Bulldawgy

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 8:09 pm

I’d like to know more about this Cheung guy. There are no attestations on his web site, no “About Vincent Cheung” page, no degrees, no endorsements, no speaking engagements, no publications (but lots of self-published PDFs you can download)…

That’s just the sort of site I’d expect a crackpot to have. That doesn’t make him a crackpot, but it does make me suspicious.

Kind of makes it hard for me to answer the question “why should I take the time to read this guy…”

But I took enough time to find this blog in which he essentially calls D.A. Carson a blasphemer.

I also found this blog in which his reaction to criticism was very telling. Very telling.

Mr. Cheung won’t get any more attention from me.

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

One last thing on Mr. Cheung. I scanned his 209-page Systematic Theology and I counted at most 40 works cited.

No bibliography.

This dude is masquerading as a scholar. All hat, no cattle.

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 8:22 pm

Correction: I counted at most 40 works cited — that weren’t his own writings. He cites himself with alarming frequency.

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

It’s like an accident on a highway, I just can’t walk away…

Here’s the most troubling thing I find within Cheung’s philosophy. He’s committed to a view called Scripturalism (which doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page). Basically he sums up the view on p. 44 of his “Ultimate Questions” self-published PDF…

Scripture is the first principle of the Christian worldview, so that true knowledge consists of only what is directly stated in Scripture and what is validly deducible from Scripture; all other propositions amount to unjustified opinion at best.

This view commits suicide — it is hopelessly self-refuting.

First, this view that true knowledge is only contained in Scripture (or deducible from it) is itself not contained in the Scripture, nor is it “validly deducible” from it. By its own standards, it is “unjustified opinion at best.”

Second, Scripture doesn’t say what counts as Scripture. Canonicity is an extra-biblical concept. So his view is that the only place to get true knowledge is from from the Scriptures — but the only way he knows what the Scriptures are is by leaning on an understanding of canonicity that came from outside the Scriptures (which he calls “unjustified opinion at best”).

Third, he says that true knowledge can be “validly deduced” from Scripture — but Scripture does not set forth the laws of logic that govern valid deduction. So right there, he’s appealing to an extra-biblical idea in support of his view that extra-biblical ideas are “unjustified opinion at best.”

Comment by bulldawgy - March 24, 2007 @ 9:20 pm

Down boy. Maybe you need to pray the sinner’s prayer….

wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

Cheung, Ultimate Questions, p. 44:

God acts directly on the mind and conveys information directly to it on the occasions when one is experiencing physical sensations, but God acts on the mind and conveys this information always apart from the sensations themselves. Even the act of reading the Scripture depends on Christ the divine logos, and not our senses.

(Aside: this is not directly stated in Scripture, nor is it validly deducible from it, so it is “unjustified opinion at best.” Refer to my last comment.)

Translation: when you think you’re reading your Bible, you’re not really reading your Bible. Total depravity, the noetic effects of sin and all that, you know… What’s really going on is that God is using a sovereign “back door” to your brain to get the Word through to you so you understand.

Question: Then why don’t all believers agree on the meaning, significance, and application of all passages of Scripture? God’s giving us direct, unmediated access to the truth, right?

Question: Then why do we need exegesis and hermeneutics? Our class on How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth suddenly seems like a waste of time now, doesn’t it?

Question: Then why do we need Bibles in our own languages? What need is there for Wycliffe Bible Translators? God’s just going to back-door the true meaning of the text, right? The original languages ought to be just fine, then, right?

Question: Then why do we need Bibles at all? If our understanding is entirely predicated on God’s “back door” treatment, what’s the point in moving our eyes across the words on a page? Why couldn’t we just move our eyes across UGA scouting reports? Would blank pages work? If our senses are so unreliable, would we ever know the difference?

Ya think this pushes my buttons a little maybe?

Comment by Hugh - March 24, 2007 @ 9:29 pm

Sorry for the rant Mr. Dawgy.

Nitey nite.

Comment by bulldawgy - March 24, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

I appreciate your rant - rant all you like.

Comment by guiroo - March 24, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

I just appreciate that he deals with the problem of evil from with out opening up all the loop holds that are so commonly thrown out.

I read many reformed ideas about how God is the one that sovereignly saves us but we are the ones that got us into trouble in the first place. As if God walked into a situation and said, “Look at all these dying people. I will save the ones I choose to save.”

No, He didn’t walk into the situation, He made the situation.

When you start to discuss such things with some professing reformed people, they start to sound a lot like Arminians using words like, “allowed” , “only foreknew”, and “permitted.”

Comment by Eric - March 25, 2007 @ 6:10 am

Guiroo, could it be that those folks sound that way when talking about sin because they are committed to the truthfulness of the scriptural account and that scriptural account places the responsibility squarely on the man?

If we didn’t have the Bible to contend with, it would be a lot easier, wouldn’t it?

I can appreciate that you may not find Augustine’s approach (and throw in the idea of primary and secondary causes) very satisfying, but I think it exemplifies the concept of faith seeking understanding.

Comment by guiroo - March 25, 2007 @ 1:33 pm

Naaaaaa, it couldn’t be that. (No I don’t agree with this guy’s ideas how God revelation isn’t connected to the senses. (It’s cool to see Hugh seem to take something personally though. )

“…that scriptural account places the responsibility squarely on the man?”

How does Romans 9:19,20 and Job do that? I agree with the primary/secondary cause thing. If all our days are written before our birth — even Adam’s ,the angels demons, and Lucifer’s creation and days — then isn’t the one who wrote the days ultimately responsible in his intention? (And man is responsible as well — the problem is we are never Holy in our intention.)

Or did something happen that God never intended?

Comment by guiroo - March 25, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

I was gonna pick up some Zima but it’s Sunday in Georgia.

Comment by Eric - March 26, 2007 @ 6:35 am

I’m thinking of Romans 1:18-2:22.

Comment by Hugh - March 26, 2007 @ 7:42 am

(Relevant, but a bit of a non sequitur…)

I just finished reading Desiring God last night. The final appendix is titled Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?

Here’s a manuscript of a talk Piper gave under the same title — it’s not exactly what appears in the most recent edition of the DG book, but it’s structurally the same.

Comment by guiroo - March 26, 2007 @ 8:23 am

I agree that man is held responsible for evil and sin — Romans 9 comfirms that.

Romans 2:5 - But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

Romans 9:18-20 - So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

So the question remains, “Or did something happen that God never intended? “

Comment by Bulldawgy - March 26, 2007 @ 9:05 am

Guiroo, I understand your question - and the dilemma that results from side-stepping it.

I would have to answer, based upon the totality of Scripture, that there is nothing that has ever happened that God did not intend to happen.

I will use an actual experience as an example. The question that results blows my mind - but it is one that I wrestle with, nonetheless.

Here goes: “Did God plan for John Couey to kidnap, rape, torture and then murder nine-year old Jessica Lunsford - so that His punishment of sin - or the forgiveness of the sinner would bring Glory to HIs name?”

That is a tough question. Now replace the name of the pedophile with a random name, and replace the name of the little girl with a name of your own child (everyone who has responded here has a daughter) - now…. let’s affirm the “explicit” teaching of Scripture - or let’s examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

Right or wrong, this is something that I don’t want to attach to God - though I may assent to it with my intellect.

Comment by guiroo - March 26, 2007 @ 9:48 am

Dawgy, the tempertature has now exceed 80*F, please refer to me as the Ubertuber from now until the daily high drops below 60*F.

Yes, making it personal always drives things home — it’s something I try to do. It makes us use words like “I, me, and mine.”

Job’s servants were murdered — possibly raped. Consider all that may have happened to Joseph on the way to Egypt. Consider all the REAL FAMILIES that were effected by the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of God’s “raising up” of Pharaoh and getting Moses into the royal palace.

Exodus 1:22 - Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrew you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”

Comment by guiroo - March 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am

Just to draw another parallel about something we commenters are pretty passionate about…

“Right or wrong, this is something that I don’t want to attach to God - though I may assent to it with my intellect.”

And so it is with most folks and the ideas of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistable grace.

Comment by Eric - March 26, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

UT, this is the value of Augustine (and later thinkers’ contribution). Nothing has ever happened that God did not intend in an ultimate sense. But that ultimate sense is God’s business. We have no access to that, and, as Paul points out in Romans 9, it’s none of our business.

What God has revealed to us is that He hates sin and that man is responsible for it. How that can be reconciled with the truth of the paragraph above, God does not see fit to reveal to us. We are left to speculate, if we dare.

Augustine showing that evil is not technically created is a start in that it eliminates a potential logical contradiction within the Christian worldview, but is does not reconcile our two issues. That is where concepts like primary and secondary causes can be helpful.
Another idea that may help is to view God’s hardening of people or using their sin like this… After the fall, man became utterly inclined to sin. It is only God’s grace that restrains us from being as bad as we could be. However, God has no moral obligation to provide that restraint (that’s why we call it grace). So, all God has to do is pull back his grace and people do what they choose (in their sinfulness) to do. God doesn’t make them, He just stops preventing them. It looks like God is making them do it, but He’s not in the sense that they choose it. (If you want to jump back to the ultimate, Gods-eye view, then I guess you could say that God made him do it, but He makes it pretty clear that He reserves that view for Himself).
I’m not claiming to have it all wrapped up with a pretty bow on top. And, I’m suspicious of anyone who, after 2000+ years of the best minds seeking God, claims to.

Comment by guiroo - March 26, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

I just finished the Piper article Hugh referred to. I find it ironic that the article quotes Isaiah:

Isaiah 45:7 says God is the “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

…and then goes on make the analogy of sin and darkness — something not created, but permitted due to the lack of light.

Yes Eric. I am referring to the “ultimate, Gods-eye view.” The post-fall POV paints God as having to resort to plan B based on the situation He found us in.

Kind of like, God walks into a bakery and sees that at the end of the day any leftover donuts are going to be thrown out. So God, in His mercy, picks the elect donuts. (Now, I’m hungry.)

The only problem is that God IS the baker and He is the only one buying donuts. He is the one that makes the donuts and made the rule to throw them out at the end of the day in the first place. We as believers give Him credit for active salvation, but few are willing to give Him credit for sending people to Hell as well.

Comment by Eric - March 26, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

Uber, So… would you be happy if every Calvinist would be supralapsarian (which most aren’t)?

Comment by guiroo - March 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

YES! What\\\’s wrong with you people?!

(I bet this is funny for you considering your opportunity to observe me over that past few years.)

Comment by Eric - March 26, 2007 @ 9:34 pm

I did start to wonder, as I look at the white text on a black background, if John’s blog is some sort of alternate universe.

Comment by Bulldawgy - March 27, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

The motif reminds one of the inside of an atom…. so much space….

Pingback by A Delightful Apologetic for Santa Claus :: hughbiquitous - December 20, 2007 @ 7:34 am

[…] John Mark Reynolds has given me my best Christmas present this year. He has written a brilliant apologetic for Santa Claus in the finest Clarkian/Van Tillian epistemic tradition. (Or is it Vincent Cheung?) […]