Confessions of an inconsistent Calvinist

It has come to my notice that I have never studied Romans 9 before. Now, I have read it. I know the book of Romans. It's good stuff. But aren't Calvinists supposed to be militant in their love for Romans 9? Isn't this the passage speaking of "the church" and the "individual believer's" election?

Currently I am reading, greekerozing, commentizing, biblizing, etc. Romans 9, and it doesn't really talk so much about the church nor individual election - yet. I am only in the first dozen or so verses mind you. But what really sticks out is that this is really talking about national Israel. My good friends, the covenanters seem to have slightly misinterpreted this passage. Not all (Many, Many take this as national israel), but some. .

Paul has so much grief for his kinsmen (3), the Israelites, of whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law,the worship, and the promises(4). And to them (Israelites) belong the patriarchs and through that, the Christ (5). I still haven't found the analogy of the gentiles and personal election being shown by means of Esau's rejection and Jacob's election. In fact, I don't remember in Genesis Esau ever actually serving Jacob? But I do remember Obadiah cursing Esau a thousand years later, in his condemnation of Edom (Esau's descendents) (10). I do see national Edom/Esau being cursed by Malachi "Esau I have hated, Jacob I have loved" (mal 1:2-3...ish). So, I don't know yet...but it seems I am not taking this passage according to my theological bias! Is this a problem? Nope, because we must strive to always interpret the bible by itself. And not by our pre-conceived philosophical speculations. I have pushed the antithesis previously. This is true, but only with regard to ultimate starting points.

I believe in God and that He has inspired scripture. This is my bias, this is my pre-supposition. Past that, I strive to let the text speak to me. Unless someone can convince me "by scripture or by reason" I will not change. Deductive theological bible exegesis can be bad. There must be a balance between Deductive pre-suppositions and Inductive study of scripture, always checking one another, keeping each other in balance.

*note* I realize Jacob was chosen over Esau, I realize Isaac was chosen over his seven brothers. One from Hagar, seven from...ugh kabuka or something. So in one sense this passage does teach individual election.

Cornelius Van Til

Born in 1895 in the Netherlands, Cornelius Van Til carried the torch of Abraham Kuyper's antithesis. His family, of whom were farmers, moved to North America when Van Til was 8 years of age. Van Til loved working with his hands, even having a garden outside of his Philadelphia home up to his death in 1987. But he had another calling that did not involve a life of a simple farmer (although he may have wanted that). In 1914 he entered Calvin College to prepare for Christian ministry. After he graduated from Calvin - with a short stint at Calvin Seminary - he headed to Princeton Seminary, where he earned 4 graduate degrees in 5 years. Apparently he was smart!

But when a wave of liberalism hit the seminary, Van Til and others left with J. Gresham Machen, to found Westminster Theological Seminary. Van Til would spend the rest of his life teaching there. And so, for over 40 years he pushed the antithesis. He personally taught over 1500 ministers and had a profound influence in Reformed circles.
Van Til's biggest contribution to popular evangelicalism was in writing "Christianity and Barthianism". He showed Barth's thought to be utterly contrary to the Christian faith. It undermined the authority of scripture and allowed for no historical facts concerning God whatsoever. Not that Barth didn't believe in history. But since God was so "active" He could not be pinned down in some static state. So, although God may be found in scripture, as much as in History, this is only one revelation of Himself. He could be found in a newspaper, as much as He could be found in scripture. Both are static and therefore cannot contain God's word (read: Jesus Christ) entirely.

But Van Til's greatest contribution to the Reformed faith came by way of his apologetics and theology. He found the inconsistencies of Calvinism and ironed them out. He found hidden camps of scholastic thought and eliminated them. He held to the confession (Westminster confession of faith) with a spirit of militancy. In isolation is where the Reformed faith grows. Not to be misunderstood, this does not mean to be in isolation from the world and in witness to the world. It means to be isolated in worldview and theology from every inconsistent form of Christianity, in order to protect the unique gospel witness that the Reformed faith possesses. Van Til and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church would not capitulate this unique testimony. They would not apprehend the ecumenical spirit of the age.

We have Van Til to thank for a more consistent and militant Christianity today. And more importantly, we have an example of Militant Calvinism come on its own.

Militant Calvinism

Abraham Kuyper, the dutch politician and theologian, spoke of the "antithesis". This meaning that there is a fundamental difference between the non-Christian and the Christian. There is no middle or neutral ground to be had. There is no neutrality, whether in the social sphere, scientific sphere, religious sphere, artistic and so on. If you would like to learn more about his wordview (or as he calls it, "life system"), try reading his "Lectures on Calvinism ". These lectures are commonly called the "stone lectures". And they lay out his total wordview.

Kuyper brought his antithesis into the political sphere. And eventually not just the political sphere but every sphere of life. This greatly influenced his formulation of the reformed doctrine of common grace. No longer was antithesis only religious but universal in all aspects of life.

Although it is possible to take the antithesis to far, it makes good sense overall. Christianity is not just a wordview that effects solely the sphere of religion. It effects all spheres of life. Just as Francis Shaeffer taught, whenever the natural man moves further away from grace, he losses his ability to re-interpret God's law properly. So humanity moves from art that represents the teachings of Christianity and piety into perversion. No longer by means of common grace can the natural man interpret God's law. For he is destroying the image of His creator. Only the Christian can interpret reality as it really is. Only the Christian can properly understand beauty in music, art and in every form of expression.

As christians, and more specifically as calvinists - which is Christian theism come on its own - we ought to embrace this bias. We ought to understand that only we have the unique witness of the Gospel of Christ. Only we can properly interpret the world as God has designed. We must remember that based on God's creation and His image in us, we are in covenant with Him. Thus there are really only two types of peoples in the world: Covenant keepers and Covenant breakers. What type are you? Does your calvinism (read: Christianity) overflow into all spheres of life? Are you taking the arts and interpreting them as God has designed? Or do you emulate the people of world, who are enemies of God (Rom 8:7), who cannot comprehend spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14), who are sons of Satan (John 8:44; I john 3:8), who have no vestige of good in them (Rom 3:10), who do not seek God (3:11), who deny God's internal revelation of Himself (Rom 1:19) and attempt to suppress that truth unsuccessfully(Rom 1:18), who are unable to do good (Jer 13:23), whose hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9), whose every intend is bent on evil (Gen 6:5)?

Jesus tells us that one is either for him or against him (mathew 12:30). One either gathers or scatters (Luke 11:23). There is no neutrality. "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit (Rom 8:5)."

The only time the gospel can be presented fully, is when the antithesis is most prevalent. Christianity must be shown to be opposed to the contemporary worldview. No longer is man justified by his accomplishments or by his false sense of absolute autonomy. We can give man freedom. The only freedom possible. No longer will they be slaves of sin (John 8:34) but slaves of righteousness (Rom 6:18).

It seems only in Militant Calvinism is this accomplished. This isn't a good thing. All forms of Christianity whether it be evangelical, baptist etc. should present the gospel as one of two options. All Christians should live their lives through and through a Christian by wordview. No matter what the sphere of life may be, whether it is science or whatever, let it be done for the glory of God. And this line of thought should not be attributed to Kuyper alone. But to Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Paul and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the way (John 14:6)". Not "a" way.