I'm confused, Xenophon. To whom is your counsel directed? Who has been "disrespectful or snarky or even nasty" towards Cheung?
Perhaps someone should put in a word for not being arrogant and condescending, given this snippet of response from Mr Cheung:
My method is biblical, and it is helping many believers to study and practice their faith with great assurance, as well as to decisively vindicate the faith when confronting unbelievers. It is not my fault if your own unbiblical methods and doctrines are so feeble that I managed to trample all over them even by accident (as if stepping on an ant while on a leisurely Sunday stroll with my wife), and utterly embarrassed you by destroying your school of thought before the whole world. Don’t get so worked up over me; I never meant to outdo you in apologetics without even trying. I am just minding my own business and teaching the Bible — it’s your own fault for being so weak and irrational.
I, for one, am not the least bit impressed by Cheung's typical responses to respectful, well-informed criticisms of his idiosyncratic epistemology. Simply churning out variations on "My position is completely biblical and rational, therefore it is irrefutable, therefore you must be wrong and I don't need to respond directly to your objections," until the critic's eyes glaze over, does not make for intelligent and productive debate.
Just read Cheung's non-response to (I assume) Aquascum's essay. I say the following sincerely, and not at all saracastically: It sure would've been nice had Cheung spent the time and effort he took to write his non-response to instead respond to at least one of Aquascum's points. Cheung's non-response probably could've been summed up in a couple of sentences, or a paragraph at most, and he could've spent the remainder of the post attempting to interact with Aquascum. Pity.
To begin with, Cheung sets the bar very high for himself. He regards his epistemology has nothing short of “invincible” and “irrefutable.” It’s the epitome of “rigorous rationality.”
Now, there’s nothing the least bit disrespectful about holding a man to his own standards. That is just a case of taking him seriously, taking him at his own word.
Since Cheung has such a lofty opinion of his intellectual rigor, he should welcome rational scrutiny. And the fact that when someone actually takes him up on his challenge, he refuses to step up to the plate, but resorts, instead, to personal abuse, is very revealing.
An assertion is not an argument. A denial is not a disproof.
Why would I go after a fellow Calvinist? Why would I host a guest editorial on Cheung? For several reasons:
1.I was asked to comment on Cheung. So I did. And, in the nature of the case, once you get started, these things have a way of snowballing.
2.Cheung is unwittingly positioning his followers for the fall. If they think that his epistemology is an “irrefutable” answer to the best that the unbelieving world has to array against the Christian faith, then they are living in a hall of mirrors. If they were to try his arguments out on a philosophy major, they’d run out of ammo in a hurry and be left utterly defenseless.
Cheung’s epistemology is one of those artificial, antibody challenged, test-tube concoctions that can’t survive for long outside its germ-free laboratory in direct contact with the inhospitable elements of a real world opponent.
3.Cheung means well, but well-meaning men can do a kind of harm that ill-meaning men cannot. Once you get a reputation for being a conservative, a lot of Christians drop their guard. Many Christians judge them by their conservative tone, not their conservative content.
4.Because I’m a Calvinist, I take a particular interest in the health and welfare of Calvinism. We need to police our own. We need to keep our own house in order. We need to do what we can so that Calvinism is not misrepresented as something it is not, never was, and never should be.
5.Clark and his epigones have an unscriptural epistemology. This leads, in turn, to an unscriptural doctrine of Scripture itself. And that leads, in turn, to other unscriptural doctrines. The fact that this is emanating from within Reformed circles makes it worse, not better.
6.This also results in shaming fellow believers who simply and trustingly take the Bible at face-value. That behavior is wholly unacceptable.
I'm wondering -- are you sure you didn't see this coming? Cheung has established himself as Pope of Scriptural epistemology and Metaphysics. You know how easy it is to refute Papal claims of inerrancy -- why don't we see that when Cheung makes claims which are disturbingly-similar in content (if not in tone) to Papal claim, aquascum and Steve have no problem simply bursting his bubble?
As for being snarky, that's my job. I'm not convinced that aquascum has enough snark in him to be called "snarky".
{{ He does, though, project a persona, intentionally or not, of a person who you kind of (how do I put this?) don't want to 'harm his sense of honor'. Like, he's of a different culture or something and he's got a different sense of self and honor, and you just want to not upset that while at the same time you are thinking that is great that he's a Calvinist to begin with. That is condescending-sounding, but that is just the impression he projects from that website (from the website anyway). }}
And my "hog-wash-o-meter" broke trying to measure the size of the hog you here are trying to wash. "a person who you kind of don't want to 'harm his sense of honor'"? You might have said he's hypersensitive and uses that to bully those who offer him criticism -- it would have represented what I have read at Cheung's site at least as well as what you said here.
"That is condescending-sounding, but that is just the impression he projects from that website." It is condescending-sounding because it is actually condescending.
for aquascum:
You're right -- you prolly fit at least one of those definitions of "snarky". Do I take back my lite-weight defense of your character or let it ride? :-)
I'd just like to say something that I fear may get lost in the flurry of posts here.
First as a matter of pointing out my bias, I have been an avid reader of Vincent Cheung beginning this year, and thus far I am in full agreement with him in terms of what he's written (that I've read). I'm not going to defend him (I'd probably do a shoddy job of it) and I thank you aquascum for writing those essays and forcing me to rethink what I believe (and I have been, but I don't quite have the time currently for a lot of thinking =/).
But the point I'd like to make is that even if you hate Vincent Cheung for his apologic writings, he's made the point before that the primary purpose of his ministry is to teach and equipt Christians by expositing God's Word.
I do feel like even if you completely disregard all apologetic works that you disagree with (and it seems like the only one would be Ultimate Questions), the other 17 books (including Presuppositional Confrontations and Apologetics in Conversation, for they can be read from a perspective of someone who is more in line with Van Til's method) are still extremely valuable. As far as I can tell, he has a brilliant mind when it comes to setting the faith on a firm foundation.
In short: Even if you disagree with him regarding his apologetic method, you should read his other books. Since most of the questions he gets (and responds to on his blog) are from a Christian apologetics point, it looks like his ministry is primarily in apologetics, but for me his books have been refreshing, convicting, and very precise and easy to read. I would encourage you all to read through them.
As to Cheung and the exposition of God's word, Christians should not be dependent on the Internet for Biblical exposition. As of now, there's no substitute for investing real money in a good set of commentaries. In the future, more of these may be available online, but at present you have to crack the books, literally, for sustained, quality exegesis of the Bible.
Xeno said: "aquascum may be from the U.K. At least that webpage seems to be space provided to customers of a U.K. broadband provider...
Of course he could be an American in Britain.
I detect a Windsor location in his polemical style..."
At the risk of blowing his cover, if I'm the last surviving member of the Illuminati, Aquascum happens to be the last surviving member of the Numenati--an ever more secretive secret society. Like me, he must maintain a low profile to avoid pistol-packing agents of Opus Dei!
As to Cheung and the exposition of God's word, Christians should not be dependent on the Internet for Biblical exposition. As of now, there's no substitute for investing real money in a good set of commentaries. In the future, more of these may be available online, but at present you have to crack the books, literally, for sustained, quality exegesis of the Bible.
Speaking of commentaries, could you recommend a couple of good ones from the Reformed perspective? Matthew Henry is probably the best known -- at least to common folks like me. Are there other commentaries on the entire Bible that you'd recommend? Sorry, I don't know too much about commentaries...
As you'd expect from a Puritan, Henry is great for practical theology, but it's not a great way of finding out what the Bible means. Calvin's series is also worth reading, but shows its age in terms of recovering the original meaning of the text.
The NT series of Hendricksen/Kistemaker is written in the Dutch-Reformed tradition. Sane, theologically sound and conservative on critical issues.
There are, however, better commentaries on any particular book of the Bible.
As of yet we don't have really good Reformed commentaries on every book of the Bible. Here's what we do have:
GENESIS
Aalders. Dutch Reformed. Good for it's time, but somewhat overtakne by the recent competion.
Currid. He's doing a whole series on the Pentateuch. Has completed Gen through Lev. Great scholar. A bit thin on theology.
Waltke. Best all around commentary, but beware of his comparative mythology. Also, he regards the genealogical genre as subject to error.
EXODUS
Currid (see above).
Enns. Better on thematic and theological analysis than Currid, but squishy on Mosaic authorship.
Gispen. Dutch-Reformed. Good, but showing its age.
LEVITICUS
Currid (see above).
DEUTERONOMY
Ribberbos. Okay commentary. Not outstanding. Wait for Block.
CHRONICLES
Pratt
JOB
Smick
PSALMS
VanGemeren
PROVERBS
Waltke
ECCLESIASTES
Longman. I guess he's still a Calvinist, but this is basically a liberal commentary. He's also done one on Song of Solomon.
ISAIAH
Ridderbos (see above)
Young. Great piece of scholarship. But Motyer is better on theology.
EZEKIEL
Duguid
DANIEL
Longman. Squishy on date/authorship.
Young. Great scholarship. A bit thin on theology.
MINOR PROPHETS
Three vol. series ed. by McComiskey. Almost all contributors are Reformed and fine scholars.
MATTHEW
Carson. He's into New Covenant Theology :-(
MARK
Lane. Was still a Calvinist when he wrote this. Later left the reservation (Hebrews).
JOHN
Carson
ROMANS
Hoeksema. Sermon series.
Murray. Stiff style, but best overall for theology.
Schreiner. More readable and up-to-date than Murray. Doesn't quite get it right on justification, something he corrects for in his Pauline theology volume.
2 CORINTHIANS
Hughes. Frankly, there are better commentaries on this epistle (e.g., Barnett, Garland, Harris).
GALATIANS
Ryken. Boice's successor at 10th Pres.
Silva is also working on a commentary on Galatians.
PHILIPPIANS.
Silva. Buy the new 2nd. ed.
1-2 THESSALONIANS
Beale
PASTORALS
Knight. But Mounce is better.
HEBREWS
Nothing from a doctinaire Reformed standpoint, although Bruce construes the apostasy passages consistent with perseverance.
Carson is working on a commentary on Hebrews.
1-2 PETER/JUDE
Schreiner
REVELATION
Beale. Definitive, but not for beginners.
Poythress. Great introductory commentary.
There are also some fine commentaries by Evangelicals and fundamentalists. See my commentary section on "Ready any good books, lately?"
Cool thanks Steve! That's a really good idea to use a bunch of commentaries from different people. I wasn't thinking along those lines. Thanks. :-)
Also, a quick follow-up: what do you think of Moo's commentary on Romans? Monergism Books highly recommends it. And I've seen it crop up on a few other places from time to time.
I'm confused, Xenophon. To whom is your counsel directed? Who has been "disrespectful or snarky or even nasty" towards Cheung?
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone should put in a word for not being arrogant and condescending, given this snippet of response from Mr Cheung:
My method is biblical, and it is helping many believers to study and practice their faith with great assurance, as well as to decisively vindicate the faith when confronting unbelievers. It is not my fault if your own unbiblical methods and doctrines are so feeble that I managed to trample all over them even by accident (as if stepping on an ant while on a leisurely Sunday stroll with my wife), and utterly embarrassed you by destroying your school of thought before the whole world. Don’t get so worked up over me; I never meant to outdo you in apologetics without even trying. I am just minding my own business and teaching the Bible — it’s your own fault for being so weak and irrational.
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/27/taking-time-to-refute-cheung/
I, for one, am not the least bit impressed by Cheung's typical responses to respectful, well-informed criticisms of his idiosyncratic epistemology. Simply churning out variations on "My position is completely biblical and rational, therefore it is irrefutable, therefore you must be wrong and I don't need to respond directly to your objections," until the critic's eyes glaze over, does not make for intelligent and productive debate.
Just read Cheung's non-response to (I assume) Aquascum's essay. I say the following sincerely, and not at all saracastically: It sure would've been nice had Cheung spent the time and effort he took to write his non-response to instead respond to at least one of Aquascum's points. Cheung's non-response probably could've been summed up in a couple of sentences, or a paragraph at most, and he could've spent the remainder of the post attempting to interact with Aquascum. Pity.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, Cheung sets the bar very high for himself. He regards his epistemology has nothing short of “invincible” and “irrefutable.” It’s the epitome of “rigorous rationality.”
ReplyDeleteNow, there’s nothing the least bit disrespectful about holding a man to his own standards. That is just a case of taking him seriously, taking him at his own word.
Since Cheung has such a lofty opinion of his intellectual rigor, he should welcome rational scrutiny. And the fact that when someone actually takes him up on his challenge, he refuses to step up to the plate, but resorts, instead, to personal abuse, is very revealing.
An assertion is not an argument. A denial is not a disproof.
Why would I go after a fellow Calvinist? Why would I host a guest editorial on Cheung? For several reasons:
1.I was asked to comment on Cheung. So I did. And, in the nature of the case, once you get started, these things have a way of snowballing.
2.Cheung is unwittingly positioning his followers for the fall. If they think that his epistemology is an “irrefutable” answer to the best that the unbelieving world has to array against the Christian faith, then they are living in a hall of mirrors. If they were to try his arguments out on a philosophy major, they’d run out of ammo in a hurry and be left utterly defenseless.
Cheung’s epistemology is one of those artificial, antibody challenged, test-tube concoctions that can’t survive for long outside its germ-free laboratory in direct contact with the inhospitable elements of a real world opponent.
3.Cheung means well, but well-meaning men can do a kind of harm that ill-meaning men cannot. Once you get a reputation for being a conservative, a lot of Christians drop their guard. Many Christians judge them by their conservative tone, not their conservative content.
4.Because I’m a Calvinist, I take a particular interest in the health and welfare of Calvinism. We need to police our own. We need to keep our own house in order. We need to do what we can so that Calvinism is not misrepresented as something it is not, never was, and never should be.
5.Clark and his epigones have an unscriptural epistemology. This leads, in turn, to an unscriptural doctrine of Scripture itself. And that leads, in turn, to other unscriptural doctrines. The fact that this is emanating from within Reformed circles makes it worse, not better.
6.This also results in shaming fellow believers who simply and trustingly take the Bible at face-value. That behavior is wholly unacceptable.
Xeno:
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering -- are you sure you didn't see this coming? Cheung has established himself as Pope of Scriptural epistemology and Metaphysics. You know how easy it is to refute Papal claims of inerrancy -- why don't we see that when Cheung makes claims which are disturbingly-similar in content (if not in tone) to Papal claim, aquascum and Steve have no problem simply bursting his bubble?
As for being snarky, that's my job. I'm not convinced that aquascum has enough snark in him to be called "snarky".
If you are familiar with how cults handle their critics, this post
ReplyDeletefrom Cheung will rings some bells:
Taking Time to Refute Cheung, by Vincent Cheung (posted 5/27/05).
I'm not calling Cheung a cult. Please don't misunderstand my comment.
Xeno said:
ReplyDelete{{
He does, though, project a persona, intentionally or not, of a person who you kind of (how do I put this?) don't want to 'harm his sense of honor'. Like, he's of a different culture or something and he's got a different sense of self and honor, and you just want to not upset that while at the same time you are thinking that is great that he's a Calvinist to begin with. That is condescending-sounding, but that is just the impression he projects from that website (from the website anyway).
}}
And my "hog-wash-o-meter" broke trying to measure the size of the hog you here are trying to wash. "a person who you kind of don't want to 'harm his sense of honor'"? You might have said he's hypersensitive and uses that to bully those who offer him criticism -- it would have represented what I have read at Cheung's site at least as well as what you said here.
"That is condescending-sounding, but that is just the impression he projects from that website." It is condescending-sounding because it is actually condescending.
for aquascum:
You're right -- you prolly fit at least one of those definitions of "snarky". Do I take back my lite-weight defense of your character or let it ride? :-)
Hello -
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to say something that I fear may get lost in the flurry of posts here.
First as a matter of pointing out my bias, I have been an avid reader of Vincent Cheung beginning this year, and thus far I am in full agreement with him in terms of what he's written (that I've read). I'm not going to defend him (I'd probably do a shoddy job of it) and I thank you aquascum for writing those essays and forcing me to rethink what I believe (and I have been, but I don't quite have the time currently for a lot of thinking =/).
But the point I'd like to make is that even if you hate Vincent Cheung for his apologic writings, he's made the point before that the primary purpose of his ministry is to teach and equipt Christians by expositing God's Word.
I do feel like even if you completely disregard all apologetic works that you disagree with (and it seems like the only one would be Ultimate Questions), the other 17 books (including Presuppositional Confrontations and Apologetics in Conversation, for they can be read from a perspective of someone who is more in line with Van Til's method) are still extremely valuable. As far as I can tell, he has a brilliant mind when it comes to setting the faith on a firm foundation.
In short: Even if you disagree with him regarding his apologetic method, you should read his other books. Since most of the questions he gets (and responds to on his blog) are from a Christian apologetics point, it looks like his ministry is primarily in apologetics, but for me his books have been refreshing, convicting, and very precise and easy to read. I would encourage you all to read through them.
As to Cheung and the exposition of God's word, Christians should not be dependent on the Internet for Biblical exposition. As of now, there's no substitute for investing real money in a good set of commentaries. In the future, more of these may be available online, but at present you have to crack the books, literally, for sustained, quality exegesis of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteXeno said:
ReplyDelete"aquascum may be from the U.K. At least that webpage seems to be space provided to customers of a U.K. broadband provider...
Of course he could be an American in Britain.
I detect a Windsor location in his polemical style..."
At the risk of blowing his cover, if I'm the last surviving member of the Illuminati, Aquascum happens to be the last surviving member of the Numenati--an ever more secretive secret society. Like me, he must maintain a low profile to avoid pistol-packing agents of Opus Dei!
As to Cheung and the exposition of God's word, Christians should not be dependent on the Internet for Biblical exposition. As of now, there's no substitute for investing real money in a good set of commentaries. In the future, more of these may be available online, but at present you have to crack the books, literally, for sustained, quality exegesis of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of commentaries, could you recommend a couple of good ones from the Reformed perspective? Matthew Henry is probably the best known -- at least to common folks like me. Are there other commentaries on the entire Bible that you'd recommend? Sorry, I don't know too much about commentaries...
As you'd expect from a Puritan, Henry is great for practical theology, but it's not a great way of finding out what the Bible means. Calvin's series is also worth reading, but shows its age in terms of recovering the original meaning of the text.
ReplyDeleteThe NT series of Hendricksen/Kistemaker is written in the Dutch-Reformed tradition. Sane, theologically sound and conservative on critical issues.
There are, however, better commentaries on any particular book of the Bible.
As of yet we don't have really good Reformed commentaries on every book of the Bible. Here's what we do have:
GENESIS
Aalders. Dutch Reformed. Good for it's time, but somewhat overtakne by the recent competion.
Currid. He's doing a whole series on the Pentateuch. Has completed Gen through Lev. Great scholar. A bit thin on theology.
Waltke. Best all around commentary, but beware of his comparative mythology. Also, he regards the genealogical genre as subject to error.
EXODUS
Currid (see above).
Enns. Better on thematic and theological analysis than Currid, but squishy on Mosaic authorship.
Gispen. Dutch-Reformed. Good, but showing its age.
LEVITICUS
Currid (see above).
DEUTERONOMY
Ribberbos. Okay commentary. Not outstanding. Wait for Block.
CHRONICLES
Pratt
JOB
Smick
PSALMS
VanGemeren
PROVERBS
Waltke
ECCLESIASTES
Longman. I guess he's still a Calvinist, but this is basically a liberal commentary. He's also done one on Song of Solomon.
ISAIAH
Ridderbos (see above)
Young. Great piece of scholarship. But Motyer is better on theology.
EZEKIEL
Duguid
DANIEL
Longman. Squishy on date/authorship.
Young. Great scholarship. A bit thin on theology.
MINOR PROPHETS
Three vol. series ed. by McComiskey. Almost all contributors are Reformed and fine scholars.
MATTHEW
Carson. He's into New Covenant Theology :-(
MARK
Lane. Was still a Calvinist when he wrote this. Later left the reservation (Hebrews).
JOHN
Carson
ROMANS
Hoeksema. Sermon series.
Murray. Stiff style, but best overall for theology.
Schreiner. More readable and up-to-date than Murray. Doesn't quite get it right on justification, something he corrects for in his Pauline theology volume.
2 CORINTHIANS
Hughes. Frankly, there are better commentaries on this epistle (e.g., Barnett, Garland, Harris).
GALATIANS
Ryken. Boice's successor at 10th Pres.
Silva is also working on a commentary on Galatians.
PHILIPPIANS.
Silva. Buy the new 2nd. ed.
1-2 THESSALONIANS
Beale
PASTORALS
Knight. But Mounce is better.
HEBREWS
Nothing from a doctinaire Reformed standpoint, although Bruce construes the apostasy passages consistent with perseverance.
Carson is working on a commentary on Hebrews.
1-2 PETER/JUDE
Schreiner
REVELATION
Beale. Definitive, but not for beginners.
Poythress. Great introductory commentary.
There are also some fine commentaries by Evangelicals and fundamentalists. See my commentary section on "Ready any good books, lately?"
Cool thanks Steve! That's a really good idea to use a bunch of commentaries from different people. I wasn't thinking along those lines. Thanks. :-)
ReplyDeleteAlso, a quick follow-up: what do you think of Moo's commentary on Romans? Monergism Books highly recommends it. And I've seen it crop up on a few other places from time to time.
Moo's commentary would not be my first pick. The first three I'd reach for are:
ReplyDelete1. Cranfied, for exegesis of the Greek text and the vetting of exegetical options. But beware of his Barthian theology (on display in chaps. 5, 9-11).
2. Fitzmyer. Catholic, but excellent for philology and historical/OT background. Even admits that Paul does, indeed, teach sola fide!
3. Schreiner. Best for theology, including interaction with the new perspective, and good vetting of exegetical options.
Cool, thanks again so very much Steve! You sure do reply real fast. :-) Thanks again.
ReplyDelete