To all:
You probably already know of Vincent Cheung. I didn't until a couple of days ago. Thank you, Red Beetle!
Would like your opinions on his today's article: Augustine and Compatibilism, and, of course, on the rest.
vincentcheung.com - his blog
rmiweb.org - main page.
L-Today
I found a number of problems. First of all, he's quoting someone else's summary of what Augustine taught and not Augustine himself. Secondly, he's not offering much of a Biblical basis for his beliefs, his ideas our philosophical and look more like the teachings of Spinoza than Biblical Christianity. Also, compatibilism has been defined by different people in various ways. I have a problem any time the term 'free will' is used but some use compatibilism to refer to the relationship between responsibility and God's eternal decree and I believe that this is a legitimate and Biblical position. Cheung seems to want to do away with responsibility altogether. The verse he talks about does not teach free will but it does teach the type of compatibilism I have just described. Joseph's brothers did not act against their will when they did evil to Joseph. They desired to do evil to Joseph and were morally responsible for their actions but God decreed that they do the same action. I believe an even better example is found in Acts 2.
Acts 2:22-23 " Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know -- 23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Do you think, WB, that Cheung wants to do away with man's responsibility altogether? Elsewhere (I did not read much but a few blog comments), he stated that man is responsible (accountable) just because God decreed him to be. I fully agree with you that this is most legitimate and important matter, and would never want to take it lightly, but I cannot come to any other conclusion than: we are responsible because God said so. Enough for me. Do you think there is some sort of freedom in man's will?
He was quoting someone else's summary on Augustine because he is reviewing their book on him, so he had to cite from it and give his opinion on their opinion, comparing it to others' relevant works - at least it was one of the main purposes for the article, I thought. He specified that his review is not about Augustine.
Again, maybe in another comment, VC states (I am paraphrazing, that is, if I understood his thought correctly) that exactly because of God's might and absolute control over creature, man does not feel compulsion when acting. If God was less powerful and in a lesser control, then man would feel a sort of force as it would mean a kind of struggle between one stronger and one weaker wills. That is why Joseph's brothers and all others in the whole of Bible, and all of us, do not feel the 'strings' or 'pulling' or any kind of force. Cheung never used these same words, of course.
Acts 2.22-23 is an excellent example, together with many others - the wicked ones are responsible only because God decreed them to be.
Am I wrong?
All I read was the first blog. Ultimately of course man is responsible for the simple reason that God says so as Paul says in Roman 9 but the Bible also speaks of moral responsibility in other ways and the evil that springs from man's heart as the result of the fall. Cheung seems to be ignoring these passages and promoting a sort of fatalism. We are not mere stocks and blocks or robots.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
WB, Thanks for your comments. To me Cheung does not come across as fatalist, but then I have to read some more of his thoughts to form an opinion.
L-Today.
Cheung does not preach fatalism , he uphold's the Sovereinty of God and the absolute predestination of all thing's, so far he read's very well to me, in the Article section of his, in the link below he look's at [The Problem Of Evil] he is right to the point. http://rmiweb.org Ivor Thomas
Ivor,
Agree with you on this one. Thanks for the comment, and as you read on, please tell me your further thoughts on this young Christian. He looks very good to me so far.
L-Today.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks