vincentcheungteam
Vincent Cheung Team
Vincent Cheung is a Christian preacher and writer. He and his wife live in the United States.
186 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
stagemanager90
Stage Manager On Arran
musclegods2
Muscle Gods II
hedwigowl02
Art Dump!!!
stpeachery
Average Ar'Alani Enjoyer
oldthewileyside-blog
Falling Slowly
Text
To argue from the practical consequences of a position commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Even if a person suffers and dies because of his philosophy, this does nothing to logically refute it — all it might mean is that the true philosophy is unlivable. Many philosophy textbooks, including those by Christian philosophers, will tell you that one crucial test for a philosophy is its "livability," so that a true philosophy must be livable, that it must be possible to be practically implemented. However, there is no rational argument for this principle or assumption; it is an arbitrary test imposed by an irrationally pragmatic mindset. A practical test cannot indicate a true philosophy, and a true philosophy never needs a practical test. The biblical worldview is indeed practical, in the sense that it is livable and that by it one can faithfully follow God's wise precepts and commands; however, it is true not because it is practical, but because it is God's revelation of the truth.
— Vincent Cheung, Captive to Reason (2009), p. 61.
0 notes
Text
Contending in Healing Ministry
God is pleased only when we have faith in him, believing that he is a rewarder of those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6). He wants you to see him as a rewarder of faith. He is pleased when you have the faith to get things from him, to get rewards from him. The faith that pleases God receives not only so-called spiritual blessings, although it includes these, but even if we do not go beyond Hebrews 11, faith also obtains all kinds of material blessings such as deliverance, territory, children, entire kingdoms, miracles of healing, miracles of nature, miracles of resurrection, and miracles of military conquest.
A person who thinks that he is too pious to receive things from God by faith is not spiritual, but a high-minded religious phony. Stupidly saying “for the glory of God” all the time means nothing. If you think that you are too good to receive from God, then you are the worst believer, if you are a believer at all. Why don’t you step down from that religious pedestal, humble yourself, and ask for your daily bread? You know nothing about God’s glory. You keep thinking that giving him glory has to do with how much you do for him, how much you sacrifice for him, how much you suffer for him. Jesus knew all about you. You are the prodigal son’s obnoxious brother (Luke 15:25-32).
[ READ ] [ LISTEN ]
0 notes
Text
What is the Point?
If as you insist that men and women are either chosen by God for eternal life or eternal death, then there is absolutely no point at all in evangelism.
As with all challenges against the doctrines of divine sovereignty and divine election, this popular objection is easy to answer. It is also very sad, because the objection reveals the sinister attitude that is in this person's heart, something that he would probably refuse to state in explicit terms.
Anyone who raises this objection tells me that he is far from God and has no respect for him. It betrays an attitude that says, "Unless my role is at least as important and determinative as God's role, I find absolutely no point at all in doing what he tells me to do. Unless my disobedience will directly and necessarily contribute to someone's everlasting damnation – to cause him to burn in hell forever – there is no point in obedience toward God, none at all." I had more fear of God than this even before I became a Christian. I would have been too terrified to align myself with something like this.
In any case, this objection is used by many, if not most, of those who call themselves Christians but who resist the doctrines of divine sovereignty and divine election, and it tells us what they truly think about God. They come together every week to worship a God whose commands they would find pointless the moment they discover that he has more control than they thought, and that he is in fact not dependent on them to accomplish his plans. As they say, with friends like these…
May God have mercy on his people.
Vincent Cheung, Sermonettes - Volume 1 (2010), p. 81.
0 notes
Text
Faithful in Famine
~ 1 ~
"The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts." (1 Samuel 2:7)
The sovereignty of God is one of the first things that we should consider when we face lack, poverty, and famine. There are those who place little emphasis on God's sovereignty, and they think that our fascination with it is a matter of private preference. Indeed, some Christians are obsessed with this doctrine for illegitimate reasons. They have a view on the subject, and they do not like to be contradicted. They cannot state a cogent theological reason for making this their chief concern. They are obsessed with it, but they do not know what they are saying or what they are doing. In the same way, some people are obsessed with disputes about the sacraments, some about eschatology, some about covenants, and so on.
Those who accuse us of placing an inordinate amount of emphasis on God's sovereignty must not understand this doctrine very well. If they understood it, they would either forsake their faith in God, showing themselves to be reprobates, or they would rejoice in it with us, and proclaim and defend it with equal vehemence. On the other hand, their accusation of theological imbalance indeed applies to those who are always going on about God's sovereignty as if this is the only teaching in all of Scripture, and who cannot provide a sound reason as to why they give it such emphasis. They exalt the doctrine not because they understand its significance, but it is because they have identified themselves with it. It is a private obsession, and badge of their identity and tradition. They defend this Godcentered doctrine from the perspective of man-centered interests. Thus the danger of false piety is real, and we need to examine ourselves, to see if we truly understand this doctrine.
When we say that God is sovereign, the meaning is that God is king over all his creation. He created the world, he sustains it, and he continues to exercise control over it. It is not enough to say that he can control all of creation. This leaves room for the false doctrine, affirmed by most of the people who claim to believe in his absolute sovereignty, and even by those who call themselves Calvinists, and who supposedly give the doctrine its strongest and purest expression, that there are some things that he does not directly cause, but that he merely permits to occur. This is blasphemy at the deepest level.
We must rather say that God can and God does control all of creation. If God can control all of creation but does not, then it leaves room for billions upon billions of events to be decided and caused by influences other than himself, even if these are somehow controlled by being "permitted" – a strange and self-contradictory doctrine. No matter how hard this perspective is defended, we are left with a God who is in direct control only over the "big picture" of what happens in his creation. This God is different from the God of open theism only in degree. This is not the God of the Bible, but one that man has imagined to satisfy his own standard of what God should be and what he should not be.
The agenda is to distance God from being the direct cause of evil, and this is necessitated by the assumption that to cause evil in the metaphysical sense is to commit evil in the moral sense, a standard that is nowhere found in the Bible, and never successfully defended in the entire history of human thinking. So why has this standard been imposed on Almighty God? Is it not obvious? The underlying principle that forbids God to be the ruler over all things and the cause of all events is not reverence but self-worship. That is, if God must adhere to your standard in order to remain righteous, when he himself has declared no such standard, then in your thinking, he is not God, but you are. You are the one who sets the standard for him.
If we understand the doctrine, then when we say that God is sovereign, it is just another way of saying that God is God. And if he is not God over all, if he does not exercise direct causation over all things, all minds, and all events, then he is not God at all. Thus the idea of permission is only a hidden denial of actual and complete sovereignty, a denial of the true God. And this is why the doctrine of God's sovereignty ought to receive such emphasis.
God's sovereignty applies to things that are pleasant and things that are unpleasant to us. Our verse comes from Hannah's prayer. God had shut her womb, so that at first she bore no children. But she petitioned the Lord for a son, and vowed to offer him to serve the Lord all the days of his life. The Lord granted her request and opened her womb, whom she named Samuel. She brought the boy to Eli as she promised, and uttered this prayer from which our verse is taken. She realized that the Lord could shut up a woman's womb, so that she could not bear children, and afterward he could open it, so that she could bear children. Both are of the Lord.
She says in verse 6, "The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up." This is clear enough, but lest it eludes some people, let me paraphrase it. It means that God can kill you whenever he wants, and just as easily, he can make you alive again, and raise you from the dead. He can put you into the grave, and he can also bring you back out. He is the author and cause of both death and life. The same applies to poverty and wealth. God can make a person rich, and then take away all his wealth. And God can make a person poor, and afterward make him rich. He is the author and cause of both poverty and prosperity on all levels – the personal, the national, and the global.
This recognition should not lead to despair and grumbling, but to reverence, submission, and gratitude. This is because the exercise of God's sovereignty, whether pleasant or unpleasant to us at the time, is always for the good of his people. Consider the case of Hannah. She was barren, and berated and provoked by another woman because of it. In her plight she petitioned the Lord, who granted her a son. Born out of suffering and prayer, Samuel turned out to be one of the most faithful and powerful prophets in all of biblical history. He brought great honor to her mother, and great blessing to his nation, and also to us, who read about his words and deeds, and who benefit from his ministry to David, out of whom Christ was descended.
~ 2 ~
This is what the LORD Almighty says: "These people say, 'The time has not yet come for the LORD's house to be built.'" Then the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai: "Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?"
Now this is what the LORD Almighty says: "Give careful thought to your ways. You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it."
This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Give careful thought to your ways. Go up into the mountains and bring down timber and build the house, so that I may take pleasure in it and be honored," says the LORD.
"You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?" declares the LORD Almighty. "Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house. Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the oil and whatever the ground produces, on men and cattle, and on the labor of your hands." (Haggai 1:2-11)
God's people had returned to their land to rebuild the city. This included the reconstruction of the temple, but they were so busy building their own houses and setting their lives in order that the house of the Lord remained a ruin. They cared more about their individual comfort and stability than the honor of the Lord, who was even the glory of the nation. By the mouth of Haggai, the Lord rebuked the people for their neglect and their wrong focus.
It is true that God does not suffer lack, hunger, or discomfort. And he does not really live in any physical building. One can draw the conclusion, "We need our houses, but the temple can wait. The Lord has need of nothing." But consider God's attitude about the matter. He knew that he needed nothing. The people's neglect did not in any way injure his being. Yet he insisted that his people should give his temple the priority, and he defeated their efforts to restore their own lives while temple construction was postponed. He regarded his honor and his program more important than the comfort and prosperity of his people. Those who have the mind of Christ will also prioritize their lives according to this order.
Because they neglected the Lord, their efforts at improving their own lives were frustrated. This happened not because of some natural order of things, but God actively counteracted their efforts to attain stability and prosperity: "You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it….You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away." You may say, "God has no need of anything. He can wait." The Lord can indeed afford to wait, but can you afford to make him wait?
Most church members are freeloaders. They give very little money to the churches that they attend, and many do not give anything at all. This remark is not targeted at the poor, since some of them exhibit sacrifice and generosity that put others to shame. Jesus said that the widow who gave only "two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny" had put more into the treasury than all the others. He explained, "They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on." Now, whatever the motive or context, two coins remain two coins, and usually cannot make a financial impact except through extraordinary providence of God, who calls those things which be not as though they were. But he, who understands the economic realities of men, nevertheless esteems faith and devotion more than dollars and cents.
For those people who contribute anything at all, church giving is one of the first things to be cut from the budget when financial difficulty arises, or when they are told that the economy is not well. This is because church giving is considered an unnecessary expense. They would scheme hard to maintain their standard of living. They strive to keep their cars and houses, to keep eating well, and if possible, to keep on having their vacations and other luxuries. Church giving ceases immediately to make room for these. Even their television sets are more valuable than their pastors and the church workers. What, are they to keep watching the games on their small screens? And of course their children's education, which would translate into careers and earnings, is top priority. Let the pastors' children go hungry, and may the church crumble into dust, but no sacrifice is too great to provide a secular education for their own children.
A time of famine is also a time to reassess our priorities. For many people, it uncovers that their faith is a sham. When push comes to shove, they shove God right out of the door. Some things seem to be necessities. Some things are obviously luxuries. And some things seem good in themselves. But there is no excuse for putting anything before the Lord and his work on the earth. In a time of famine, the temptation of self-indulgence persists, and the instinct of self-preservation is aggravated. But only non-Christians are swept away by the lusts of the flesh and the instincts of beasts. As Christians, God has infused life into our souls, and we have been awakened to the realities of heaven and the powers of the world to come. Thus we are well able to overcome forces that hold unbelievers captive.
Where your treasure is, there is your heart also. You confess your faith by your words, but you also demonstrate your true priorities by your actions. You are either vindicated or condemned by them. If you confess the Lord, but contribute nothing to his cause, or if you cut him off whenever your own welfare is threatened, then this betrays that your allegiance belongs to someone or something else. At the very least, it shows that your faith is weak, and that you trust in the method and system of man rather than the providence of God. You profess that he is able to provide, but by your works you deny it. You profess that the Lord is above all, and that he is the love of your life, and that your utmost desire is for his name to be honored among the nations. But when resources are scarce, suddenly your priorities become clear, and the Lord might not even make the list.
What are you to do? Do not stop giving to your church. And if you have not been giving as you should, now is the time to begin. You may plan, save, organize, and rearrange your finances, but whatever you do, you must support the work of the Lord with your money, and you must do it consistently. At a time when the Lord's people forsake him to appease Mammon, you can give voice to the Lord's remnant by your giving and by your testimony. Resist the temptation of self-indulgence. Control the animal instinct of self-preservation. Walk in the spirit, and act from your higher nature. Establish your faith by reading the Scripture and thinking on its promises. Pray for God to strengthen your inner man with might by his Spirit. Stir up the gift that is within you. Then go encourage your brothers.
You can also support your church in other ways, by offering your time and labor. The church needs money to pay its expenses and salaries, and to continue and expand its projects and outreaches. But it also needs personal participation. Ask your church leaders what you can do for the church, then accept your assignments without protest, and carry out your work with joy, as if you are doing it for the Lord, for indeed that is the case. In this way, you will help encourage morale, and your volunteer work will also lower the expenses for the church.
~ 3 ~
"My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
"For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction – because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 2:5-8)
Even when the economy is poor, we must continue to support our churches and other organizations that promote the cause of Christ. This leads to the question of which churches we ought to support, or whether all churches deserve our support. Based on my own judgment, and on testimonies from brothers around the world, it would seem that it is no exaggeration to say that most churches should die. The world would be a better place, it would seem, if nine out of ten churches would perish today, and there are those who consider my estimate too charitable.
However, since there is no actual tabulation, let us say "many" instead of "most." That is, the cause of the Lord Jesus and the welfare of his people would be better served if many churches would perish. This is, of course, a statement about appearance, since the Lord himself controls and sustains all things, and designs the exact proportion of good and evil to advance his own plan. Thus it is a statement made relative to his precepts and not his decrees. His precepts are what we should consult to guide our daily thinking and behavior.
When resources are scarce, good churches suffer as well as bad churches. Even if you are unaffected by dismal economic conditions, many other people are affected, and whether due to their actual inability or to their fearful and selfish attitude, this translates into a withdrawal of support, and thus financial problems for churches. So it is more important than ever for you to withdraw support from churches that are indeed unfaithful and ineffective, and to redirect it to churches that are fulfilling the Christian mission.
Now is the time to decide if the church that you attend is a good church, and if it deserves the support that you give to it. Of course, it should go without saying that no church is perfect, and you will almost always find something to complain about. If your complaints are petty and personal, then the problem is with you and not the church. You are the one who needs to repent and change. But if the church compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ, or fails to live up to what is required of it in significant ways, and especially if it is confronted with this and fails to repent, then this is a church that deserves to die, and you should consider withdrawing support from it and join yourself to one that truly honors the Lord.
Our passage tells us what God requires from spiritual leaders, and thus from the church, since the church consists of people. They must revere God and stand in awe of his name. This alone might disqualify all of the leaders in your church. True instruction must be in their mouths – they must teach sound doctrines. And "nothing false" must be found on their lips. This is said in contrast to "true instruction," so that it refers to false doctrines or heresies. Thus spiritual leaders must teach sound doctrines, and no false doctrines. This disqualifies not only heretics, but also those who teach nothing at all, or who are not diligent in the ministry of teaching, since it is said that "true instruction" must be found in their mouths.
God commands every person in every place to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ. He requires all men and women to become Christians, and then to grow as Christians, and to serve and worship as Christians. Those whom he has chosen for salvation will obey this command, but those whom he has actively chosen and created for damnation will reject the gospel. It is written of Eli's sons, who sinned against the Lord, that they "did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:25). In other words, the Lord does not forgive or punish because of men's response; rather, men embrace or reject the Lord Jesus because of God's foreordination, or God's predetermined plan concerning them. In any case, it is the church's mission to declare the doctrines of the Christian faith to every person and in every place, and then to shepherd and educate those that God adds to the church.
If any church or ministry does not make specific and explicit effort at pursuing this purpose, then it is nothing more than a show of godliness, if even that, and a camouflage for negligence and rebellion. There is no legitimate reason for its existence as a Christian organization. Unless the leadership and the people repent and wholeheartedly commit to the propagation and the establishment of the Christian faith, that church or ministry must die without mercy. It is a waste and a drain on the resources of God's people. It should perish without delay. Anyone who helps it survive shares in its sin, and also incurs the guilt of failing to support faithful churches and ministries.
A church that honors the Lord is one that teaches sound doctrines, and also applies and enforces them. God, by the mouth of Malachi, defines the qualities of a spiritual leader, even one who serves before him as priest. And he states that he is one who walks in peace and uprightness. A Christian minister must exhibit personal holiness and integrity. He must live up to the gospel that he preaches. Then, he must also apply and enforce it when it comes to other people's lives. In the words of our passage, a good minister of Jesus Christ is one who turns many from sin.
A minister who turns people from sin needs to do a number of things. He needs to explain the nature of God, that he is holy and righteous, and that he does not tolerate transgressions. He needs to talk about judgment and hellfire. He needs to talk about sin, and to tell people that they are sinners. Then he needs to talk about God's forgiveness, and that it is found only through faith in Jesus Christ. And if it is found only there, then it is not found anywhere else. Thus all non-Christians remain condemned, without forgiveness, for their many sins, and God will forever punish them in hellfire that cannot be quenched.
Again, to turn someone away from sin, you need to define sin. And sin can be defined only in relation to God and his commandments. Then, you need to explain the evil of sin, of transgressing the laws of God, and the consequences of sin, that of everlasting suffering in hell. Moreover, a true church must enforce what it teaches about sin. It must practice church discipline. This means that it must directly confront those who have sinned, and demand their repentance. If they refuse to repent, they must be expelled from the church. It is again crucial to define sin, so that the private preferences of the leaders are not enforced, but rather the holy precepts of God. Sin must be defined also because so that nothing will be missed. For example, to affirm and spread heresy, to adore images, and to use God's name in vain are sins just as much as murder and adultery.
If the above paragraph alone speaks more clearly and abundantly about sin than your church does over an entire year, if not longer, yours is not a Christian church, but a gathering of demons. You need to confront your church and call the leadership to repent, or you need to take your support to another church, which is not another, since yours is not a church in the first place. You must not support a church that refuses to turn people away from sin, since that should be one of its chief duties. This is not an insignificant difference of opinion – revolt or leave, but do not share in its guilt.
If your church is not founded on the perfection of the Bible, its inerrancy and infallibility, it should die. If your church denies the sovereignty of God, that God is God, it should die. If your church shuns the penal atonement of Christ, that he died a bloody death at the hands of the Jews to pay for the sins of his people, it should die. If your church shrinks from the doctrine of hell, a place that punishes all unbelievers with acute and extreme agony forever, it should die. If your church does not practice church discipline, calling out sinners for their sins, imploring, admonishing, rebuking, threatening them, and expelling those who refuse to repent, it should die.
And if your church endorses abominations like abortion, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and other such things, it should die. If your church holds yoga classes, palmistry workshops, and astrology seminars, it should die. Churches are called to fight these things, not to teach and applaud them. Churches are called to confront sinners, and to shame those who refuse to repent, and not to glorify them, or to make them into heroes. God's wrath is poured out upon all those who practice evil, and also on those who approve of these people.
These are only some of the necessary characteristics of a true church, and to fulfill them makes one nothing more than a minimally faithful congregation. It is a description of a normal church. It is how every church should begin and continue, and not some extraordinary spiritual height to be aspired to and attained after many years, if ever. Yes, most churches should probably die. Today. Let it not be your fault that they live one moment longer. Whether any given church survives is God's hands, but your duty is to support those that are good and oppose those that are evil.
Good churches suffer partly because bad churches thrive. Bad churches thrive because people are gullible and rebellious. And people are gullible and rebellious because most of them are not even Christians. They support leaders and churches that tell them what they wish to hear, so that they may appear to seek God, but still believe and behave the same as before. And they are able to get away with this because Christians have failed to declare God's inflexible standard with clarity and boldness.
What you sow, you will also reap. If you support unfaithful churches, they will grow stronger, and you will reap destruction. If you sow fear and compromise, sins and heresies will increase. But if you support faithful churches, those that preach, apply, and enforce the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and if you join them in doing these things, then the Christian faith will thrive and take root, and the harvest will be peace, righteousness, and prosperity.
~ 4 ~
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1:2-4)
As Paul was writing his letter to the Philippians, he considered the prospect of death and said, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). Whether a person thinks this way depends on who he is and what he values. He was a Christian, so that for him to live was to serve Christ, and to die was to be with Christ. Although he was eager to serve Christ by preaching the gospel and strengthening the church, he much preferred the death of the body, so that his soul might ascend to Christ. He was a Christian, so that he had a relationship with Christ. And he valued Christ, so that he desired the presence of his Lord above all else.
Surely this is the correct way to see things. When a Christian fails to think this way, it is because his mind has not yet been renewed. He needs to be taught, not just by men, but by the Lord. And he can be taught, because the life of God is in him. But a non-Christian cannot do it at all, because of who he is and what he values. He is a non-Christian, and so he has no peaceful relation with God, and rather than holding Christ in high esteem, he values the indulgence of the flesh, and other abominable desires and prospects.
The Christian perceives the value of suffering. Now, there is no value in suffering itself. Some people suffer and become bitter. Some people suffer and blaspheme God. Suffering is constructive only when it is dealt by God to a person in a loving manner, for the purpose of training and discipline. In other words, suffering is meaningless in itself, and it is destructive for the reprobates. On the other hand, suffering provides the occasion for Christians to consider their ways, to strengthen their faith, to rekindle their compassion, to renew their resolve to overcome all distractions and temptations, and to express their dependence on God by their worship and persistent petitions. It provides occasion for them to reevaluate their habits and their priorities, and to lay aside every weight that hinders them.
James writes that we should rejoice when we face different kinds of hardship, because the testing of our faith develops perseverance, which in turn is able to lead us to become mature and complete. This can apply only to Christians, because only Christians have faith to be tested in the first place. And only Christians will develop perseverance and other fruits of the Spirit when faith is tested. The students of Christ can rejoice when facing hardship because they want to develop perseverance; they want to become mature and complete. Who we are and what we value distinguish us, and enable us to face hardship with the right attitude and benefit from the suffering.
Job said regarding his ordeal, "When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold" (Job 23:10). This is appropriate in a time of famine, for gold is what people lack in the first place. Job was in a destitute condition, but he recognized a higher treasure. What a blessing it is to have our faith refined and purified. What a blessing it is to have our weaknesses exposed and removed. What a blessing it is to know where we stand with God, and that we stand with God. What a blessing it is to gain self-understanding, to perceive where we have deluded ourselves about the greatness of our faith, if we have indeed deluded ourselves, but also to obtain the assurance that there is a genuine foundation, that God has indeed performed a work in our hearts, so that even though we struggle, we endure, and become stronger because of it.
~ 5 ~
And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)
We are confident that Philippians 4:19 applies to us because we know the same God and the same Christ Jesus that the Philippians knew. We have a common faith, and therefore common promises and blessings. Thus it is only right that we are to find consolation and encouragement from it, and it has been used for just this purpose by countless believers as they faced financial hardship and various worries. However, as we embrace this verse as God's word to us in a time of famine, we should be aware that Paul mentions two things before this verse that provide context to his statement.
First, Paul indicates that he has attained the beautiful quality of contentment: "I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (v. 11-13).
Verse 13 is taken out of context even more often than verse 19. When Paul says, "I can do everything through him who gives me strength," he is not talking about self-serving things such as professional exploits or something petty like athletic achievements. This is how many people use the verse. Of course, God can give you strength to achieve these things, but Paul refers to something much more precious. He is saying that, by the strength of Christ, he can remain content whether he is well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. In other words, he has learned to endure hunger and poverty, and to do this with an attitude of contentment. He has the power to suffer with grace and gratitude. Thus Paul writes verse 19 as a person who values the virtue of contentment and realizes the spiritual power it requires to remain in such a state of mind.
Second, the Philippians have repeatedly sent financial support to Paul: "Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need" (v. 15-16). Paul is writing to a group of Christians who faithfully supported him by sending him money "again and again."
Let these two points temper your sense of entitlement to verse 19. If you are a whiny and ungrateful weakling, you must learn to depend on God's strength to endure suffering, even hunger and poverty. If you are unable to suffer, you should probably not prosper. And if you only think about your own needs, and have no concern about the condition of your church or other ministries that publish the gospel, laying claim to verse 19 would be an act of presumption rather than of faith. These two items do not nullify the verse – it says what it says – but they remind us that it is written within a broader context of a vital Christian life, and life that is alive to God, a life in which God is at work to develop strength, contentment, and sacrifice.
There are two things to note regarding verse 19. It tells us that God will meet all our needs, but it also tells us about the basis and source of his provision.
The basis for God's supply is "Christ Jesus." God blesses us not because of any merit that we have on our own, but because of his sovereign love, so that he sent his Son Jesus Christ to secure for us an everlasting salvation. Paul wrote, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). Commentators suppose that the statement refers to spiritual wealth, that Jesus suffered the humiliation of his ministry on earth in order to obtain an inheritance for us. However, it would be a mistake to spiritualize the entire inheritance, as if God would grant us material provisions and blessings on a basis other than the work of Christ.
Rather, our inheritance includes the redemption of the body, and not just the soul. And even our present corruptible flesh has become the temple of the Holy Spirit. So the effect of redemption extends to the corporeal realm, and carries ramifications for the present. Jesus taught his disciples to ask for their "daily bread," and instructed them to request the forgiveness of sins in the same prayer. It would be senseless to suppose that forgiveness is granted to us because of Christ, while our daily bread, or material provision, is granted on some other basis. No, all blessings come to us on the basis of Jesus Christ, and we receive these from God because of our affiliation with our Lord. Jesus became poor, so that through his poverty we might become rich in every way.
This in turn provides a foundation for unshakable faith in God's provision. I have no confidence in myself, but I can have absolute confidence that God is pleased with his Son, Jesus Christ, and that he has regard for the work of redemption that he performed. To the extent that I think God favors the Lord Jesus, that is also the measure of my confidence in his provision for me, since that has been secured for all his people in the work of redemption.
Then, the source of God's supply is his "glorious riches." The state of the economy has nothing to do with it. God is neither helped nor hindered by the condition of the world, because he does not depend on it. Here is where faith or unbelief makes all the difference. How is the provision going to come? Will God rain money from above? Perhaps he will, but that is none of your concern. He did not supply for the Israelites out of an abundance of resources in the wilderness, for resources were scarce, which led to much grumbling and rebellion. Rather, he was able to provide because of his command over all of creation. And if the earth does not have what is needed, he can always make it.
Christians are accustomed to the idea that God works through ordinary providence, and indeed God works in such a manner. However, this does not mean that he is limited by a situation that he himself has created. That is, when the economy is poor, it is because God has willed and caused it. But this does not mean that he is now unable to provide for whom he wishes until he reverses the entire scenario.
An implicit deism has poisoned the thinking and the theology of so many believers that it is difficult for them to conceive of God's power as active and present. The doctrine of ordinary providence is an affirmation of God's active and present control over all things in a regular and consistent manner. It is not meant to be a cover for unbelief. Jesus said that God had never stopped working (John 5:17). God can and God does prosper his people regardless of the state of the economy. He will meet the needs of his people according to his glorious riches that is in Christ Jesus.
~ 6 ~
"For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." (Genesis 18:19)
A time of crisis provides the head of the house a golden opportunity to teach his family about faith in God. This does not mean that day to day instructions are less important. Indeed, a man who consistently speaks well of the Lord, who faithfully passes on his doctrines, and who persists in obedience to his precepts exhibits beauty and strength that is bound to make a positive impression on the elect members of his family. Nevertheless, how he responds to a crisis situation provides a different kind of opportunity for him to honor the Lord in his word and deed.
There are those who appear pious for long periods. They are able to handle the pressure of time, and can persist in the same type of belief and behavior. But unless they can maintain the same trust in the Lord in a time of great hardship, all it means is that they are talented at being hypocrites for great lengths of time. Thus a worthy legacy of faith is one that has been tested not only by time, but also by the heat of urgent troubles.
Abraham instructed Isaac both by word and by example. Even as he brought Isaac before the alter to be offered to God as a burnt sacrifice, he told him, "God himself will provide." This foreshadowed God's provision of Jesus Christ as a sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of his people. In any case, the entire experience, which was verbally interpreted by the Lord as he commended Abraham's obedience, must have impressed Isaac with the way that a man should and could place God above all else, even his most beloved son, in order to follow his commands and instructions.
It was an informed and intelligent trust. Abraham knew this God. He knew of his great wisdom, limitless power, and unbreakable promises, so that in order for this God to fulfill his promises, he would have had to raise Isaac from the ashes. Thus he marched toward the alter with Isaac, fully intending to offer him up, and fully expecting to receive him alive again, so that although the Lord stopped him at the last moment, the Scripture states that Abraham indeed symbolically received his son from the dead. In this sense, it made no difference that Isaac was not slain – to Abraham, he was as good as dead, and it was as if God raised him from the ashes and returned his son to him. How Abraham honored God with his faith! And what a gift it was to Isaac, who was able to learn that this kind of faith was right, beautiful, and possible.
Now it is our turn to show our families that we are the children of Abraham, and to honor God before them by an exposition and demonstration of intelligent faith. You have been telling your wife and children that God is faithful, that a man cannot serve both God and Mammon, that the progress of the gospel in this world is more important than our personal comfort, and that as Jesus said, life does not consist of the abundance of possessions. Do you believe any of it? Now is the time to show them.
There are many who say that they have strayed from the faith of their parents because of the hypocrisy that they saw in them. However, only stupid people stumble over the failures of others. Just because some people claim to be Christians but fail to live up to their profession of faith does nothing to show that the Christian faith is false or that Christ is unworthy of their allegiance. In fact, the Christian faith itself insists that there are many such hypocrites. Your children's faith should rest on divine revelation and not on human example, but this does not release you from the duty to honor God before them, and to be before them a picture of what it is like to be a godly man, full of faith, love, knowledge, patience, and all kinds of spiritual graces and virtues.
Some of what you impart to your children will occur naturally in casual conversations and daily events. Of course, examples in themselves teach nothing, but they must be explicitly interpreted. They serve as illustrations and reminders to verbal instructions. In any case, it is necessary to take a more deliberate approach to educate them in the faith. Hold a family meeting and explain the financial situation (or any kind of crisis) to your children in terms that they can understand. If you are afraid that this would traumatize them, let me assure you that your weakness and unbelief, and an overall pathetic attitude, are much more likely to traumatize them than a calm explanation of a problem followed by an exhortation to trust in God.
Then, tell them about the God who controls all of creation and who controls all things for the display of his glory and the good of his people. Pass on to them the promises of God, and the greater importance of faith and integrity over financial stability and career advancement. Follow through with consistent and relentless trust in the Lord, with frequent thanksgiving and petitions. Such a legacy of faith is worth much more than any financial inheritance that you can leave to your children, for whereas earthly riches pass away, in the legacy of faith is an everlasting salvation.
— Vincent Cheung, Sermonettes — Volume 1 (2010), p. 37-52.
0 notes
Text
Some Questions for Empiricists
INTRODUCTION
The following are some questions that I posed to an atheist several years ago in the course of a written exchange. These questions and others like them are unanswerable by any belief system that places any dependence on the reliability of sensations, rendering them untenable.
The questions do not apply only to non-Christian systems, but almost all of them also apply to any system of so-called Christian theology, philosophy, or apologetics that affirms the reliability of sensations, including the one that claims that the reliability of sensations is "properly basic" so that it requires no rational justification, and that school of pseudopresuppositionalism that claims that biblical presuppositions "account for" the reliability of sensations, induction, and science.
Even if it is "properly basic" to be able to see a mirage, it is also properly useless to do so unless we can know by sensation that it is a mirage. Therefore, properly basic reliability is not enough; the empiricist needs properly basic infallibility. But does he even have properly basic reliability?
Then, it is sheer blasphemy to claim that biblical principles can "account for," in a sense that approves or justifies, something that is inherently illogical or impossible, such as empiricism, induction, and science, whose method of experimentation adds the fallacy of affirming the consequent to the fallacies of empiricism and induction. Thus this philosophy, which claims to be a method of apologetics, makes God and Scripture accomplices to irrationality and falsehood. Nevertheless, it is true that Scripture can account for this foolish and wicked blasphemy by its doctrine of human depravity.
Pseudo-presuppositionalism claims to begin from biblical principles as its foundation, but when pressed on the matter, it affirms, even insists, that the reliability of sensations is the necessary epistemological starting point, that it is even the precondition by which the biblical principles are known. Thus unless this system can justify the reliability of sensations, it is shut out from the Scripture – from Christianity – itself. Since it indeed fails to justify the reliability of sensations whether with or without biblical presuppositions, it has by logical necessity made itself a heathen philosophy.
Of course, there are many additional questions and challenges that we can pose to empiricists, whether they are of the "Christian" or non-Christian variety. These are provided in my other writings.
QUESTIONS FOR EMPIRICISTS
Since sensation is so important to your view, I would like to understand what you are talking about.
What is a sensation? How did you learn the meaning of a sensation? How do you know when you are having a sensation? Do you sense the sensation to know that you have a sensation? If you sense a sensation, then how do you know that? Do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation? Then, do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation that senses the sensation? If this is not your view, then please explain. That is, if information comes from sensation, then how do you know when you are having a sensation?
Do you ever not have a sensation? How do you know that? Is a lack of sensation itself a sensation? Then, do you sense that you are not having a sensation?
Can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it? How do you know that? Have you ever sensed that you are not conscious of a particular sensation? If so, then are you not in fact conscious of it? Does this not return us to the original question, that is, can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it?
Or, are you conscious of all the sensations that you are having? How do you know that? Do you sense that you are sensing all? But then, do you sense that you sense that you are sensing all? How do you know? By sensation again?
Do you always sense everything around you? If not, how do you know that you are not sensing everything around you if you are not sensing everything in order to know what there is to sense and to know what is there but not being sensed?
How about radio waves? Are there radio waves? If so, do you sense radio waves? If you use a radio device to pick up these waves, then what are you sensing? The sound from the radio, or the radio waves? Do you hear words and music from the radio? If so, then are radio waves words and music? You might say that these are the "effects" of the radio waves. But then, you are only sensing the effects and not the cause. If so, how do you know the cause? If you infer from the effects to the cause, then how do you know that the inference is valid? By sensation again? What do you sense that would confirm this?
Also, how do you know that you do not know certain things? By sensation? Again, is the lack of sensation a sensation? How do you know this? Do you sense that a lack of sensation is a sensation?
Then, if you know that you do not know certain things, what are these "certain things"? If you know what they are, then you must know what they are by sensation, but then, this means that you have sensed them – if so, in what sense do you not know them?
Do you believe that the earth is flat, or that it is a sphere? If you believe that it is a sphere, then how do you know this? By sensation? How? Have you seen the earth from space?
Or do you trust the experts and the scientists? But then you did not sense what you claim to know, but you sensed only the testimony of these "experts." Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture. How do you know that the picture was not "doctored"? By sensation? How do you sense "not doctored"? Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?
The sun looks pretty flat to me. Now suppose that I look at the sun from space and see that it is spherical, then what am I suppose to believe? If we assert that the sun and the earth are spheres and that they rotate, then the rotation is not really sensed, but calculated. Even then, how do you confirm that no errors in calculation were made? Again by sensation? What do you sense to know this?
Also, do you believe in atoms? Have you sensed an atom? Even if you have, how do you know that there are atoms other than the one that you have sensed? Or are we just supposed to trust the scientists? Are they your pope? If you do not believe all that they say, then why do you accept some of what they say and not others when you have sensed neither (except for their testimonies, if even that)? Have they seen atoms? Have they seen the effects of atoms? If so, how do they know that those effects were produced by atoms? And still, maybe they sensed the effects (if even that), and not the atoms.
How did you learn your name? Did you accept a word as your name, just because people called you something enough times? I can think of a number of things to call you other than your name, but will you accept one or more of those words as your name or names if I call you those things often enough? Why or why not? If I call you "Ralph" twice, would you accept that as your new name? How about six hundred times? Why or why not? How often is "often enough"? How did you know that it was enough when you first accepted your name? Did you sense "enough"? Or the effects of "enough"? How? Are you Pavlov's dog? But there is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring, is there? Or did you somehow make an inference from what you heard? If so, did you sense the inference? Please write out the process of inference in syllogistic form so you can exhibit its logical validity.
Do you like logic? Do you want to be rational? Then how did you learn the law of contradiction? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?
How did you learn the word "God"? If all knowledge comes from sensation, then have you sensed God? If you have sensed God, then why are you an atheist? If you have not sensed God, then maybe you heard the word and inferred the meaning of the word, but then by sensation you only learned the sound and not the meaning, since you inferred the meaning. But then, did you and I infer the same thing out of the sound? Do we mean the same thing when we say "God"? If we do not mean the same thing, then all the arguments you have against "God" do not apply to me.
As for the question of personal identity, how do you know that you are the same person today as you were yesterday? Do you sense that you are the same person? But cannot two different things give you the same sensation? If so, then the problem remains. If not, then how do you know? That is, how or what have you sensed that no two things in this universe can give you the same sensation, so that you can always distinguish between different things?
Vincent Cheung, Sermonettes - Volume 1 (2010), p. 67-70.
0 notes
Text
But no one is saved by indecision
Some have claimed that it is wrong to call for a “decision” from sinners in evangelism, and that this method would often result in false converts. However, Jesus and the apostles often pressed for instant decisions to follow or to reject Christ. The complaint is a false diagnosis targeting ministries that have produced far greater success than the boring and powerless religionists. It is an attempt to explain those people’s own failure to produce converts, due to their faithless doctrines and institutions.
Any method can result in false converts and temporary followers, even due to no fault of its own. The important issue is to implement effective follow-ups. Although a mere cry of “Lord Jesus!” is sufficient to save if it comes from faith, on our side the work is not finished when a man claims to believe in Christ. Many people who followed Jesus abandoned him as he continued to preach truth, practice righteousness, and perform miracles. This is the way to reduce false converts.
Of course it is a “decision” when one converts to Christ. It is false and stupid to say that it is not a decision. And it can be an instant decision. It can even be an easy decision. If one intensely desires to follow Christ, then God is already at work in him and the person will decide to follow Christ, and it will be easy for him to make this decision. It is idiotic to suppose that it ought to require much seeking, thinking, and agonizing calculation to sincerely convert. It is idiotic to suppose that we should not call for a definite confession, or that a definite confession counts for nothing, but that the person should marinate in church until we somehow grow accustom to him and consider him a believer.
The issue is not whether it is a decision, but the cause of that decision. If it is God’s decision to cause a rebirth in that person and then cause him to make the decision to follow Christ, then that man’s decision will be genuine and lasting, leading to a life of blessing and meaning, of faith and love, of truth and power, of prophecies and miracles.
Another claim is that it is misleading to lead someone in a “sinner’s prayer” to express faith in Jesus. It suggests to the person that he is saved from that point forward, just because he has repeated the prayer, when he might not be converted. Rubbish. No one preaches that a person is saved by mindlessly repeating a prayer. However, Christians who declare that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” should at least offer some help to those who wish to call on the Lord!
The Bible includes examples where individuals who did much less than the sinner’s prayer were acknowledged as genuine converts. If a sinner desires to follow Christ, leading him in prayer to express his faith is only an aid to take him toward that direction. If it is explained correctly, it will not mislead a faithless person into thinking that he has become a genuine believer. Pretending to call on the Lord will not save a reprobate, but those who are stirring with faith will be saved when we hold them by the hand and show them how to call on the Lord.
A church should indeed refine its methods and explanations to limit the number of false converts, but a church is far worse when it does not produce any converts at all because it preaches a theology that is without faith and practices a ministry that is without miracles. What produces a false convert — what produces a double son of hell — is faithless religion and manmade tradition, hiding behind historic human orthodoxy and institution.
Such a ministry from hell will become jealous of those who have genuine success, that is, those who gather up loads of men and women for God as Peter gathered up the fish at the command of Christ. This requires a decision as momentous as the decision of conversion — choose faith and life in Christ, or choose faithless rituals, doctrines, and hypocrisy in the religion of man.
Vincent Cheung, on February 28, 2024. From: https://www.vincentcheung.com/2016/10/25/evangelism-decisions-vs-indecisions/
0 notes
Text
Any believer could subdue an apostle or angel
Consider the apostle Peter, who transgressed a most elementary principle of the gospel when he stopped eating with the Gentiles at Antioch. What made this especially inexcusable was that God himself told him in a vision, “Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean.” Right is right, wrong is wrong, and Peter was wrong. Therefore, Paul publicly rebuked him and withstood him to his face.
Thus we see the gospel of Jesus Christ possesses higher authority than even an apostle of Jesus Christ. God indeed attested to the gospel through the apostles after the Lord first declared it, but when they transgressed this standard — and it was possible, as Peter demonstrated — they were censured by this same standard.
Paul said that if “we” — anyone who brought the gospel to the people in the first place — if anyone, including himself, preached a different gospel than the one he delivered, then let him be accursed. In fact, he said that even if an angel “from heaven” — not a demonic impostor — preached a different gospel, let him also be accursed. He said this indiscriminately to the Galatians, to a group of unstable and ordinary Christians. So it does not require an apostle to confront an apostle or angel who teaches false doctrine.
Any believer has the authority to disagree with even a real apostle or angel if he comes with a gospel different from the one already delivered. The gospel carries the very authority of God. It is a standard that can judge any apostle or angel. Since this is the case, we should much more eagerly acknowledge the errors in our heroes, scholars, and creeds, regardless of how much history and tradition pressure us to respect them.
What is this gospel, once-for-all delivered? Within a short space in this same letter to the Galatians, we observe at least three pillars of truth. First, Christ the Son has come in the flesh through a woman (4:4). Thus we affirm the divinity and humanity of Christ. Second, Christ the Redeemer has atoned for sin by his death (3:1). We affirm justification by faith alone, without the works of the law.
Third, Christ the Baptizer has endowed his people with miracle power by his Spirit, and God works miracles among his people not because of the works of the law, and not because of persons and periods, but because the people believe the gospel (3:5). Therefore, we affirm that Christians can receive superhuman and supernatural power by the Spirit, and that miracles, prophecies, and other signs and wonders are available to each one because of faith, and not only because of special gifts and ministries.
As a Christian, I have the authority to smite any genuine apostle or even an angel from heaven who preaches a message that deviates from these pillars of the gospel. God is greater than any apostle or angel, and this is the gospel he has established. This third point is inseparable from the gospel, because it is the gospel. It is the gospel just like the first point is the gospel, and just like the second point is the gospel. In fact, Paul uses this third point as proof for the second point.
Vincent Cheung, on February 26, 2024. From: https://www.vincentcheung.com/2018/03/06/the-way-to-honor-the-historical-martyrs-is/
0 notes
Text
I still think about this sometimes
He was fifteen, just slightly younger than I was. He had leukemia and was about to die. He was a Christian. His friends and relatives were Christians. They were supposed to believe in the word of God, but I brought the word of God to him and I could not talk him out of dying. He said it was “God’s will,” you see. I knew he could be healed. Many had been healed right under my hands as I prayed for them. But this boy already decided to die. Those Christians brought me in several days before he died, and gave me ten minutes to talk to him. Do your thing! Work your magic!
Perhaps I could have done more if they had allowed me more time, but when I went in, he did not have faith. He was just religious. Think about it. At fifteen, he had learned enough tradition to insist that he would be healed only if it was “God’s will,” regardless of what I showed him from the Bible. He never refuted any text that I used, but only nodded, and went right back to the “God’s will” routine. Cessationism killed him. Divine sovereignty — I mean that demonic but commonly accepted perversion of the doctrine — killed him. He could have been healed if he was an unbeliever, because then it would have depended on my faith and ministry, or he could have believed when I introduced the gospel to him. Ironically, “Christianity” killed him. And the Christians around him made it happen.
Publishedby Vincent Cheung, on February 23, 2024.
0 notes
Text
On Translating My Writings
It is fine to translate my writings and distribute them for non-profit use.
However, it has been pointed out to me that sometimes the translators change my original text, such as adding words, references, weakening the words I use, etc. This is unacceptable, and dishonest. Even if the intention is to "help" it is to lie about me and to lie to the people. So I wish that if someone translates, he would translate what I write precisely. If he dislikes what I say or how I say something, then he should just forget about me and write what he believes instead.
Also, there have been cases where the people would quote me out of context, so as to give a misleading impression of what I said. This is bad enough. But some of the things that I say are quite unusual, and so if someone quotes only my conclusion and not my explanations, the reader would only dismiss me as some far-fetched heretic, when my point is exactly to show that the tradition people have been accustomed to is false.
Adding to this problem is that the fact that sometimes people quote me without including the source, so it is more difficult for people to find out the context or the verify the translation. Most people probably would not make the effort, but would accept the translation or the translated portion as it is given, and so leave with a false impression. These issues also happen when people quote me in English, but it is even less probable for people to see the original text for themselves when it is a translation.
So it is fine to make or read translations of my materials, but if you see something that catches your attention, I suggest that you also look at the original. The translation might be wrong in some important places.
* * *
Well, whether you are making a translation or reading a translation, just make sure it is true to the original. I am very purposeful with my writings. I do not just spit out words, but I "design" the text.
Except for actual unintended things, such as spelling and typing mistakes, almost everything is designed -- the big ideas are deliberate, of course, but also details like the sound of the words, the length of the words, how the words look when they are placed near one another, if there are two modifiers (like adjectives), whether to put the short one first, etc. etc. Sometimes I break grammatical rules on purpose when it makes something look better on the page, or sound better, or more clear. And what is omitted is also deliberate. Therefore, when someone changes the text, it also distorts my intention.
I have seen, for example, people adding biblical references to the quote when I omitted them. Like, I would say, "For God so loved the world…", and the translation would say, "For God so loved the world…" (John 3:16). The intention is to "help", but it changes what I wanted to do. Worse, some translations do this: I would say, For God so loved the world "that he gave" his only Son. The translation might say "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (John 3:16). This would break the rhythm of whatever I would be doing in the text.
Once I said: Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” And translated this by quoting the full verse, and adding the Bible reference when it is found. It greatly altered what I was doing.
I also saw a few times when I said "damnation," the translation changed it to "condemnation." This is very different. And there are also other cases where the person weakened what I said, or commented on what I said as if I did not mean what I said, but something milder. If he thinks I am too extreme, then he should not translate me.
These seem to be small details, but they are not to me, since I teach both by explicit statements, by implications, by how things are structured, by what I include and exclude, etc.. And imagine changing hundreds of things like these. The reader would get a different "Vincent Cheung" than the one in English.
I have also seen translations that break my paragraphs into shorter ones. Also undesirable.
These are only several types of examples, and there are a number of cases that are far more destructive to the text. And I usually see only what people send me. There must be many more.
Imagine someone doing what you did, and adding the word "Scripturalism" into something I said about apologetics as if to explain the context. I have never applied this word to myself. Also, as a matter of personal preference, I dislike the word very much. I find it very awkward and silly. So a translator or commentator who applies the word to me would also convey the wrong impression.
I also do certain things so that those who are unwilling to see, will never see, and those who do not want to walk in the word of God, will stumble over themselves. For example, I use the expression "the author of sin" on purpose, when I never ONCE used it with my own people (in the past 25 years, I might have used it several times to explain what "outsiders" believe). I could just limit myself to ontological terms, but this silly expression has been in protected tradition for so long that, if some are more loyal to tradition than to truth and reason, and the word of God, they would stumble over the truth and maintain their position about this expression no matter what. Don't they realize that, if we are only referring to ontology, there is no "sin" as such, but only events? Once we put an interpretation on an event, and call it good or evil, it does not suddenly change the ontology of the event. Thus if God is God over all "events," he must be God in the same sense over all interpreted "events," as in a sin-event, or an event that we call sin. So simple. But then they must renounce that precious tradition in their creed. See, if I do not use the term, they might agree with me because of truth, but hold on to (the denial) of the term because of tradition -- which means they do not know what they really believe, or that they do not really believe the truth.
Another example. I have never ONCE used the term "prosperity gospel" or the gospel of "health and wealth" with my own people. I would just teach the word of God. But with those who are hard-hearted, I would use these terms. They would have to put aside their agendas and traditions to see, hear, and understand, or they would seize upon a mere phrase and use it as an excuse to throw out the word of God, when they claim they are only rejecting me. This is also what Jesus did, and why he spoke in parables. I would not trick people into believing the word of God. I know how they think. I could trick them into offering me more agreement if that's what I wanted. If they are more loyal to men than to God, I don't want them to stumble into pretending to believing the word of God. They are already hypocritical enough! But indeed there are those who, although I throw these traditionally offensive terms at them, saw the truth, and believed. And at the same time, they learn to put aside man-made traditions and biases.
I am saying so much about this not to make you feel bad, but I have time and type fast so I thought I'd just to give you a little explanation. I would like to be like Paul, who said that he would rejoice as long as Christ is preached. So if people want to translate my writings but make a mess of things, then I suppose that's better than nothing at all. But the truth remains that if everything is designed, then to change anything would break something. It is also for their sake that I want them to translate correctly. It is not good for the soul to lie about someone, even if unintentionally
0 notes
Text
Divine hiddenness is a scam
The statement, “He is not far from each one of us,” is highly relevant for contemporary philosophy of religion. It also provides an apt illustration for the biblical approach of apologetics and evangelism, which in turn exposes the misguided method of today’s Christians.
Unbelievers in both academic and non-academic circles have voiced the objection that the evidence for God and Christianity are unclear or unconvincing. They claim that if there is a God, if he really wants people to believe in him, and if he will punish people for not believing in him, then should he not provide clearer and better evidence than what we have so far witnessed? Should not the existence of God and the truth of Christianity be less ambiguous?
This is called the problem of “divine hiddenness.” The typical approach taken by Christian theologians and philosophers is to first admit that God hides himself from us, and having agreed to this, they then provide arguments as to why God is justified in hiding himself, even though he wants people to believe in him. Many of those who attempt to answer the problem of divine hiddenness never challenge the assumption that God is hidden.
However, this is an anti-biblical approach, since the Bible itself denies that God is hidden at all. Instead, it says that “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27) and that “What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them” (Romans 1:19).
Christians who attempt to answer “divine hiddenness” by first agreeing that God is hidden have adopted non-Christian assumptions and principles without argument. Why scramble to defend God for doing something when the Bible says that he has done the opposite?
Why be so hasty to defend God’s alleged hiddenness when the Bible says that he has made himself plain and evident to all? Why admit that God is hard to find when the Bible says that he is not far from each of us?
Many of those who claim to be Christians are too quick to think like non-Christians, and in doing so, even when they think they are defending the biblical faith, in reality they have denied it from the start. If even Christians think that God is hidden when the Bible asserts the opposite, how will non-Christians ever be confronted with a biblical approach to apologetics and evangelism?
Presuppositional Confrontations, p. 49 (PDF)
Published by Vincent Cheung, January 26, 2024
0 notes
Text
The only true paradigm
How did Simon insult the Spirit in Acts 8:19? It is not obvious why you would think he did, so it is not easy to respond directly. Nevertheless, while we are on this passage, we should correct a common distortion. Philip had preached Jesus Christ to the people, and those who believed were saved. Then Peter came to the people to impart the Holy Spirit to them, so that they would receive power as Jesus promised. Simon did not ask to buy the Holy Spirit. He offered money to Peter, not to influence the Spirit, but to influence Peter to confer the ability or the ministry of the laying on of hands to impart the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He said, “Give me this power.” What power? He did not say, “That I may receive the Holy Spirit,” but he said, “That anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (v. 19). To use healing as an illustration, Simon would not be offering to buy a miracle of healing to heal himself, but to buy a ministry of healing to heal others. The “gift of God” (v. 20) that Peter said he could not buy was not the Holy Spirit, but the ministry to impart the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Simon was wrong. But in his perverted way, he admired the Holy Spirit and the ministry of imparting the Spirit. In fact, he was much closer to a proper attitude than the cessationists.
Peter told him to repent, but you must read the text you use. Peter told him to repent so that “if possible” or “perhaps” he might be forgiven (v. 22). When you speak carelessly about the Holy Spirit, you are treading on dangerous grounds. Of course there would be no room for repentance if a statement amounts to blasphemy against the Spirit. Even when it is unclear to us, it is always clear to God. However, when it is uncertain to us that a statement amounts to blasphemy against the Spirit, even an apostle could only say it might be “possible” for the person to be forgiven. Simon did not call the manifestations the work of demons. He did not say Philip or Peter preached false doctrine. He did not say the manifestation was “strange fire.” He did not say that what Jesus promised about the Spirit had ceased. He did not make accusations of counterfeit or fanaticism. Cessationists have said all these things and more, but Simon did not say these things. He did not utter any criticism at all about what was happening. He acknowledged the reality of God’s power and wanted to participate. He had only praise and desire for it, but his perverted attitude was enough to earn a rebuke, with enough room for only a “possible” forgiveness. Consider what this means for the cessationists.
Simon was arguably in a better place both theologically and spiritually than the cessationists. He grasped the distinction between receiving the Christ (Acts 8:12-13) and receiving the Spirit (Acts 8:14-16). He also grasped the distinction between receiving the Spirit (Acts 8:17) and imparting the Spirit (Acts 8:18). Theologically, this makes him superior to almost every Christian tradition and scholar in the past two thousand years. The fact that he understood both of these distinctions establishes him as not only incrementally superior, but paradigmatically superior, to almost every single Christian tradition and scholar in all of church history. Nevertheless, this was the basic gospel that the early converts everywhere learned on the first day (Acts 2:38, 19:2, 5-6). He was also spiritually and ethically superior. Although his attitude and motive were surely defective to the point of sin, at least he was — wickedly, selfishly — stumbling toward the direction of endorsement and participation of the work of God, rather than making it a matter of creed and policy to resist the Spirit!
Published by Vincent Cheung, February 2, 2024
0 notes
Text
Most Christians believe that Jesus is no better than a cow
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? (Hebrews 10:1-2)
~ ~ ~
…the same can be said about someone who teaches the Substitute view of the atonement. Does he believe that the blood of Christ destroyed the consciousness of sin? Most Evangelicals insist that Christians should maintain a constant consciousness of sin. This is supposed to exhibit humility and repentance. But according to the letter to the Hebrews, this would make the blood of Christ no better than the blood of bulls and goats. Thus most Christians believe that Jesus is no better than a cow, or they do not believe he is their substitute. In addition, the same biblical texts that refer to Christ’s bearing of our sins are used interchangeably by Scripture itself to refer to Christ’s bearing of our sicknesses, and even the mere anticipation of this substitution produced tangible and miraculous effects in this life, as we see in Matthew 8. Does the person who teaches the Substitute view also acknowledge that we can be free from demons and diseases in this life by faith? Does he teach this, so that as he speaks demons cry out and flee, and those who listen are healed in their bodies? Are people saved from crippling depression and suicidal thoughts by what he teaches? Does he teach that Christ has endured the consequences of sin, so that we are saved from tragedies, accidents, plagues and wars, and all the things listed in texts like Deuteronomy 28 and Psalm 91? If not, then he does not believe in Christ the Substitute. It is also another instance of false piety and religious posturing. His doctrine is weaker than those who lived under Deuteronomy 28 and Psalm 91, those who merely anticipated the atonement.
~ ~ ~
Much of evangelical preaching gives voice to Satan the accuser. It claims to emphasize repentance, contrary to a false gospel that merely affirms the unbelievers in their sin. However, if you preach repentance according to the gospel, you would also preach the results that follow from this repentance. This is not a repentance that leads to more condemnation, more self-abasement, and more groveling. One who truly repents and turns to Christ receives forgiveness, cleansing, righteousness, and the confidence to march straight to the throne of grace to obtain grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16). The Bible says that if the blood of animals had been effective, then the worshipers would have had no more consciousness of sin (Hebrews 10:2). However, much of evangelical preaching represents the Christian message as one that demands and continues the consciousness of sin. It follows that it is a false gospel that portrays the blood of Christ as no better than the blood of animals. It has no right to complain about a lenient and affirming gospel, when it only caters to another kind of itching ears — the itching ears of religious masochism. It claims to restore the gospel, but it attempts to silence the gospel.
~ ~ ~
The gospel requires us to not merely affirm the gifts of the Spirit in our doctrine, but to aggressively teach and exercise them. Even after this, very much unbelief could remain beyond the category of spiritual gifts. For example, even after a person has been convinced about the gift of healing, and even after he has witnessed it or even performed healing by such a gift, he might still remain unconvinced that healing has been secured for the present time by the atonement, and that it is promised to faith, and it is to be received apart from any gift. This truth is even more basic to the gospel than the spiritual gifts, but it is denied even more than the spiritual gifts, and even by those who operate in the spiritual gifts. Then, it is evident that Christians have not attained to the point where they can pray with confidence, “Give us this day our daily bread.” And they outright reject the teaching of Jesus, that if we would seek first the kingdom of God, then “all these things” the pagans seek will be added to us.
Remember that these were teachings that were given even before Jesus ascended to the cross and then to heaven, and before he poured out the Holy Spirit to empower his people. This is how far the church has fallen. Christians still do not believe what Jesus expected his pre-crucifixion followers to believe. And yet many of these people are obsessed with technical points of Christian theology and philosophy, deeming themselves faithful and strong in apologetics and such things. As for the teachings about those who are “in Christ,” what about the doctrine that we are the righteousness of God in him? Sin consciousness pervades their doctrine and their religion, but the writer of Hebrews says that those who have been cleansed should no longer have a consciousness of sin. To keep preaching and even insisting on a consciousness of sin is not humility, but it is to relegate the blood of Christ to the level of the blood of bulls and goats. It is easy to find among them tomes of hundreds of pages about repentance, depression, and melancholy, but we cannot find one that talks much about our standing as the righteousness of God, that as Paul said, we shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. If this is not a denial of the gospel, what does it take? And they are the ones who condemn people.
Published by Vincent Cheung, February 4, 2024
0 notes
Text
Predestination is not a mystery
It is said that this doctrine of predestination is a “high mystery,” and “to be handled with special prudence and care.” This strange advice is unwarranted. The Bible itself does not call this doctrine a mystery, let alone a “high” mystery. Rather, it is one of the least complex, least difficult, and most fully explained teachings in Scripture. Jesus did not hesitate to throw it around either as a teaching in itself or as an explanation to something else. And Paul offered explicit expositions that addressed all general issues about the topic. There is not one broad question on predestination that we lack the answer to. The doctrine is completely and obviously consistent, so there is nothing to harmonize. There is no paradox, no antinomy, no contradiction, no mystery. There is just plain and glorious truth shining in our face like the noonday sun.
Thus to urge “special prudence and care” is prejudicial. Why not say the same about the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the atonement, and justification by faith without works? Many doctrines can become dangerous if distorted, but then it is not the doctrines themselves that are dangerous, but man’s wickedness and incompetence that are injurious to souls. Unless there is biblical reason to do so, to single out this doctrine for “special care” is to insult the clarity of divine revelation. Predestination is not a toxic doctrine. It is not dangerous. The doctrine is nothing other than a “Yes, really” to the idea that God is God. Even a child in the kingdom should handle it with freedom and abandon. It is a doctrine of power, healing, and assurance. It is to be learned well like other doctrines, and then to be preached and lived out boldly, and compared to what is urged by the tradition, outright recklessly.
Published by Vincent Cheung, February 7, 2024
0 notes
Text
Reading his book was pain, but there was no gain
In spiritual life, in interpersonal relations, in all of our work, this principle holds true: the path to gain is through pain. (13)
This is an unbiblical generalization and emphasis. Beeke probably wishes to universalize and legitimize his own experience, negativity, and unbelief. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Gain in the spirit comes from faith, hope, love, knowledge, cooperation, grace, mercy, holiness, victory, and many other wonderful things. Instead, Beeke stresses pain. This is what he thinks of the Christian faith, and of Jesus Christ. He also applies this to interpersonal relations. So this is what he thinks about his wife, his children, and his friends.
Faithless religion is mindless and infuriating, yet confidently pretentious. Entirely delusional. It is a spiritual and mental illness.
Published by Vincent Cheung, February 8, 2024.
0 notes
Text
When God disgusts religionists, they replace him with symbols
In the sacraments God accommodates Himself to our weakness. When we hear the Word indiscriminately proclaimed, we may wonder: “Is it truly for me? Does it really reach me?” However, in the sacraments God reaches out and touches us individually, and says, “Yes, it’s for you. The promise extends to you.” (56)
The Bible does not teach this. Beeke made it up. It is unlikely that a person who doubts God’s word like this would really come to believe God’s promises through the sacraments. Moreover, one can doubt the sacraments and whether they apply to him just as easily as he doubts the word. In fact, he could more easily doubt the sacraments, since the sacraments do not use words to tell him that he is included.
But as Robert Bruce put it, “While we do not get a better Christ in the sacraments than we do in the Word, there are times when we get Christ better.” (88)
There is no biblical evidence for this. Also, what kind of Christians get Christ better through the sacraments than God’s word? If they are Christians at all, they must be very bad Christians. Bruce is saying that sometimes Christians would rather deal with mere symbols of Christ than the very words that come from this Christ. Beeke approves, and does not condemn such people. What kind of man would encourage such an evil doctrine?
Faithless religionists are obsessed with rituals and sacraments, and with holy days. Instead of receiving the real Christ by faith alone, they declare that the symbol is the real Christ. They are desperate to convince you that they stand for piety, faith, and love for God. They have none of that. The truth is that God disgusts the Faithless, and they prefer to deal with symbols and rituals. But they want you to think that they are spiritual, and so they spin out a theology that identifies the symbol with the reality. And before you can cry “Heretic!” they point to the Catholics and use them as their scapegoat, when their own theology teaches essentially the same thing.
Published by Vincent Cheung, February 10, 2024
0 notes
Text
When historic and orthodox things are just satanism
Acts 16 tells us about a girl who had a demon. She followed Paul and his companions, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved” (v. 17). The words that she said were exactly correct. Elsewhere I have discussed how this could have hindered the gospel, but now our focus is on another issue. Someone could preach the same message that the apostles preached or promote the apostles as divine messengers, but he could be functioning by the power of the devil. If he is more obvious about his satanic influence, he could even preach a doctrine of cessationism. He could castigate the Pentecostals with full indignation. He could write a book to denounce charismatic chaos and defend the faith. It would all be very dignified, very precise, very demonic. And many who claim to be Christians would applaud him for it.
A cessationist theologian may say many things that sound right, but what spirit is driving him? If he truly believes the gospel, then why does he reject so much of it? Why does he draw people in with a few sound doctrines, only to slit their throats with unbelief? He may be one of the most respected personalities in Christian circles, but is he God’s gospel ambassador, or Satan’s double agent? Do you follow him because he says some good things, because he is so faithful to historic orthodoxy, and because he strives against non-Christian immorality? But he is a cessationist. He refuses even the basics of the gospel, things that even a new convert should pick up on the first day. The girl in Acts 16 also said some good things. She also announced the apostolic faith. And then Paul cast the demon out of her!
0 notes
Text
Attack Non-Christians: Take the Offensive
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." (1 Kings 18:27)
The unbelievers have trained our leaders well. Most preachers and theologians have been thoroughly instructed and neutered by non-biblical principles. They are soft-spoken and non-threatening, and even when they speak the truth, they are easy to dismiss. It is even enjoyable to engage in debates with these people, just as a game of tug-of-war with a little puppy tends to lift one's spirit. It is fun and safe. Preachers talk about the Lion of Judah, but where is their roar? Theologians lament a domesticated God, but they purr like house cats themselves. No sword is unsheathed, no blood is spilled – metaphorically speaking, of course.
Elijah made trouble for the non-Christians. He was much more than a nuisance, like a fruit fly that would not leave and that refuses to die. He was their worst nightmare. And he did it to enforce the truth: The king said, "Are you the one who makes trouble for Israel?" The prophet answered, "I have not made trouble for Israel, but you have." Elijah disturbed the status quo, but the status quo was the trouble to begin with. The apostles upset the established order, but that was the problem in the first place. Jesus turned over tables, but the merchants had turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves.
The prophets and the apostles demonstrated the character that they taught. It is strange that some of those who are regarded as exemplars of their doctrine do not talk or act like them at all. There is almost no resemblance. In fact, the non-Christians who blast our religion sound more like the prophets and apostles than the Christians who defend it! How can this be? By the believers' own consent, faith has been tamed, but unbelief runs free and wild.
The prophets and the apostles demonstrated the character that they taught. It is strange that some of those who are regarded as exemplars of their doctrine do not talk or act like them at all. There is almost no resemblance. In fact, the non-Christians who blast our religion sound more like the prophets and apostles than the Christians who defend it! How can this be? By the believers' own consent, faith has been tamed, but unbelief runs free and wild.
As for us, we will follow the examples of the prophets and the apostles. I refuse to enter into a contract of tolerance with unbelievers. I refuse to allow the current non-Christian standard of social propriety to define for me what Christian character means. As disciples of the Lord Jesus, we must make up our minds as to whether the prophets were right or wrong, and whether the apostles really commanded people to speak and behave in a way that is totally different from them.
Once it is settled that the prophets and apostles were correct in their approach, as all true Christians must, we ought to take steps to emulate them. What this means is that we must devote much more of our time, energy, creativity, and resources to mock non-Christians, and to make fun of their religions, philosophies, sciences, ethics, cultures, and lifestyles. All aspects of their lives are open to our scrutiny and assault. Preachers should preach sermons, and churches should hold seminars, not only on how to answer unbelievers, but on how to openly jeer at them.
It is a theological and tactical error that many courses in apologetics instruct believers to answer questions and wait for more, rather than to attack non-Christian beliefs with relentless aggression. By definition, the missionary enterprise takes the offensive – we take the gospel to them, and we live the gospel before them – otherwise, there would be no objections to our religion in the first place. Of course we can answer them, and we should, but there is no reason to retreat into the defensive after we have introduced the topic. Take the offensive and remain on the offensive. Persist. Press on. Increase the pressure. The word of God is a sword – plunge it into them and twist the blade. Make it hurt. Then do it again.
— Vincent Cheung, Sermonettes - Volume 1 (2010), p. 60-61.
0 notes