Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 1

 

Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 1

Many historians have identified philosophical nominalism, which became influential in the European universities of the fourteenth century, as a major factor in the breakdown of the synthesis of Christianity and Greco-Roman thought that had served as the basis of intellectual life and religious life of medieval society for 1000 years. As this synthesis weakened, so too did the religious authority that undergirded the social and cultural order of medieval Christendom.

One influential school of thought in contemporary Western academia—associated with figures such as John Milbank (Radical Orthodoxy), Louis Dupré (Passage to Modernity), and Brad Gregory (The Unintended Reformation, 2012)—has advanced a more focused genealogical argument. According to this narrative, the Protestant Reformation functioned as a principal carrier of nominalism, thereby eroding the participatory metaphysics and epistemological foundations of Western culture. Michael Horton summarizes this thesis succinctly: “According to this story, the Reformation was a prime carrier of the nominalism that has emptied into the gulf of postmodern nihilism”1Michael Horton, Justification, vol. 1, p. 311. Ironically, the prominent Malaysian Muslim scholar Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas places the blame for secularism not on nominalism but on Thomas Aquinas, despite the fact that Thomism is fundamentally antithetical to nominalism. In Islam and Secularism, al-Attas interprets Thomistic philosophy as a source of secularization, a reading that many historians of medieval thought would regard as historically problematic. Unsurprisingly, some of his followers view the rise of secularism in the West as evidence of Christianity’s theological failure and the absence of genuine revealed truth within the Christian tradition Continue reading “Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 1”

  • 1
    Michael Horton, Justification, vol. 1, p. 311. Ironically, the prominent Malaysian Muslim scholar Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas places the blame for secularism not on nominalism but on Thomas Aquinas, despite the fact that Thomism is fundamentally antithetical to nominalism. In Islam and Secularism, al-Attas interprets Thomistic philosophy as a source of secularization, a reading that many historians of medieval thought would regard as historically problematic. Unsurprisingly, some of his followers view the rise of secularism in the West as evidence of Christianity’s theological failure and the absence of genuine revealed truth within the Christian tradition

John Calvin’s Exposition Of God’s Providence


John Calvin’s Exposition Of God’s Providence. Part 2/3

While Calvin’s treatment of God’s providence in his 1559 Institutes seems to give the impression that he is countering his opponents, his main purpose is to benefit his readers, many of whom would be Christians. “Ignorance of providence,” he says, “is the ultimate of all miseries; the highest blessedness lies in the knowledge of it.” In this talk/lecture, we get an idea of that blessedness. Acutely aware that despite his best attempts to present a Scriptural view of God’s providence, his readers may still have questions, Calvin goes on to address the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, the role of divine “permission” within God’s providence, and whether his view results in making God the author of sin and evil. In doing so, Calvin shows how on the one hand, we must employ common sense and human reason to try and understand these matters; on the other, he rightly cautions us to accept the limits of human reason, given the epistemological gap between God and man.

You can view the video at
John Calvin’s Exposition Of God’s Providence. Part 2/3

John Owen’s Double Payment Argument for Definite Atonement and the Arminian Universalist Dilemma


Universalism = Christ Died for the sins of all people without exception

I. John Owen, in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1648), offers a classic defence of definite atonement—the doctrine that Christ’s death was both definite in purpose and effective in accomplishment. Christ died not for humanity in general, but specifically for the elect whom the Father had given him; and his death actually secured their redemption.

Owen advances two powerful arguments in defence of this position.

The Double Payment Argument
Sin is a debt owed to God’s justice. Christ’s death has fully paid the penalty for sin. If Christ died for all people universally, then all must be saved, because a just creditor does not demand payment for the same debt twice. Exacting double punishment—first on Christ, then on the condemned sinner—is unjust. Yet Scripture clearly teaches that not everyone is saved. Therefore, Christ did not die for all people universally, and his atoning work was intended only for the elect – This is an argument to the contrary. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Goold ed. [Banner of Truth reprint, 1989], vol. 10, p. 173. All subsequent citations refer to this edition.)

The Universalist Dilemma
Owen then challenges the universalist claim that Christ died for every individual human being. He argues that this position entails one of three possibilities: Christ bore (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all the sins of some people. Option (1) entails universal salvation, which contradicts Scripture. Option (2) means every person still stands condemned for their remaining sins. Only option (3) is logically coherent and scripturally grounded. Owen concludes that Christ died for all the sins of the elect alone. Continue reading “John Owen’s Double Payment Argument for Definite Atonement and the Arminian Universalist Dilemma”

Introducing John Calvin On God’s Providence

John Calvin on God’s Providence. JCGP Part 1/3
Introducing John Calvin On God’s Providence

John Calvin has long been associated with the doctrine of predestination so much so his exposition of the doctrine of God’s providence is often overlooked. Yet the latter is a pervasive theme in many of his writings and in his ministry as a pastor. In this lecture/talk, you will be introduced to a brief history of his exposition of this important doctrine, its development within his magnum opus (Institutes of the Christian Religion), and his treatment of the subject in Chapters 16-18 of Book 1 of the 1559 final edition of the Institutes. As shall be evident, while he was concerned to refute his opponents’ erroneous views of God’s providence, he was even more concerned that their views arose from a defective view of God, as revealed in Scripture.

You may view the full video at
Introducing John Calvin On God’s Providence

“Regeneration Precedes Faith”. An AI-assisted Calvinist Rebuttal to Arminian David Allen’s Analysis of Key Verses in 1 John

 

1 John 5:1 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ [καὶ] τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

I. Does the Calvinist teaching “regeneration precedes faith” find support in Greek grammar?

Within Reformed (Calvinist) theology, it is maintained that regeneration logically precedes faith. That is, fallen human beings—being spiritually dead—are incapable of believing unless the Holy Spirit first imparts new life. This doctrine safeguards the monergistic character of salvation: it is wholly the work of God’s grace and not dependent on human initiative.

Several biblical texts are commonly cited in support of this position:
1. John 3:3–8 “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus teaches that spiritual rebirth is a necessary precondition for perceiving and entering the kingdom. Faith—understood as seeing and believing—follows regeneration.
2. 1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes [present active participle] that Jesus is the Christ has been born [perfect passive verb] of God.”  The Greek construction suggests that the state of having been born of God grounds the act of believing.
3. Ephesians 2:4–5 “Even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ.” A dead person must be made alive (regenerated) before he can exercise faith.

II. Allen’s Challenge
In his article “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” (JBTM, 2014), David Allen challenges the Reformed interpretation of 1 John 5:1, arguing that the claim “regeneration precedes faith” cannot be proven from Greek grammar. According to Allen, “The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous” (p. 41). He appeals to the broader context of John’s writings, noting that passages such as John 20:31 present faith as the condition for life, not its result. Continue reading ““Regeneration Precedes Faith”. An AI-assisted Calvinist Rebuttal to Arminian David Allen’s Analysis of Key Verses in 1 John”

Sharing Christ’s Suffering and Resurrection. C.H. Spurgeon & O. Chambers



“I am crucified with Christ” Galatians 2:20.

The Lord Jesus Christ acted in what he did as a great public representative person, and his dying upon the cross was the virtual dying of all his people. Then all his saints rendered unto justice what was due and made an expiation to divine vengeance for all their sins. The apostle of the Gentiles delighted to think that as one of Christ’s chosen people, he died upon the cross in Christ. He did more than believe this doctrinally, he accepted it confidently, resting his hope upon it. He believed that by virtue of Christ’s death, he had satisfied divine justice, and found reconciliation with God. Beloved, what a blessed thing it is when the soul can, as it were, stretch itself upon the cross of Christ, and feel, “I am dead; the law has slain me, and I am therefore free from its power, because in my Surety I have borne the curse, and in the person of my Substitute the whole that the law could do, by way of condemnation, has been executed upon me, for I am crucified with Christ.”

But Paul meant even more than this. He not only believed in Christ’s death, and trusted in it, but he actually felt its power in himself in causing the crucifixion of his old corrupt nature. When he saw the pleasures of sin, he said, “I cannot enjoy these: I am dead to them.” Such is the experience of every true Christian. Having received Christ, he is to this world as one who is utterly dead. Yet, while conscious of death to the world, he can, at the same time, exclaim with the apostle, “Nevertheless I live.” He is fully alive unto God. The Christian’s life is a matchless riddle. No worldling can comprehend it; even the believer himself cannot understand it. Dead, yet alive! Crucified with Christ, and yet at the same time risen with Christ in newness of life! Union with the suffering, bleeding Saviour, and death to the world and sin, are soul-cheering things. O for more enjoyment of them! Continue reading “Sharing Christ’s Suffering and Resurrection. C.H. Spurgeon & O. Chambers”

Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 2/2

Definite Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology

A) Paul consistently teaches definite atonement in several passages:
1. Acts 20:28 — The Purchased Church
Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders to shepherd the church “which he [God] purchased with his own blood.” He paid an incalculable price to save a people for himself through Christ’s death on the cross. The verb περιεποιήσατο (“purchased, obtained, gain for oneself”) denotes actual acquisition, not potential provision. This is an effective redemption, not a hypothetical one. Christ did not shed His blood in vain or indefinitely, but to redeem the Church effectually.

The object of this purchase is specific: the church (ἐκκλησία) — elsewhere called the flock, the sheep, and the bride of Christ (John 10:11; Ephesians 5:25). These are not open, universal categories; they are bounded images for a particular people. The atonement, therefore, is definite in both design and effect.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:25 — Covenant Blood for a Defined People
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood” — The cup is a formal pledge that guarantees the salvation of those named within that covenant. The words echo Jeremiah 31:31–34: “And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The new covenant is presented as an unconditional covenant, ratified solely on the promise of the sovereign God. It gathers God’s exiled people from every nation, yet it gathers a defined people, not all people indiscriminately. Continue reading “Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 2/2”

Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 1/2

 

[responsivevoice_button voice=”UK English Female” buttontext=”Listen to Post”]

Introduction
This essay argues that Paul teaches definite atonement and particular redemption—the view that Christ’s saving death and atoning work are directed intentionally toward a specific group of people, namely the elect. Christ’s atonement does not merely open the possibility of redemption; it effectually accomplishes actual redemption. This stands in contrast to the Arminian position, which holds that Christ’s death provides only a potential redemption available to all who choose to receive it.

Rather than cataloguing a broad array of biblical texts, this essay anchors its analysis in one key passage—2 Corinthians 5:14-15—to highlight how the inner logic of the passage established by careful theological exegesis confirms Paul’s teaching of particular redemption. Continue reading “Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 1/2”

Nominalism, Humanism, and the Rise of Secularism: A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas

This post was added as a supplement to the earlier post A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism” in Feb. 2026
—–
Naquib al-Attas’ claim that Thomas Aquinas’s misguided distinction between existence and essence led to the development of nominalism, which in turn was responsible for the rise of secularism, is not only philosophically dubious but is also an oversimplification of intellectual history. His argument presents a linear, mono cause-and-effect narrative that fails to account for the complex, multi-causal factors that drove secularization in Europe. While nominalism did play a significant role in this process, it was one influence among many. Political changes, economic shifts (urbanization which severed the relationship between the migrant workers and the village church and parson), the Reformation, Renaissance humanism, and the religious wars of the sixteenth century all contributed crucially to the rise of secularism. Continue reading “Nominalism, Humanism, and the Rise of Secularism: A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas”

The Arminian Conversion Prayer

[responsivevoice_button]

Free-Will – A Slave
“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”—John 5:40

Excerpt from Spurgeon’s Sermon: Free Will—A Slave

IV. This brings us to the fourth point, THAT BY NATURE NO MAN WILL COME TO CHRIST,

It is true of all men in their natural condition that they will not come unto Christ.

The Son of God came, yet men rejected him. “Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” It would take too much time to mention any more Scripture proofs. We will, however, refer to the great doctrine of the fall. Any one who believes that man’s will is entirely free,1Clarification – Spurgeon has earlier contrasted  “Free will” with “Free Agency”, stating, “Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man [paraphrase – If anyone credits human free will with any part of their salvation, even the smallest amount], he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.” and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall.

…Your fallen nature was put out of order; your will, amongst other things, has clean gone astray from God. But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer – for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, Continue reading “The Arminian Conversion Prayer”

  • 1
    Clarification – Spurgeon has earlier contrasted  “Free will” with “Free Agency”, stating, “Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man [paraphrase – If anyone credits human free will with any part of their salvation, even the smallest amount], he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.”