Kam Weng Ng

Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded in Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

A. The Finality of the Bible
WCF 1.10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined…and in whose judgment we are to rest, can be nothing other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.
Only an infallible Bible is adequate to serve as the final authority in religious truth claims. In concrete terms, the Holy Spirit will bear witness about Jesus (John 15:26)

B. The self-attestation of the Bible is not an abstract assertion. It is grounded in the words of Jesus Christ.

C. The Classical Method in Proving the Bible as the Inspire Word of God
1. The Bible is basically a reliable and trustworthy document.
2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus as the Son of God is an infallible authority.
4. Jesus Christ teaches the Bible is more than generally trustworthy; it is the very Word of God.
5. That the Word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

Conclusion – on the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible is utterly trustworthy, i.e. infallible.

You can view the video at
Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded in Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God.

The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. KP10-IAB.Part 01/10

A. God has spoken: Necessity of special or biblical revelation.
Two divisions of revelation: (1) General or natural revelation which pertains to God’s revelation in nature and history, (2) Special revelation inscribed in the Bible which is God’s authoritative, infallible and inerrant Word.

B. Two approaches to the Bible
1. Approach the Bible based on so-called neutral criteria & evidence. Problem: a) In reality there is no neutral criteria of judgment. b) At best this approach can demonstrate the Bible as an accurate document but it cannot demonstrate the Bible as God’s revealed Word.

2. Begin with the Bible’s self-testimony to be the inspired Word of God which is self-evidencing and self-authenticating, and then proceed to handle doubts and difficulties.
Premise: God’s revealed Word should display its own power of conviction when it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit.

The final foundation in doctrine of inspiration and authority of the Bible is not historical-critical scholarship, the magisterium etc. It is the infallible attestation of Jesus Christ with the witness of the Spirit.

You may view the video podcast at
The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. KP10-IAB.Part 01/10

Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate

Leighton Flowers begins in his chapter, “A Critique of Unconditional Election,” published in the latest critique on Calvinism by David Allen and Steve Lemke, Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique by emphasising the contrast between “the biblical choices of God which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen” with the Calvinist “unbiblical principle of God secret making arbitrary choices which unilaterally fixes the eternal destiny of every individual.”

A clear distinction must be drawn between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary [emphasis original] choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual. (CBTC 51)

Flowers concludes, I believe this doctrine, when logically and consistently applied, can be dangerous for the believer and the overall mission of the church and thus must be firmly refuted and soundly rejected as unbiblical teaching.” (CBTC 68) Continue reading “Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate”

Herman Bavinck: Bridging the Dichotomy between Thinking and Being, and Breaching Kant’s Epistemological Firewall between the Phenomenal and Noumenal. BB001

Notes and Reflection on Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview. Chapter 1. Thinking and Being.

A. Critique of empiricism and rationalism and the Kantian impasse. Empiricism which accepts sense perceptions as the only source of knowledge ends up with subjective representations or mental ideas disconnected from reality. Fluctuating and unstable sensations cannot allow us to see the essence of things.

“For as long as the human being has occupied himself with this problem, he almost always ends up on one side or another, either sacrificing knowledge to being or being to knowledge. Empiricism trusts only sensible perceptions and believes that the processing of elementary perceptions into representations and concepts, into judgments and decisions, removes us further and further from reality and gives us only ideas [denkbeelden] that, though clean and subjectively indispensable, are merely “nominal” [nomina] and so are subjective representations, nothing but “the breath of a voice” [flatus vocis], bearing no sounds, only merely a “concept of the mind” [conceptus mentis]. Conversely, rationalism judges that sensible perceptions provide us with no true knowledge; they bring merely cursory and unstable phenomena into view, while not allowing us to see the essence of the things. Real, essential knowledge thus does not come out of sensible perceptions but comes forth from the thinking of the person’s own mind; through self-reflection we learn the essence of things, the existence of the world.”

However, rationalism which argues that knowledge is attained by reflecting on the ideas of the mind fails to deliver its promise. Contrary to its claim (Descartes), the ideas of the mind are far from being clear and distinct and are basically circular or self-referential.

“No law of cause and effect can release the one who accepts the principle and starting point of idealism from the Circassian Circle [toovercirkel] of his representations: out of one representation he can only deduce another, and he is never able to bridge the chasm between thinking and being by reasoning.” Continue reading “Herman Bavinck: Bridging the Dichotomy between Thinking and Being, and Breaching Kant’s Epistemological Firewall between the Phenomenal and Noumenal. BB001”

N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation

Debates about justification and New Perspective on Paul (NPP) seemed to have quietened down for a while, but recently the debates have received new impetus with the publication of three books by Matthew Bates – Salvation by Allegiance Alone, [SAA] Gospel Allegiance [GA] and Beyond the Salvation Wars [BSW]. It is undeniable that the teachings of the NPP (represented by N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates) are in conflict with the doctrine of justification and salvation taught in the historic Confessions of the Reformation. However, Bates writes, “Yet the creeds are not good stand-alone teaching tools about the gospel without an intervening reframing. The biblical and apostolic gospel relentlessly emphasizes Jesus’s messianic kingship—and this is muted in the creeds. Furthermore, creeds are doctrinal statements that invite intellectual affirmation – belief – more than allegiance.” [BSW54] Apparently, Bates seeks to intervene, reframe (and revise) the historic Reformation teaching of salvation based on his new perspective on faith and salvation, that is, salvation is by allegiance to Christ the king. Continue reading “N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation”

Critical Theory Legitimization of LGBT. Homosexual Practice & LGBT Sexual Revolution. Part 5/5

Critical Theory Legitimization of LGBT. HPLSR Part 5/5

Central Ideas of Critical Theory
A. Premises: Western culture is being strongly influenced by contemporary critical theory, which makes claims regarding (1) the social binary, (2) hegemonic power, (3) lived experience, and (4) social justice and praxis, or the implementation of critical social theories to effect social transformation.

B. Defining ideas.
1) Social binary, 2) Hegemonic power, 3) Lived experience, 4) Social justice and social transformation.

* The lived experience of minoritized and oppressed groups rivals and at times is prioritized over objective evidence and reason when it comes to understanding the world.
* Oppressive structures/institutions must be overturned.

C. Case study by Jeffrey Satinova on how the LGBT as a powerful aggressive activist movement successfully forced the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine homosexuality, although the redefinition was a result of political activism rather than on scientific evidence.

D. Conclusion
1) LGBT is not just a lifestyle choice. It is an aggressive ideology which seeks power to impose its ideas as the basis of social policy to reshape social reality.
2) The LGBT movement is a well-funded, efficiently organized & aggressive movement seeking to drive the church & Christians from engagement with the public square.
3) Arguably, the LGBT movement is this generation’s signature rebellion against God’s moral law and order in the West.

E. Heb 12:14. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Challenge: We must courageously declare the truth of biblical teaching & humbly seek to share the wholeness found in God’s grace that brings liberation and real substantial healing to our brokenness.

You can view the full video at:
Critical Theory Legitimization of LGBT. HPLSR Part 5/5

Collated Posts on homosexuality & LGBT

Introducing Kairos Research Centre

Kairos A3 Poster

The Rise & Dominance of LGBT Movement. Homosexual Practice & LGBT Sexual Revolution. Part 4/5

The Rise & Dominance of LGBT Movement. HPLSR. Part 4/5

Question – how did the Christianized West abandon biblical morality & how did the LGBT movement become the dominant social-cultural revolutionary movement today?

A. Historical Developments
Pre-modern world mindset: “Mimesis” – discover meaningful moral order instituted by God & conform to it vs Poiesis – Modern technological mindset: “Poiesis” – sees the world as raw material out of which meaning and purpose can be created by the individual.

B. Prioritization of the individual’s inner psychology (Rousseau) – we might even say “feelings” or “intuitions” – for our sense of who we are and what the purpose of our lives is.
Result: Expressive individualism (Charles Taylor) and autonomous self, plastic people who make and remake personal identity at will.
Judith Butler: gender is not identical to biological sex. It is rather, “acts and gestures which are learned performance.

C. Contestation: Biological sex vs claim that gender identity is determined by one’s inner feelings (and beliefs), not by physical reality. Premise: Disorders in sexual development (DSD) do not constitute a third sex. Rather, DSDs are disorders in the development and formation of the male or female body.
Problem with Sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

D. Revolutionary imperative against sexual distinctions
Wilhelm Reich claimed that sexual distinction is a form of social repression. Transgenderism is a rebellion to overcome sexual distinctions.

Herbert Marcuse – To transform society politically, then, one must transform society sexually and psychologically. Logical outcome – the revolutionary imperative in response to the view sexual distinction is repressive.

You can view the full video at:
The Rise & Dominance of LGBT Movement. HPLSR. Part 4/5

Collated posts on Bible and Homosexuality

Paul’s Teaching on Homosexual Practice. Homosexual Practice & LGBT Sexual Revolution. Part 3/5

Paul’s Teaching on Homosexual Practice. HPLSR Part 3/5

A. Rom. 1:22-27 The traditional interpretation of Rom 1:26–27 makes the following points: (1) homosexual and lesbian sex result, as do other sins, from rejecting God’s truth; (2) same-sex sexual relations are a judgment upon those who engage in them (“God gave them over”); (3) same-sex sexual relations are contrary to the ordinances for sex and marriage revealed by God in Scripture (Genesis 1–2) and in nature itself; and (4) thus, such sexual activities are immoral and disobedient to God, i.e., they are sinful.

B. The following LGBT claims are rejected
Claim 1. Paul talking about pederasty (sex with boys). No relevance to loving, consensual, monogamous, same-sex relations.

Claim 2. Paul talking about heterosexuals having homosexual sex – no relevance to people born with homosexual orientation. BUT para physin refers to unnatural relations contrary to nature.

C. Paul underscores his rejection of homosexual practice by using the Greek words for “male” and “female” rather than the more common words for “man” and “woman.” He is quoting from Gen. 1:27.

Meaning of the phrase “homosexual acts are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and ‘contrary to natural law’,” means.

D. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1Tim. 1:10
Meaning of the phrase, “men who practice homosexuality [oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai.”
Meaning of the terms, arsenokoites, ἀρσενοκοίτης and malakos, mαλακός

E. Homosexuality is contrary to the creation order of God. Hence, it is condemned by God, but it is not the last word of God. The message of the Bible: God’s grace and salvation is extended to everyone – to both heterosexuals and homosexuals who believe in Christ and repent from their sins.

You can watch the video at
Paul’s Teaching on Homosexual Practice. HPLSR Part 3/5