An Overview of Reformed Theology

Studying Reformed theology is not an easy task. This is because the field covers a vast area of diverse ideas, countries of origin, and key thinkers. In fact, it is more realistic to say, that to launch in such a journey requires a lifelong process. This requires humility. God forbid that in studying this course, we will not fall into an attitude of “arrogance” thinking that we already exhausted the wealth of this tradition. May we not lose the sense of wonder and amazement! 

Realizing that the field is broad, still we attempt to come up with our stance to bring clarity somehow in a very confusing world of theology. To aid us in this attempt, we need the service of both the historical and the theological-apologetical approaches. The historical is taken from a brief overview of the history of Reformed theology penned by Herman Bavinck, whereas the theological-apologetical approach is based on the insights of John Frame and Cornelius Van Til. 

A Brief History of Reformed Theology 

The material in this section is taken from Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena Volume 1 pages 175 – 204. Our goal under this section is just to provide a brief overview of the history of Reformed theology. The first that comes to mind is the connection of Reformed theology with the Lutherans. Bavinck identifies that the major difference between Lutherans and Calvinists is one of principle. Calvinists think theologically whereas the Lutherans think anthropologically. This difference in principle is evident in matters of emphasis. The Calvinists emphasize the eternal decree of God, election, the glory of God, and the battle against paganism and idolatry. On the other hand, Lutherans emphasize the history of redemption, justification, salvation of man, and the war against Judaism and works-righteousness. This difference in principle explains the controversies in other areas of theology between these two versions of Reformation. 

Bavinck admits the scarcity in the study of the history of Reformed theology. The task is not easy. It has to overcome at least two difficulties. One, Reformed theology is not confined in just a single country. Another thing is that no single creed represents the entire Reformed theology. 

Bavinck acknowledges that Reformed theology starts with the work of Zwingli. However, unlike Calvin, Zwingli was not able to free himself from humanistic and philosophical ideas in his theological formulation. He also failed to come up with a coherent system of thought. Regarding Bullinger, Bavinck claims that Calvin does not differ with him in terms of material substance but only in the aspect of methodology. All in all, it was the works of Calvin, which were considered as the primary force behind the expansion of Reformed Theology in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland. However, Reformed theology encountered great difficulty both in England and Scotland not only under Roman Catholicism but also under English reformation. In Germany, Reformed theology was less dependent on Calvin due to the presence of many scholars such as Heppe. 

After a brief period of triumph during the early part of 16th century, Reformed theology suffers consistent decline. By the end of 16th century this decline was first evident by the appearance of the influence of scholasticism among reformed thinkers through the leadership of Zanchius and Polanus (180). During 17th century various principles spread, which undermined Reformed theology. Humanism ranks first. The Anabaptists and Socinians, which “represent the mystical and rational element in religion and theology”(184) add to its decline. The common features among these ideas were “break with authority, subjectivism, and human autonomy” (ibid.). In philosophy, Cartesianism began its rule. Bavinck explains the nature and influence of Cartesianism during this period: 

In principle Cartesianism was a complete emancipation from all authority and objectivity and an attempt, epistemologically, to build the entire cosmos from within the subject, out of his thinking: ‘I think, therefore I am; therefore the world exists; therefore God is.’ The repudiation of all tradition and the seeming certainty of the mathematical method, by means of which Descartes concluded to the existence of the world, of God, and of the mind, was pleasing to many people…all adopted Cartesianism and introduced rationalism into the church. The relation between reason and revelation now became the most crucial issue. Reason emancipated itself from revelation and attempted to regain its independence (185). 

In theology, a method similar to Cartesianism gained the upper hand. This time, it was through the work of Johannes Cocceeius (1603-69). Bavinck identifies the uniqueness of Cocceianism with its federalist method. Again, Bavinck explains the nature and danger of Cocceianism: 

… was a dogmatics along biblical-historical lines. It made Scripture not only the primary principle and norm but also the object of dogmatics and thus advanced a theology of Scripture against the theology that had been handed down, the covenant against the decree, history against the idea, the anthropological against the theological method. The danger of this method consisted in the fact that it drew the eternal and immutable down into the stream of the historical and the temporal and thus transferred the notion of becoming to God himself” (185). 

Both Cartesianism and Cocceianism completed their victory by the end of 18th century (186). Other forces that weakened Reformed theology are deism, independitism, Quakerism. realism, nominalism, empiricism, and skepticism. The common vision in all these individualistic currents is described by Bavinck as: 

Emancipation from tradition, from the creeds, and from ecclesiastical organization culminated in a situation in which every believer was on his own, detached from Scripture, possessing within himself – his mind, the inner light – the source of his religious life and knowledge. All that which is objective – Scripture, Christ, church, office, sacrament – was set aside” (188). 

“In the beginning of the 19th century, reformed theology was almost everywhere in a sad state of decline” (192). In Germany, “the Enlightenment, the Union (1718), and the influence of Kant and Schleiermacher all combined forces that contributed to the deterioration of Reformed theology. Bavinck describes that during his day “there is not a single theological university or school left that stands on the basis of the Reformed confession” (194). Bavinck turning to describe Reformed theology in North America paints the same unpromising future. He concludes, “Reformed churches and theology in America are in serious crisis. The dogmas of the infallibility of Holy Scripture, of the Trinity, of the fall and human impotence, or particular or limited atonement, of election and reprobation, and of everlasting punishment are either secretly denied or openly rejected. There is clearly no rosy future awaiting Calvinism in America” (204). 

John Frame and Cornelius Van Til 

Our theological-apologetical approach is taken from the standpoint of the writings of both John Frame and Cornelius Van Til. From this viewpoint, there are at least two ways to look at Reformed faith: liberal and classical. 

Liberal 

Under the liberal category, numerous names come to mind. They include Barth, Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Tillich, Packer, Stott, and Lloyd Jones. Under this category, we can also include the Lutheran, Anglican, Scottish, and Dutch traditions. How about the Calvinist Methodists and the Reformed Baptists? 

In coming to a conclusion about one’s personal position concerning the names and traditions under the liberal category, an individual has to answer numerous questions: Is Karl Barth Reformed or not? How about Berkouwer? What is the difference between the early and late Berkouwer? How about Dooyeweerd’s concept of Cosmonomy? Is it consistent with Reformed theology or not? How about Anglicans like Packer and Stott? Can we include the Calvinist Methodist D. M. Lloyd Jones among the Reformed theologians? Can we still consider that the predicted synthesis of Karl Barth’s theology with Dutch tradition Reformed? 

Classical 

From a classical point of view, we are looking at Reformed faith that includes the names of John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Benjamin Warfield, and Cornelius Van Til. It was claimed that in the philosophy and theology of Cornelius Van Til, we find the synthesis between the strengths of Dutch Reformed as represented by Abraham Kuyper and American Reformed as represented by Benjamin Warfield. 

However, understanding Cornelius Van Til is not an easy task. Diverse interpretations about the significance of Van Til’s contributions to the Reformed tradition were published. Another difficulty is that different types of followers claim Van Til as the primary influence in shaping their ideas. We need to listen to John Frame’s interpretation to know these several responses on Van Til and in identifying his present day successors. 

John Frame lists at least five types of responses on Van Til (Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, 1995, pp. 4-6): sympathetic, debunkers, sympathetic analytic, sympathetic critical, and extreme. Among the sympathetic are Rushdoony, Marston and Pratt; the debunkers include Daane, Buswell, Montgomery, Pinnock, Robbins, Crampton, Gertsner, Sproul, Linsdley, and Berkouwer; sympathetic analytic are Notaro and the contributors on the Foundations of Christian Scholarship (except Frame); the sympathetic critical are Frame, North, Weaver, Lewis, and the Dooyewerdian writers; and finally, the extreme includes Halsey and White. 

Modern day successors of Van Til’s ideas are classified by Frame under four categories (Ibid., pp. 389-396): immediate, reconstructionist, general influence, and others. Among the immediate successors are Knudsen, Harvie Conn, Frame, David Clowney, and William Edgar (disciple of F. Schaeffer). Among the reconstructionist, we have Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. Van Til’s general influence includes Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction), Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, and Evan Runner. The remaining followers include Vern Poythress, Jay Adams (“nouthetic counseling”), and John Whitcomb. 

From the pen of Van Til himself, he describes classic Reformed theology as the best expression of “the genius of historic Protestantism: first as over against Romanism, second as over against the modern Protestantism of Friedrich Schleirmacher and his school, and third as over against the ‘theology of the word’ of neo-orthodox or Barthian theology” (Defense of the Faith, 22). 

Conclusion: 

The primary weakness of Cornelius Van Til as some critics would say is the lack of exegesis in his works. This is a fact for his expertise is in the fields of apologetics, philosophy, and theology. And besides, he trusts the exegetical work of his colleagues such as John Murray and Geerhardus Vos. 

Concluding this article, Cornelius Van Til identified at least seven streams of theology in modern times (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 1974, Preface). They are: 

• Neo-orthodoxy (New Modernism, Christianity and Barthiansim, The Confession of 1967) 
• Neo-evangelical – The Case for Calvinism 
• Kantian – historical consciousness – existentialists/process. Of two types: British- American (A Survey of Christian Epistemology) and German (The Late Heiddeger and Theology) 
• Hoeksema (Common Grace) 
• Berkouwer (Sovereignty of Grace) 
• Cosmonomy - Three prominent philosophers (Vollenhoven, Stoker, and Dooyeeweerd). Several points: (1) Van Til learned the history of philosophy, (2) Different conception about transcendental presupposition, (3) Christianity in Conflict – Van Til’s critique, and (4) Jerusalem and Athens – Dooyeeweerd’s critique of Van Til and Van Til’s reply 
• Classical: Louis Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Benjamin Warfield, Gresham Machen, John Murray, Geerhardus Vos, and Cornelius Van Til. 

Intended Learning Outcome: To see Reformed theology from a theological-apologetical perspective.

Guide Questions for Discussion:

1. Explain briefly the major difference between the Lutherans and the Calvinists.

2. What are two obstacles we need to recognize in studying the history of Reformed theology?

3. Enumerate the intellectual forces from late 16th century to 19th century that contributed to the decline of Reformed theology. Among these numerous philosophies, identify and briefly describe the two most prominent ideas that completed their victory by the end of 18th century.

4. Interpreting Reformed theology, from the "liberal" perspective, what are the questions we need to wrestle with?

5. Interpreting Reformed theology from the classical perspective, can you identify theologians belonging to this school?

6. How did John Frame classify the types of responses and the categories of successors of Van Til's ideas?

7. How did Van Til describe classical Reformed theology?

8. According to critics, what is the primary weakness in Van Tilian scholarship? How would you respond to this criticism?

9. Enumerate the seven (7) stream of theology in modern times.