Krisis & Praxis

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,¹ 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.”

A Calvinist Critique of Arminian Hermeneutics of Election and Salvation

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

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”

Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence

Earlier post – “Cosmos to Cradle: From Pre-existent to Incarnate Christ.”

I. Contemporary Challenges to Christ’s Pre-existence
Several prominent scholars have recently challenged the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s divine pre-existence. This article provides a response to their challenge from the standpoint of historic Christian orthodoxy.

A. John Hick’s Mythological Interpretation
John Hick contends that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not a literal truth but a mythological construct developed by the early Church. In The Myth of God Incarnate, he writes:

I suggest that…the idea of divine incarnation is a mythological idea. And I am using the term ‘myth’ in the following sense: a myth is a story which is told but which is not literally true, or an idea or image which is applied to someone or something but which does not literally apply, but which invites a particular attitude in its hearers. Thus the truth of a myth is a kind of practical truth consisting in the appropriateness of the attitude to its object. That Jesus was God the Son incarnate is not literally true, since it has no literal meaning, but it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose function is analogous to that of the notion of divine sonship ascribed in the ancient world to a king…it offers a way of declaring his significance to the world; and it expresses a disciple’s commitment to Jesus as his personal Lord. He is the one in following whom we have found ourselves in God’s presence and have found God’s meaning for our lives. He is our sufficient model of true humanity in a perfect relationship to God.¹

For Hick, Jesus is not ontologically divine but is a uniquely God-conscious human being whose life invites existential commitment. The Incarnation, in this view, is a symbolic affirmation of Jesus’ exemplary humanity, not a metaphysical reality.

B. Bart Ehrman’s Developmental Theory
Bart Ehrman argues that belief in Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence was not held by His earliest followers but emerged gradually over time. In How Jesus Became God, he writes: Continue reading “Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence”

1
The Myth of God Incarnate (SCM, 1977), pp. 178-179.

What is Worship? Theological and Liturgical Outline

In response to my post, “Loud Music in Worship?”, one question invariably arises: What is worship? The following outline seeks to provide a balanced account of God-centred, holistic Christian worship, integrating theology, liturgy, and lived response.

A. What is worship?
Ralph Martin defines worship as: the dramatic celebration of God in his supreme worth in such a manner that his ‘worthiness’ becomes the norm and inspiration of human living.

Worship is heart-occupation with Christ. Worship is the overflow of the heart that has no request to make. To worship God is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God; to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God. (William Temple)

Worship is the activity of the new life of the believer in which recognizing the fullness of the Godhead as it is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and His mighty redemptive acts, he seeks by the power of the Holy Spirit. Biblical worship is holistic as it is centred on the Triune God and it ministers to the whole person. to render to the living God the glory, honor, and submission which are His due. (Robert Rayburn)

Biblical worship is therefore holistic: It is Trinitarian, Christ-centred, and directed to the whole person’ s mind, will, affections, and body.

Continue reading “What is Worship? Theological and Liturgical Outline”