Author: Kam Weng Ng

Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience

Gal. 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul did not derive his message from human teaching or internal development but from direct divine encounter – and he staked his life’s mission on that claim. The evidence points to a supernatural intervention.

J.G. Machen argues forcefully that Paul’s conversion cannot be explained by subjective psychological development or by gradual change in understanding due to personal reflection, or second-hand teaching. Paul’s religion was born of a direct encounter with the risen Christ– an immediate, supernatural revelation that radically transformed Paul’s life and theology. Put differently, the content of Paul’s faith (a transcendent, divine, crucified and risen Messiah) was so radically discontinuous with his pre-conversion Jewish worldview that only an objective, supernatural revelation can account for the radical transformation of his life. Psychological explanations (e.g., hallucination, inner conflict, subconscious development) fail because they cannot explain the specific, revolutionary theology Paul immediately adopted.

In essence, Machen’s argument is:
Premise 1: Paul’s pre-conversion state was one of confident, zealous Pharisaism, not guilt-ridden struggle.

Premise 2: Paul’s post-conversion theology was a radical, immediate break with that Pharisaism, centering on a crucified and risen Messiah. Continue reading “Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience”

Creation and Sacramental Participation: Hans Boersma and the Recovery of Christian Platonism

Creation and Sacramental Participation: Hans Boersma and the Recovery of Christian Platonism. Paradigms of Creation and God. PCG 2/4.

In the previous post, we noted that one influential explanation for the rise of secular modernity is the emergence of nominalism in the late Middle Ages. According to this account, nominalism denied the objective reality of universals and thereby weakened the traditional conviction that creation reflects the eternal wisdom of God. The participatory link between creation and its Creator was gradually severed. Nature came to be viewed increasingly as a self-contained realm governed by impersonal laws rather than as a meaningful order that points beyond itself to God.

This narrative has been popularized by theologians associated with Radical Orthodoxy and by scholars such as Hans Boersma. It should be noted, however, that the claim that nominalism is the primary cause of secular modernity remains a contested historical thesis rather than an established fact. Nevertheless, the diagnosis has proven influential because it addresses a genuine problem: the modern tendency to view reality as disenchanted, mechanistic, and devoid of transcendent meaning. Hans Boersma’s book Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry offers a significant contemporary attempts to recover a pre-modern Christian vision of reality. Although Boersma is not formally a member of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, his project is deeply sympathetic to its retrieval of participation metaphysics and sacramental ontology. He argues that much of the Christian tradition, especially before the rise of nominalism, understood creation through the lens of what he calls “heavenly participation” or “sacramental ontology.” Continue reading “Creation and Sacramental Participation: Hans Boersma and the Recovery of Christian Platonism”

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.
Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology. OPDC Part 2/6

Q1. Some people claim that Paul corrupted Jesus’ teaching. Did Paul create a religion about Jesus, instead of following the religion of Jesus?

Q2. Skeptics say Paul’s teachings contradict Jesus’. Example,
Paul teaches that “a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) however, Jesus teaches obedience to the law (“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets… but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-19). And other so-called contradictory teachings of Paul and Jesus in the Bible. Is this due to weak exegesis?

You can watch the video at:
Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.

Reductionistic Science and the Disenchantment of the World: Paradigms of Creation and God

Reductionistic Science and the Disenchantment of the World: Paradigms of Creation and God (PCG 1/4)

The transformation of Europe—from the heartland of Christianity into a secular modern society during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—began almost imperceptibly. Yet the cultural consequences of this shift eventually spread across the globe. As Aristotle once observed, “The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” This multifaceted process was driven in part by the skeptical philosophy of the European Enlightenment and by the rise of a reductionistic conception of science, often termed scientific naturalism. Scientific naturalism rejects supernatural and transcendent realities, viewing the universe instead as a closed system governed entirely by material causes and effects.

The theologian Hans Boersma describes the transition from the premodern, mystery-laden worldview of medieval Christendom to the modern secular outlook as a shift from “sacramental participation” to “univocity and immanence.”Medieval thinkers believed that universals such as truth, goodness, and beauty possessed real existence. Creation was understood as being charged with divine mystery. Earthly realities existed by virtue of their participation in, and reflection of, heavenly realities. Continue reading “Reductionistic Science and the Disenchantment of the World: Paradigms of Creation and God”

Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, his Gospel Message and Christology


Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

It has been common for critics to accuse the apostle Paul of corrupting early Christianity by blending Jesus’ original, simpler message with complex Greek philosophy.

Paul’s usage of Greek terms in his gospel was simply due to the fact that koine (common) Greek became the lingua franca of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman world. These terms allow him to communicate the gospel while redefining their meanings within the bounds of the revelation of Christ. He maintains the Jewish monotheistic covenantal framework shaped by the God of Israel, covenant, law, and promise.

Universalizing the Message: His Jewish exegesis provided authoritative scriptural grounding, and his Greek fluency made his message intelligible in Gentile contexts.

Synthesis: The Prepared Apostle
Paul’s effectiveness stemmed from this unique fusion:
* He could argue from Scripture like a rabbi to Jews and God-fearers.
* He could debate in the agora and use Greek literary forms to communicate with pagans.
* He could navigate the Roman legal system to advance his mission.
* He could theologize in a new way, using his Jewish categories (covenant, law, Messiah) to explain the universal significance of Jesus, creating a theology that transcended ethnic divisions.

 

You can watch the full video at:
Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

 

Related Posts:

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology

 

 

 

 

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”