Debates

A Calvinist Critique of Arminian Hermeneutics of Election and Salvation

Debates between Calvinism and Arminianism concerning salvation frequently center not only on doctrinal conclusions but also on differing approaches to biblical interpretation. Both traditions affirm the final authority of Scripture and seek to interpret biblical texts responsibly within their literary and theological contexts. Nevertheless, they often arrive at sharply different conclusions regarding divine election, grace, and human freedom.

This article examines several key passages commonly discussed in the debate and offers a Reformed (Calvinist) critique of Arminian hermeneutical method, particularly where Calvinist interpreters believe theological assumptions influence the reading of the text.

Definitions
Calvinist Monergism: All fallen human beings are spiritually dead due to sin. Salvation begins with God’s sovereign and effectual grace, which regenerates chosen individuals so that they are enabled to respond in faith to God’s offer of salvation. Salvation originates entirely in God’s initiative rather than in the human will. In this framework, regeneration precedes faith.
Arminian Synergism: All fallen human beings have been given God’s prevenient grace, which restores the ability to respond freely to the gospel. This grace is sufficient to enable faith but does not guarantee it. Faith is not caused irresistibly by grace but freely exercised by the individual. Salvation involves cooperation between prevenient grace and human response.

Romans 9:15–16 and the Ground of Salvation
Continue reading “A Calvinist Critique of Arminian Hermeneutics of Election and Salvation”

Van Dyke’s “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee” is (Religious) Universalistic. A Rejoinder

I have already left behind my thoughts on van Dyke’s hymn posted several days ago & moved on to other issues. Re: Loud Music in Church Worship? However I received two challenges to my understanding of van Dyke’s hymn.

Both essentially argue that I am unjustifiably over-reading & attributing universalistic elements (“eisegesis rather than exegesis!”). Even if it is granted that my theological “rebuttals” in content are correct BUT “there is no such intent in this case. If you assume Van Dyke wrote this with the intention that it be sung by believers, everything is pretty sound.”

My Response:
First, I am not legislating whether someone may or may not sing van Dyke’s hymn. Continue reading “Van Dyke’s “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee” is (Religious) Universalistic. A Rejoinder”

More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury

The book, More Calvinistic Than Calvin? (MCTC) was published in 2023 by a team of local seminary lecturers under the leadership of Bishop Hwa Yung. [The book is available from Canaanland Book Store]. The aim of the book is to refute what it describes as “hardline Calvinism”, and to counter the influence of “hardline Calvinism” among college students in Malaysia.

Dr. Poh Boon Sing of the Reformed Baptist Church (Damansara Utama) has just published a rebuttal of More Calvinistic Than Calvin? on the internet, Beware of the Ecumenical Agenda (BEA) [<–link to file download].

I managed only to give the new book a super quick browse. Will give it a more thorough read after completing some urgent tasks presently.

BEA offers vigorous rebuttals to what it deems to be superficial and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of (hardline) Calvinism as presented by MCTC. Malaysian Christians should read the two books and decide for themselves whether the writers of MCTC and BEA have been fair and accurate in describing the opposing views and evaluate whether the rebuttals from both sides are well-founded and cogent. Continue reading “More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury”

On the Secular State Debate: G-25 Responds to Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil

Multiculturalism and Secularism – The Debate Continues

Earlier debate: Debunking Multiculturalism and Secularism – A Rejoinder

On the secular state debate: A response to Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil — G25 Malaysia

Malaymail Online 27 Jan 2020

JANUARY 27 — In his article in Berita Harian on January 19, 2020, Dr Mohamed Azam called out the G25 for claiming that Malaysia is a secular state. In doing so, he referred to G25’s recently-released report on the ‘Administration of Matters Pertaining to Islam’ and challenged the position that Malaysia is a secular state, based on three main arguments.

1. First, he asserts that the Federal Constitution does not contain, or make any reference to, the word ‘secular’, and in fact, it is only the religion of Islam that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. In light of this, he argues, the characterisation of Malaysia as a secular state is ‘inaccurate’.

2. This leads to his second argument: that Articles 3(1) and 12(2) places Islam in a ‘special’ position in Malaysia’s constitutional order, in spite of Tunku Abdul Rahman’s assurances that including Article 3(1) in the Constitution does not alter the secular character of the state. He also posits that if anything, the presence of Article 3(1) favours those who argue that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

3. Finally, Dr Mohamed Azam justifies his position by referring to the then Supreme Court decision in Che Omar bin Che Soh, the High Court decision in Meor Atiqulrahman, as well as various scholarly opinions.

While Dr Mohamed Azam is entitled to his academic opinion, we wish to point out that his arguments are flawed for a number of reasons. Continue reading “On the Secular State Debate: G-25 Responds to Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil”

Zakir Naik Exposed

Dr. Zakir Naik Makes 25 mistakes in 5 min Zakir Naik gives the impression that he is a very learned man as he effortlessly quotes [selected] verses from the Bible. However, there is much less than meets the eye. Often times he quotes Scripture out of context in order to impose an alien teaching on … Continue reading “Zakir Naik Exposed”

Dr. Zakir Naik Makes 25 mistakes in 5 min

Zakir Naik gives the impression that he is a very learned man as he effortlessly quotes [selected] verses from the Bible. However, there is much less than meets the eye. Often times he quotes Scripture out of context in order to impose an alien teaching on the Bible, like claiming that the Bible teaches about the coming of Muhammad. I shall leave the easy task of refuting his ludicrous claims to other writers.

For the moment I invite readers to view the following YouTube episode which exposes Zakir Naik’s habit of making flippant and misleading claims (some people would call them lies). LINK – Zakir Naik Makes 25 Mistakes in 5 Minutes – Continue reading “Zakir Naik Exposed”

Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes

Theological disputes must have been nerve-wracking…and dangerous! The standard texts of OT introduction often begin with the rise of historical criticism in the 17the century with Spinoza. This is followed by a parade of critics who questioned and substituted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with the ‘Fragmentary Theory’ or ‘Documentary Hypothesis’: beginning with Jean … Continue reading “Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes”

Theological disputes must have been nerve-wracking…and dangerous!

The standard texts of OT introduction often begin with the rise of historical criticism in the 17the century with Spinoza. This is followed by a parade of critics who questioned and substituted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with the ‘Fragmentary Theory’ or ‘Documentary Hypothesis’: beginning with Jean Astruc (1753), Johann Eichhorn (1780-1783), De Wette (1805) and climaxing with Julius Wellhausen’s JEPD, “Documentary Hypothesis” (1876-1878). I am probably dated in terms of OT expertise, but it is arguable that this standard theory is most strongly advocated by Otto Eissfeldt, The OT: an Introduction (1934); translated by Harper & Row (1965).

I was amused/alarmed when I came across John Calvin’s reference to doubts cast upon the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch way back in 1559: Continue reading “Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes”

Debunking Multiculturalism and Secularism – A Rejoinder

I have been honored to receive two replies to my article “Multiculturalism – How Can it be Wrong?�? published in the STAR (25/08/2006), which was in fact a response to an an earlier article “Debunking Multiculturalism” written by Md Asham Ahmad from IKIM (STAR 22/08/06).

Due to the constraint of time, I shall presently only give a brief response to a few issues raised by Md Asham Ahmad and Marzuki Mohamad in their responses to my article.

Debunking Multiculturalism and Secularism – A Rejoinder
By Ng Kam Weng

*This post is a continuation of my earlier response to Md Asham Ahmad from IKIM : Multi-Culturalism – How Can it be Wrong?

————————————————

I have been honored to receive two replies to my article “Multiculturalism – How Can it be Wrong?” published in the STAR (25/08/2006), which was in fact a response to an an earlier article “Debunking Multiculturalism” written by Md Asham Ahmad from IKIM (STAR 22/08/06).

Due to the constraint of time, I shall presently only give a brief response to a few issues raised by Md Asham Ahmad and Marzuki Mohamad in their responses to my article. However, in the long term I think it is more fruitful to offer in-depth reflections of the issues related to multiculturalism and politics of recognition. Hence, I shall in due time, post papers such as: Imagined communities and invention of politics in Malaysia; Islamic institutions in British Malaya; Modern social contract theories and consent in politics; Myths and realities of secularization and Christianity; multi-cultural citizenship; the social-legal contract of 1957 and 1963 with excerpts from original documents, etc.

Let me now address some of the issues raised by Mazuki Mohamad and Md Asham Ahmad respectively. Continue reading “Debunking Multiculturalism and Secularism – A Rejoinder”