Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 2

Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 2

Were Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation carriers of philosophical nominalism who triggered the collapse of medieval Christendom and the dawn of secular modernity? We reject this premise, demonstrating that it fails to hold up to both rigorous historical examination and orthodox theological critique.

A. Luther, Nominalism, and the Reformation
First, the historical evidence shows that while the early Luther was influenced by nominalism, the mature Luther’s theology became fundamentally Augustinian and thoroughly Christocentric in its interpretation of Scripture.

It cannot be denied that Luther began his academic career within the late medieval Ockhamist tradition. William of Ockham was one of Luther’s favored teachers in his pre-Reformation years, and Luther at times identified himself with the “terminist” or Ockhamist school. He is reported to have said, “Ockham, my master, was the greatest logician.” Yet the crucial historical question is not whether Luther was initially shaped by nominalism, but whether nominalism remained determinative for his mature theology. Continue reading “Secularism as Unintended Consequence of Luther’s Nominalism and Reformation (Brad Gregory)? Part 2”

Questions For John Calvin On God’s Providence

Several questions regarding providence are addressed in this video, including God’s justice in electing some for salvation while overlooking others, modern objections to some of God’s attributes in relation to Calvin’s discussion of God’s providence, and the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. It ends with a summary of some practical lessons from Calvin’s treatment of God’s providence.

You may view the full video at
John Calvin on God’s Providence. Part 3/3

Next: 6-part series on “Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology” by Dr. Ng Kam Weng

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”