyperian,
Anti Kuyperian, 
a-Kuyperian, and
Post-Kuyperian.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Wherever they want to land.
> 
> The PCA is a little harder to pin down.


Indeed! We have all three groups within the PCA if we keep this distinction going.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 28, 2007)

I think it may be more correct to identify these branches more as a dominant emphasis in folks rather than individual distinct strands. I identify with them all. I love authors from all three categories listed they all read one another too.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 29, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Calvin lived and thought and saw the world from within Christendom.
> 
> The very notion of "transformationalism" came into existence after Christendom.
> 
> ...



Dr. Clark,
What is the ingredient that changes a two-table theocrat into a transformationalist?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 29, 2007)

Hermonta,

That's a very good question.

1. It is the assumption, which Calvin didn't share, that things (pick one) can be "Christianized." Calvin lived in and assumed Christendom. 

2. There are at least two kinds of transformationalists, left-wing and right-wing. The latter reckons "kingdom work" relative to cultural transformation, i.e., Kingdom work is considered chiefly in terms of cultural (and political) influence and "Christianization." The former reckons "kingdom work" in cultic terms so that acts common to Christians and non-Christians are to be described as "ministry." Thus, e.g., some LWTs speak of "softball ministries" (i.e., the college softball team is said to be a "ministry").

Though Calvin was, as you say, a "two-table" theocrat, he did make a distinction between the way God administers the two kingdoms. He didn't call for the "Christianization" or "transformation" of common work such as art, government, or sport. He was a classicist. He had a deep appreciation for the aesthetic virtues of the classical languages and rhetoric. He also appreciated aspects of classical jurisprudence. Remember, his first published work was a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. 

For Calvin, God is to served in both kingdoms but in distinct ways. He didn't make the church into a common endeavor and he didn't make civil life into a sacred endeavor. For Calvin, it wasn't necessary.

Calvin was a two-table theocrat. He assumed that the civil magistrate must enforce both tables -- which he regarded as creational or natural law. We shouldn't read into that assumption and conviction the distinctly modern conception of "transformation" which arose in response to the rise of Enlightenment "secularism." 

I doubt it, but transformationalism may be correct, but if so, it needs to stand on its own two theological and exegetical feet. 

rsc


----------

