PhilosophyOfJoel's Xanga

quotations from Vincent Cheung about the need to test the attitude of Seminary Graduates by giving t

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:13:34 GMT

Quotations by Vincent Cheung from his article, "Doctrine and Obedience"

Amusing quotations from Vincent Cheung about the need to test the attitude of Seminary Graduates by giving them menial jobs. So true. His honesty is so "in-your-face" that it is humourous at times, but what he writes is true and important. I've "bold" the funny/outrageous bits.

From his article on Doctrine and obedience.

================

“Some seminary graduates are very proud and stupid, and completely unworthy of ministry. Most cases are not even examples of “knowledge puffeth up” (1 Corinthians 8:1), but the belief that they have knowledge that puffs them up, since they really know very little. …

… Cleaning toilets ought to be a joy anyway – the stuff that you scrub off the toilet is much less stubborn and much more fragrant than many of the people that you are going to deal with in ministry. So if you can’t even handle toilets – and what you find in them – how are you going to handle people?" …

… If he thinks that he is too good for all of this (e.g. cleaning toilets), then he is no good to the ministry. If, fresh out of the seminary, he already thinks that he is some “man of God” that is too important to do anything other than preaching and writing, and to have people sit at his feet to hear his wisdom, then he is really a useless piece of trash, and he is so stupid that he doesn’t know it. …

… if he is too “holy” or educated to mob up vomit or scrub the toilet, then I don’t want him to even lick stamps for my church or ministry. He is not even good enough to be the speed bump on the church parking lot, and he can forget about being an elder or teacher. …

… the day that I consider myself too much of a “man of God” to scrub the church toilet is the day that I have become as a filthy toilet to God. …"

Of course Cheung does mention that “it is unbiblical to require a minister to do menial work as part of his regular duties (Acts 6:2), the point is that he should never consider himself above that kind of work”

================

A well written article by Vincent Cheung. Every Christian should keep this in mind. The leader that makes it his ambition to have the largest church in town, be known as the greatest expositor in the world, or to be the lead-pastor in a church is not worthy of the ministry. He is nothing more than an idolator seeking his own interest rather than that of Christ (Phil 2:21). The Christian ministry is not like the corporate world where everyone tries to scale the corporate ladder; but one where we are all called to be slaves of Christ.

"Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." - 1 Cor 10:24

Common Grace Condemned by the Reformed Creeds

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:11:21 GMT

An interesting video by Red Beetle where he demonstrates that the Reformed Creeds never teach what is known as Common Grace -- despite its popularity in many "Reformed" circles today. The only timethe word Common Grace is mentioned is in the Canons of Dort where it condemned the Arminians. Also covered in these videos is the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

For those who have not seen these videos before in the past:
=========================

Sanctified by paying taxes

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:59:27 GMT

Quote of the day: Sanctified by paying taxes!

"The Roman taxes of Christ's day were outragerous. Yet, Christ commands his followers to pay their taxes. Strange though it may seem, we are sanctified by paying taxes." Gordon H. Clark, What do Presbyterians believe, p.141

The importance of believing in the inerrancy of the Bible

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT

If you disagree with the Bible, then you disagree with God, and you are not a Christian

Reflections on First Timothy by Vincent Cheung.
http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/timothyfirst.pdf
page 5-6

"The Bible is a written revelation from God, and we must approach it as such. In terms of what God has decided to tell us, and in terms of accuracy and authority, there is no difference between God and the Bible. To say, "The Bible says" is to say "God says." The two are synonymous. This provides definition to the Christian faith. That is, you can claim that you are a Christian, but you are really not a Christian if you disagree with Paul, or Matthew, or Isaiah. As long as you disagree with the Bible, you may say that you are a Christian you can make the sounds that form the sentence but you cannot fool God. If you disagree with the Bible, then you disagree with God, and you are not a Christian.And if you are not a Christian, then you are entitled to none of the promises and blessings that God has deposited in Christ for those who are Christians, who are the beneficiaries. Therefore, whenever we approach the Bible, we must remind ourselves that it is the written revelation from God, and it provides an inflexible standard that defines and governs all the doctrines and practices of the Christian faith. Whether we are reading the letters of Paul, the prophecies of Daniel, or the Psalms of David, it is Christ who speaks through the pages, and who teaches our minds as we read, so that our response to the words of Scripture is our response to God himself. There is to be no gap in our minds between faith in God and faith in the Bible, or obedience to God and obedience to the Scripture. Our attitude toward the Bible reflects our attitude to God. May the Spirit grant us wisdom to perceive and acknowledge this." - Vincent Cheung

You Must Suffer - John Piper

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:45:35 GMT

Simon Murphy on the Gospel and your money

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:59:32 GMT

Simon Murphy from Redemption Hill Church has preached a very good sermon entitled The Gospel and Your Money, which can be heard here. If you are sick about hearing sermonettes about money that sound like a fund-raising speech, this is a sermon you would not want to miss.

[phrasing above is lifted from Daniel Chew's website]

The Few

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:55:21 GMT

The Lies Called "Post-Modernism"/Relativism and Tolerance. The Key to biblical unity.

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:39:15 GMT

The lies called Post-modernism, relativism, and tolerance.

The key to biblical Unity.

What is the "object of faith" and how are to deal with those who deny the inerrancy of scripture

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:42:58 GMT

What is the Object of faith?

"The object of faith is none other than the written word of God according to the measure of revelation... we say that this word as written is the object of faith... " Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol 2, p.573 (trans: George Giger)

"Third proposition: 'The object of faith is either material or formal.'

The material are the things believes (NAMELY THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD AND ALL ITS PROPOSITIONS, whether they pertain to the law or to the gospel). They become known to us by a divine and supernatural revelation; if not as to the why (to dioti) or the mode and reason, at least as to the fact (to hoti); either explicitly in so many words or implicitly and by necessary evident consequences (which we have proved belongs to the word of God, topic 1, Question 12).

The formal object implies a reason or cause under which things are believed (to wit, the principle itself of believing). This is not the authority of the church as Romanist hold (because although the church may be the motive to faith in those about to believe and the human instrument and means of it, yet it can never be called its principle, as we have already seen in the proper place), but the AUTHORITY OF GOD, the only one credible of himself(autopistou) as the first and INFALLIBLE TRUTH, REVEALING HIMSELF IN THE WORD, in which is granted the ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF FAITH(as in its own formal object, which alone can establish divine faith because it rests in no one except God alone, Jer 17:5, 7). p.573

What should we do to those who profess the faith but deny inerrancy of scripture?

"The church should confront those who deny biblical inerrancy, showing them those biblical passages that affirm and teach biblical inerrancy, and showing them that an informed rejection of biblical inerrancy also constitutes a rejection of Christ. Then, since an informed rejection of biblical inerrancy also constitutes a rejection of Christ, those who continue to reject biblical inerrancy after careful and repeated confrontations by the church should be excommunicated. The church should regard their profession of Christ as insincere and false, and thus treat them as unbelievers and expel them from the covenant community. This biblical proposal may shock and even anger some church leaders and members. However, what should be more shocking and infuriating is how many churches would rightly expel those who commit sin and refuse to repent, especially after repeated warnings and confrontations, but then these same churches would continue to embrace those who deny biblical inerrancy, when biblical inerrancy is the very basis upon which they expel the other unrepentant offenders. While we are on the subject, I might as well point out that the church leaders who refuse to deal with those who reject biblical inerrancy should be removed from office. Of course many churches prefer to please men rather than to please God; they prefer human-centered harmony rather than God-centered purity, and thus heretics and apostates remain and continue to vex these churches, that is, until God either awakens or judges them." - V. Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount, p.60-61

Reply to Craig Booth

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:49:02 GMT

This is a comment by Craig Boot on my previous post. I think it deserves a reply:

Craig's comment: "An excellent book, perhaps the finest I have ever read, on this subject is, 'How Long O Lord?' by D.A. Carson. It is not written in academese, but it is scholarly and readable. Carson demonstrates that God's absolute sovereingty and man's absolute responsibility are co-present as co-truths in the Scriptures; how this can be so is a mystery beyond mankind to grasp. Therefore, we just accept both truths."

Reply:

The answer is easy. Man's responsibility and God's sovereignty is not at odds because man's responsibility has nothing to do with free will. Man is responsible because as a creature, he is answerable to his creator, and his creator requires perfect obedience. Whether man can keep the commandments or not is irrelevant. Moral responsibility is therefore grounded in God's sovereignty and not man's free will (man has no free will). And it is precisely because God is sovereign, that man is responsible for breaking the commandments. God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility must go together. If God is not sovereign, it follows that man is not responsible. Therefore, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is not an unknowable mystery as claimed by D A Carson, but a clear logical necessity, flowing from the very nature of God Himself.

As I wrote on the 24th of July... a quotation from Vincent Cheung.

"If it is true that moral responsibility presupposes moral ability, and Paul states that the sinner lacks this ability, then it follows that no sinner is responsible for his sins. That is, if a sinner is only a sinner if he has the ability to obey but refuses to obey, since Paul says that the sinner indeed lacks the ability to obey, then it follows that a sinner is not a sinner. ... "The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is a sinner, and at the same time teaches that he lacks the ability to obey God. This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise. Thus ... moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility is grounded on God's sovereignty – man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant. " V. Cheung - Problem of Evil p5-6"