Cheung Defends His Recent Attitude

tellville · #1 (**permalink**) 02-03-2007, 02:02 PM

Cheung defends his attitude and appears to take jabs at Paul and Steve Hays (the key word here is "appears" as he denies knowing who he is critiquing):

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2007/02...erence-part-1/

Vytautas · #2 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 10:52 PM

Cheung's claim is that he cannot be defeated in debate because he holds to Scripture. Since, they are true, no one can refute them if one relies on them in debate. Also since unbelievers are morons, seeing the cross as foolishness, anything that they say can be easily refuted. If you cannot defeat an unbeliever, then you are not thinking as a Christian but as an atheist. Thus every debate is in the pocket because offence and defense is covered. He may seem to be overconfident at first, but I think there is truth to this.

I notice though that Calvin says the same things in his Institutes. If you look at the abridged version published by Baker Book House on page 42 and 43, you will see this. So I think that Cheung's view of having an invincible resource of argumentation is more common then when first considered.

mangum · #3 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

All good except for the unfortunate fact that he's not standing on the Bible.

Indulge me . . .please.

mangum · #4 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

For one, read this entire thread.

Second, read all of these.

Third, read this.

And finally, read this.

Did the first.

1/4 through the second.

I cheated and read the third and last.

mangum · #5 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 12:02 PM

Some of Cheung's earlier stuff was alright. Bit when considering his self-serving comments, and lofty views of his intellect, he is at best, sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Civbert · #6 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

For one, read this entire thread.

Part of the reason I started the thread I did was so that I could point people to specific posts, not overwhelm them with pages and pages of information. Why not link to the specific posts you think are key? (That's one of the features of the new PB forum is the ability to link to specific posts.)

That being said - stay tuned to The Epistemology of Scripturalism thread - I will address some more comments and (unless you or anyone else has more questions) give some closing remarks. I'll try not to overwhelm anyone.

PS. I just printed this thread and it comes to a whopping 139 pages! So don't let it be said that I didn't warn you.

Civbert · #7 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tellville

Cheung defends his attitude and appears to take jabs at Paul and Steve Hays (the key word here is "appears" as he denies knowing who he is critiquing):

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2007/02...erence-part-1/

This sounds like the Carly Simon song that goes "You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you".

Magma2 · #8 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

Because I think the whole thing should be read. It's a systematic decimation of Scripturalism.

I don't have problems with people reading it, do you?

Systematic decimation?

To think you make fun of Cheung sounding like a clanging cymbal.

I for one have no problem with folks reading the thread since it demonstrates the complete vanity of those who, like you, think they have provided a "systematic decimation."

My guess is you don't understand the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark probably because you've never read any Gordon Clark . IMO you're understanding of Scripturalism comes exclusively from the hands of inept critics like "Pondscum" and that natural theologian M. Sudduth. BTW ever read what VT thought of natural theology?

Magma2 · #9 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

I have read Gordon Clark.

Really? Care to share which books you've read by him?

Magma2 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul manata

Anyway, now for the embarrassing part: Please deduce all that you just said from Scripture. if you cannot, then you don't know it and are merely offering unjustified opinion.

What, like your imagined "decimation of Scripturalism"?

But this is a another good example of your "decimation." Like I said before, if I were to say I knew my wife on my honeymoon you'd ask me to deduce that from Scripture too.

crhoades · #11 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 03:05 PM

[moderator]
Now where have I seen a rabbit trail like this before?

Oh yeah, every other thread on apologetics. Can you guys meet in person, share a few beers, arm wrestle, hug, hammer this stuff out? Valentines day is coming up soon...

Quote:

1 Corinthians 13

The Way of Love

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[/moderator]

Magma2 · #12 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crhoades

[moderator]
Now where have I seen a rabbit trail like this before?

Oh yeah, every other thread on apologetics. Can you guys meet in person, share a few beers, arm wrestle, hug, hammer this stuff out? Valentines day is coming up soon...

Paul did have an avatar with him holding a shotgun. Perhaps we can settle it that way?

Don't worry, my box of candy hearts complete with inscriptions by Gordon Clark are in the mail.

crhoades · #13 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magma2

Paul did have an avatar with him holding a shotgun. Perhaps we can settle it that way?

That would speed up the process...Both of you guys could sit down with Cornelius and Gordon and have a big ol' laugh!

Quote:

Don't worry, my box of candy hearts complete with inscriptions by Gordon Clark are in the mail.

I prefer milk chocolate...maybe with nuts...not into that surprise, guess what's inside stuff. And if possible, make the inscriptions Scripture so that we can all agree on it.

{

oops! I was thinking that you were sending me a box of chocolates. Darn...You're buying yourself some...Oh well...maybe next year!

}

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 02-09-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

This sounds like the Carly Simon song that goes "You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you".

Now you have that song stuck in my head!