rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Oct 4, 2008 17:02:16 GMT -5
Does anyone know anything about Vincent Cheung? What do you think about his apologetics material?
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Oct 22, 2008 22:35:38 GMT -5
Calvinist, Pre-Supp, radical. One out of three ain't bad.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 5, 2008 10:10:31 GMT -5
I believe he is what is called "Clarkian" in his pre sup apologetic... That is that he followed Clark rather than Van Til (Who Bahnsen followed). While on the road, Evan used Chueng's material a lot and really had some great arguments. He even points out some flaws in VanTillian apologetics. I would like to study him more but I haven't yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Nov 5, 2008 12:38:53 GMT -5
Someone on one of Jesse's YouTube video comments basically said Presuppositional apologetics only works because of the presupposition of Total Depravity.
Thoughts???
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 6, 2008 8:50:20 GMT -5
Very solid material. A rigorous and logical thinker. I cannot but recommend that everyone on this forum read Cheung... and try, if you can, to maintain your Arminianism (or similar foolishness).
Of course, whether you do or not is not up to you. And God is still just regardless of what you think, or how many verses you eisegete to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 6, 2008 13:27:13 GMT -5
They would have to explain their position.
Any form of apologetics presupposes that sinners have the ability to reason and make decisions. That is the whole point of having a discussion with a sinner.
I thought Calvinists didn't believe in logic... At least, they always criticize Charles Finney for being logical.
It seems that Calvinists want to use logic for their apologetic but not for their theology.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 6, 2008 13:43:51 GMT -5
The difference is that Finney starts with some invalid premises. He might reason correctly, but it will be to invalid conclusions. Cheung does a good job of exposing the unbiblical, axiomatic thinking that you and others like you have presented on this board for so long. We've been over it and over it, no need to rehash old debates with the same person, or for me to even spend any significant time talking to you about theology unless you're going to repent. A very relevant piece of his is "Arguing by Intuition", which is here: www.vincentcheung.com/other/intuition.pdf
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Nov 7, 2008 13:49:50 GMT -5
tbxi - I must say after reading this article, Cheung completely (and intentionally I might add) grossly distorts what Ganssel is putting forth in his arguement. Cheung is essentially saying Ganssel is making his arguement on the basis of intuition. I would agree with this premise, that Ganssel is basing his arguement on his natural observations that mankind has a freewill. But one cannot disregard Ganssels arguement here solely on Chuengs basis that intuition is completely wrong. Let me give you an example. If I were to argue that molesting children is a good and noble thing would you agree or disagree? On what basis would you make your decision? Based upon what society held to be true or based upon your "intuition"? Its just as CS Lewis stated there are certain intuitive principles all of humanity hold sacred - such as there has never in the history of mankind a civilization that has held "cowards" in high regard or as heroic figures. For Chueng to make such a claim is nonsense.
The end all statement for me is when Cheung makes is in his attempt to counter Ganssel's arguement regarding moral accountability the following statement:
" To simplify the argument, we may paraphrase it as follows: "If determinism is true, then we are not morally responsible. But we do hold each other morally responsible. Therefore, determinism is false." Even assuming we agree that "we do hold each other morally responsible," Ganssle says nothing to establish that this is in fact the right thing to do. Just because we do something does not mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do. Maybe we are wrong in holding each other morally responsible."
At this point I just stop reading Cheung for he has stepped off into the absurd. To say we as humans might be wrong for holding people morally responsible is wrong is well just .......stupid.
Let me also add that Chueng is also rather mean & cruel in many of his responses. He makes very snide remarks as if he is very pompous and full of himself and of the so called knowledge he possesses.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 7, 2008 14:00:48 GMT -5
Show how. "Natural observations" are generally bunk. The human heart is not equipped for making accurate statements based on observations of himself or the world apart from the revelation of God. Molesting children is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong, not because of human intuition. (Proverbs 28:26) Whether there has never been a civilization that held cowards in high regard or not is not only unprovable, but irrelevant, because one could come to exist in the future. What claim, exactly, and why? What is your basis for making the claim that Cheung's claim is nonsense? Yes, it is stupid, and you are misunderstanding Cheung. He is questioning the basis for Ganssel's principles, and speaking hypothetically in order to use Ganssel's position to argue against itself and therefore show its absurdity. You might think that he means evilly here, but unless you're a mindreader, you are in danger of slander here. Watch out, you might lose your salvation! As for his speech being "mean and cruel", you should read the piece he cited in his third footnote, Professional Morons, as well as A Moron By Any Other Name. They are here: www.vincentcheung.com/other/promorons.pdfwww.vincentcheung.com/other/morbyname.pdf
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Nov 7, 2008 19:42:52 GMT -5
"Natural observations" are generally bunk. The human heart is not equipped for making accurate statements based on observations of himself or the world apart from the revelation of God.
Molesting children is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong, not because of human intuition. (Proverbs 28:26) Whether there has never been a civilization that held cowards in high regard or not is not only unprovable, but irrelevant, because one could come to exist in the future."
LOL!!!! Wow tbxi - I not sure what to say here other than your an individual who seems to be out of touch with reality. I would love to see how you would evangelize or use apologetic's with someone who doesn't believe in the bible! (OH I forgot your a Calvinist you don't believe in evangelism but election) How then do you explain civilizations or cultures who have never heard or read the bible, but yet hold to these moral truths to be true? Have you ever been lied to or had a crime committed against you?? If so how did you know you had been wronged? Because the bible told you so?? Every person is created with an innate sense of justice or right and wrong.
tbxi - all I will say you really need to find some new reading material friend. This fellow is very prideful and his writings are in no way dealing with people with humility or patience. To resort to name calling and insults really is not exemplifying the spirit of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 7, 2008 20:07:41 GMT -5
"Natural observations" are generally bunk. The human heart is not equipped for making accurate statements based on observations of himself or the world apart from the revelation of God. Molesting children is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong, not because of human intuition. (Proverbs 28:26) Whether there has never been a civilization that held cowards in high regard or not is not only unprovable, but irrelevant, because one could come to exist in the future." LOL!!!! Wow tbxi - I not sure what to say here other than your an individual who seems to be out of touch with reality. I would love to see how you would evangelize or use apologetic's with someone who doesn't believe in the bible! (OH I forgot your a Calvinist you don't believe in evangelism but election) How then do you explain civilizations or cultures who have never heard or read the bible, but yet hold to these moral truths to be true? Have you ever been lied to or had a crime committed against you?? If so how did you know you had been wronged? Because the bible told you so?? Every person is created with an innate sense of justice or right and wrong. tbxi - all I will say you really need to find some new reading material friend. This fellow is very prideful and his writings are in no way dealing with people with humility or patience. To resort to name calling and insults really is not exemplifying the spirit of Christ. I don't believe in evangelism? Where did I say that? I evangelize. Cheung is prideful? I think you are a hypocrite. You have dismissed my reply with a mere "You are out of touch with reality", and then you tell me that Cheung is impatient and lacks humility. Apparently you did not understand anything in the article you read, because you are again, without using Scripture, trying to tell me what reality is and is not. This is relying on your own intuition. You should not trust in your own heart, but in the Lord. This means you listen to His word when it comes to things like this, not your own rebellious and sinful heart. There is nothing else to respond to here. Read Romans 1 and 2 to learn why people have innate, but limited and flawed senses of right and wrong.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Jan 8, 2009 23:31:59 GMT -5
tbxi maybe you can help me.
I need some clarification concerning Cheung's epistemology? After reading his Ultimate Questions book; I wanted to know if his belief in Occasionalism is dependent on the senses in order to have the occasion in which the Logos conveys knowledge to his mind? If the 5 senses are not necessary then is Cheung's view knowledge is conveyed from telepathy? Cheung made this statement: " Second, not only do they [Psedo-Presuppusitionalists "Van Tillians"] fail just as miserably as the unbelievers in justifying or accounting for their reliance on sensation, intuition, induction, and science, they evenadmit that these irrational ways of knowing and reasoning are necessary in order to discover the contents of divine revelation. In other words, although they claim that it is revelation that accounts for, say, our sensations, our sensations are what allow us to access revelation in the first place.
The result is not just one vicious circle disintegrating into a mess of confusion and nonsense, but worse than that, they have placed themselves in the exact position of the unbelievers – they make themselves and their own human investigation the center and precondition of all knowledge. They explicitly place revelation under sensation, intuition, induction, and science. And in many ways, this is even worse than even an explicitly anti-Christian philosophy that has enough sense to question irrational epistemologies." How can he say this if he is dependent on the senses? Can you please clarify.
For those who are not familar with Cheung traditional Calvinism would consider his views including His apologetical method being based on hyper-Calvinism.
|
|
rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Feb 16, 2009 20:55:39 GMT -5
Hey RC, I've noticed Cheung being promoted on the Reformed Evangelist blog. Specifically to bring up the question of "what's the big deal if God is the author of evil." So, based on your last sentence, does that mean you guys don't consider yourselves "traditional" Calvinists. Or is that just one blogger in your group that is a little more "hyper" than the rest?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Feb 16, 2009 23:26:28 GMT -5
They just posted it on the basis of his other material on apologetics. No one is hyper.
Thanks for telling me I will get Paul to change that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Feb 17, 2009 0:45:28 GMT -5
When it comes to the problem of evil there is much to be discussed and pondered.
As far as endorsing Chueng it is for his Apologetical work. There is much that I would disagree with in his writings, but there is much that is valuable.
Like I tell Brother RC.. "Eat the meat and spit out the bones"...
|
|
rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Feb 17, 2009 10:20:15 GMT -5
Hey Paul, Your blog doesn't just promote Cheung's apologetics, it promotes his hyper-Calvinism too. In the below linked blog post Jeff Fuller submits to your audience that it doesn't matter if God is the author of evil or not. reformedevangelist.com/?p=773For years I have heard from Calvinists that their theology does not impune God's character, that it doesn't make God the author of sin, yet over and over and over again I hear stuff like this. I've read lots of Cheung's writings and it is total in-your-face hyper Calvinism (according to the definition of traditional Calvinists). Yet his writings are promoted on mainstream calvinist sites like Monergism.com. I understand "eating the hay and spitting out the sticks" but would you put the writings of Joseph Smith on your site so they could glean some of his good points. It's frustrating because Calvinists act like they are shocked and offended by what they describe as the heresy of hyper-Calvinist teaching, yet then they promote hyper-Calvinist teachers. -Nathan Rambeck
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Feb 17, 2009 16:26:45 GMT -5
Nathan, That is something you will have to take up with Jeff. Personally I don't think he took what he was saying as far as Cheung does (or didn't think it out), but again that is something you will have to ask him. Now as for me: I would agree here with Dr. William Downing... "Evil exists in the universe of an omnipotent, benevolent God, who is completely sovereign over it and uses it for his own glory and the highest good—the argument of the consistent Calvinist." I would also agree with Bahnsen: "The existence of evil in a universe created and governed by a benevolent God is not incoherent if God has a morally sufficient reason for this evil to exist. This “problem” is more psychological than logical or philosophical. Man would rather call God and his actions into question than submit himself in complete trust (Rom. 9:11–24), even to a God who is benevolent in the context of his righteousness." This issue is fully dealt with by Greg Bahnsen in Always Ready. Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996. pp. 165–174. He maintains that “The Problem of Evil” is actually a personal expression of a lack of faith. And to quote myself: "When it comes to the problem of evil there is much to be discussed and pondered." The ordination of evil is a mystery and we should view it as such. There is a warning to be considered as apologists that we will not be able to give 110% answers to all the workings of God. We cannot fully know the mind of God in several matters. Again quoting Downing: "Such a view does not take all the mystery out of the problem of evil. God is infinite, and so are his wisdom, power and purpose. We are finite, and simply cannot comprehend all that is implied in this profound issue. Why God, who is absolutely morally self–consistent, should ordain evil, must to a given degree remain a mystery to finite beings. Such matters must be approached by a faith that rests in a wise and morally self–consistent God." His article may be of some help in this area: www.sgbcsv.org/literature/ProblemOfEvil.pdfAs for the "Hyper" problem... I'm not so afraid of the position myself. unchainedradio.com/freedownload/Conference-Chart.pdfAccording to this chart, which can also be debated, you will see that many points of "High Calvinism" spill over to what is considered the "Hyper" side and in my own personal understanding I think I could fill in a few other grey squares... Although it is your duty to figure out which ones... I don't see it any differently than a Pelegian, who is vehemently opposed to the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin, quoting Wesley who in fact did hold to the doctrine. They would spit out the bones and eat the meat (so to speak). Sincerely, Paul A. Kaiser
|
|
|
Post by burningnow on Feb 19, 2009 16:04:34 GMT -5
.
Woot, now I'm the latest post on all major boards. Booya!
|
|
|
Post by tuternab on Mar 1, 2019 0:28:13 GMT -5
Сейчас смартфон есть у каждого! А вы знаете, что возможно скачать приложение Туту Ап, в котором есть миллионы бесплатных приложений для Айфона и Андроида? Игры по типу Pokemon Go, Clash Royale и другие доступны абсолютно бесплатно! Детали на сайте <a href=https://tutuap.ru>тут</a>. Скачивайте TutuApp и наслаждайтесь свободой выбора!
|
|