# Cheung Defends His Recent Attitude



## tellville (Feb 3, 2007)

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/2007/02/02/a-culture-of-irreverence-part-1/


----------



## Vytautas (Feb 8, 2007)

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.


----------



## CDM (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


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



 

Indulge me . . .please.


----------



## CDM (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> For one, read this entire thread.
> 
> Second, read all of these.
> 
> ...



Did the first.

1/4 through the second.

I cheated and read the third and last.


----------



## CDM (Feb 9, 2007)

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 (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2007)

tellville said:


> 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/2007/02/02/a-culture-of-irreverence-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 (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> 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 . in my opinion 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 (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> I have read Gordon Clark.



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


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 9, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2007)

[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...



> *1 Corinthians 13*
> 
> *The Way of Love*
> 
> ...


[/moderator]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 9, 2007)

crhoades said:


> [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 (Feb 9, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> 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!


> 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!}


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2007)

Civbert said:


> 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!


----------

