“O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?” (Matthew 17:17)

Yesterday our ministry received a message from an agitated reader who, in very dramatic language, urged me to answer an objection against my epistemology. As I can no longer take time to answer most of the messages calling for my attention, especially ones with the problems that I will mention below, ordinarily this one would have been ignored. The main reason that I have chosen to respond is because of the instructive value in examining the message. That is, there are other points to be made besides answering the objection.

The message has been lightly edited for readability. Changes include corrections of typos, spelling errors, etc. The sender’s entire message appears below in blockquote format. His words are highlighted in blue, and the objection that he quotes is highlighted in red. Also, note that in my response, I will sometimes speak to “you” — that is, the sender of the message — and since this is now adapted for public consumption, I will sometimes speak directly to “you” the readers. The difference should be obvious, so that this should not result in any confusion. And sometimes it makes no difference as to how the “you” is understood.

I appreciate your ministry and have all your books and most of them read. However, you MUST FACE AND SQUARELY ANSWER THE FOLLOWING ISSUE OR YOUR MINISTRY WILL WILT AND FADE AWAY!!!

One of your critics has summarized the issue as follows (I am not your critic but I think it is more than a crucial point):

“Herein lies a vicious circle. Unless he already knows, apart from Scripture, that Scripture is an object of knowledge, how can he ever know that the Bible is his source of information? Likewise, unless he already knows that occasionalism is true, how can he ever know that this is the true mechanism which puts his mind in contact with the propositions of Scripture?

“You see, for Cheung, Scripture is like a safe. Occasionalism is the combination. But there’s one little snag: the combination is locked away in the safe. Cheung is telling us that he gets the combination (occasionalism) from the safe. But he can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand. How does he know that occasionalism is the correct combination to open the safe if the combination is written on a piece of paper inside the safe?

“So this is his dilemma: if he can open the safe without knowing in advance what’s inside, then his knowledge is not limited to what’s inside the safe. But if he can’t open the safe without knowing in advance what is inside, and if the contents of the safe are his only source of knowledge, then he can’t know anything at all.

“So, you see, Cheung is cheating. He is tactically assuming an insider’s knowledge which he, as an outsider, can never enjoy. That’s his secret fudge-factor.”

I HAVE read all your responses but they really are NOT adequate. For the sake of the kingdom and God’s people, I request, plead…BEG! that you make a full and formal and THOROUGH reply to this objection.

It is not right that you unwittingly allow your students to enter into the world of argument as cripples because I opine that probably most do not know how to adequately answer the above objection. And if you know the answer then you are obligated to make it known to your students. I am not a stupid fellow, but if I do not understand how your current replies are adequate, I am sure that most others do not understand as well.

I am not your critic. I do not have a blog against you or any such thing. I am desperately trying to make sense of your arguments and for the glory of God, so would you please stop riding this objection out, ignoring it as if it has already been met?

This is the most critical issue your apologetic ministry faces — your Achilles heel *perhaps* — so please PLEASE make a formal, in-depth, article LENGTH, totally comprehensive, public response which breaks it all down Barney style so that the stupidest among us can defend it.

Please do not shrug this email off as just another crazy critic who has not bothered to think through or read your articles. But in the end, its your ministry that’s on the line and not mine. However, God’s name is on it and, as your brother in Christ, I am calling you out to take responsibility for what you have started.

 

THE CRITICAL ISSUE

Before I answer the objection, I must talk about the tone and content of your message.

First, if you are going to be a half-decent apologist, you will need to calm down. Stop being so dramatic. This emotional flair is irritating to me, degrading to yourself, and not conducive to rational thinking. If you think that something like this can threaten my ministry’s survival, I seriously question your intelligence and wonder how much confidence you can have in Christianity itself. I had no respect for you by the time I finished the first paragraph of your message. You are a weakling.

Second, it is unacceptable to insult my readers. Whether or not I “allow” it, I take great offense that you call many of them “cripples” when it comes to argumentation, and reduce all of them to your level of incompetence. Speak for yourself. I certainly did not allow you to “enter into the world of argument” with this bad attitude. It got my attention this time, but not in a good way, and only so that I could make an example of you.

Third, if you are going to insult me, at least get your facts straight. I have mentioned several times that I do not read most of the things written about me on the Internet. This is not because I deliberately avoid them, but mainly because I do not read anything much on the Internet at all. I do not read blog articles and discussion forums. I cannot even read many of the emails sent to me. Printed publications keep me busy enough. So it is not that I have been “riding this objection out,” since I was unaware of it until you sent it to me today. God knows all things — I am not lying — I have never come across this objection. Call me a liar first before you call me a coward.

Fourth, you are not qualified to name “the most critical issue” in my “apologetic ministry.” By “apologetic ministry,” you are either referring to apologetics as the main mission of this ministry, or you are referring to the apologetic aspect of this ministry. I have said several times that the main focus of this ministry is not apologetics, but theological and biblical exposition. Do not think that this ministry is mainly about apologetics just because we are very good at it — there is no simpler way to put this. And if you are just referring to the apologetic aspect of this ministry, then you are still not qualified to say that this is its “most critical issue.” You say that unless this ministry answers the objection, it will “wilt and fade away.” Really? How about our systematic theology, commentaries, books on prayer and spirituality? They will all count for nothing? Right now your attitude seems a bigger problem than the objection.

You are right about one thing — I am the one who must take responsibility for this ministry. And this is why I am going to operate it on my own terms. I do not take orders from you or my critics. This ministry will not be bullied. It will not sway from its mission due to pressure from you or any critic. Because I am responsible, humanly speaking, I am also the only one who sets the agenda for this ministry. If I think that this ministry needs a commentary on First Peter, this ministry is going to get a commentary on First Peter. If I think I will become a better minister by taking more time to read and pray — guess what? — I am going to take more time to read and pray. You and the critics can wait in line, and I am going to be responsible for this decision. Of course, we consider comments and suggestions, but you are in no position to make demands.

 

THE SECRET ATHEISM

As for the objection, I could protest the analogy, but for now let us work with it anyway. As usual, there is a whole list of things wrong with this one. Here I will take time to mention only the most crucial error. This alone is sufficient to refute the objection, and to do a whole lot more.

Read the entire objection again. I will repeat a portion of it here: “You see, for Cheung, Scripture is like a safe. Occasionalism is the combination. But there’s one little snag: the combination is locked away in the safe. Cheung is telling us that he gets the combination (occasionalism) from the safe. But he can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand. How does he know that occasionalism is the correct combination to open the safe if the combination is written on a piece of paper inside the safe?”

What is wrong with this picture? Do you see what is missing? THINK! Do not assume this person has it right. Whether or not you agree with my epistemology or occasionalism, recount in your mind the process or all the factors involved in my exposition. Then, read the analogy again and see what is missing. Please take at least several seconds to do this before reading on.

Here is the problem: Where in the world is GOD in this analogy? God — remember him? In my exposition of biblical occasionalism, I refer to God’s constant and active power again, and again, and again, and again, and again. It is the defining factor in both my metaphysics and epistemology. So, although I put God before him over, and over, and over, and over again, this critic completely blocks God out in his thinking, and in his representation of my epistemology. If the critic is an unbeliever, then he has simply disregarded my belief in God — the very thing we disagree about in the first place — in order to refute my knowledge of God. If the critic is a professing believer, then it is even worse, for this betrays the irreverence — even secret atheism — in his thinking. How is it possible that I can put God before the face of a “Christian” again and again, and then he answers me as if God is absent from the conversation, as if I never mentioned him? This is his “secret fudge-factor” — atheism.

He writes, “He can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand.” This might be true in his atheistic analogy, but in my Christian worldview, where there is a God, the Almighty tears open the door — or any other barrier — and imparts to me his knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is God-centered and God-empowered. But just as an atheist often makes the mistake of removing God out of a believer’s worldview when interacting with it, this man-centered critic assumes that his opponent is man-centered as well. Whereas the most crucial factor in my occasionalism is God, in his representation of my view, he puts everything into the analogy except God. He refers to occasionalism as if it is an independent and impersonal thing or a method that is operated by the human person, which is precisely the opposite of what I affirm, although this might be how a self-centered empiricist think about his sensations.

“Cheung is cheating”? But who is really cheating? This person removes God from my epistemology when this is the crucial factor. And in fact, from the metaphysical viewpoint, God is the only necessary factor in my position. This relates to another problem with the analogy that I will not discuss in detail — it represents my entire position in physical terms, even though my occasionalism is such that it can work in a dream, in a purely spiritual world, or in heaven, and the Bible is the physical representation of that portion of God’s mind that he has revealed to us. That is, if you destroy all physical copies of the Bible, you have not destroyed the “word of God” that is in my epistemology. I have said this a number of times in different ways.

If you take out God from my epistemology, then of course it is going to fail. There is no shame in admitting this. In fact, if you remove God, then Christianity itself fails. Yes, if Christianity becomes atheism, that is indeed a problem. But if you remove God by force and rule him out of the conversation, then there is really no point to this debate at all. For me, if God is gone, then all is lost. You might as well take it all, since it will no longer matter to me what epistemology is right or wrong, or which approach to philosophy and apologetics is best. Still less will I care about what this critic has to say.

I have laid out my case for biblical occasionalism in metaphysics and epistemology in several places and in different ways. I have responded to attacks a number of times. But how about my critics? Where is the case for empiricism? If there is no proof for it, then who is riding this out? And now that I have answered this objection, I ask again: If my critics cannot defend empiricism, then how are they able to read the Bible, and how are they able to read my works so as to criticize them?

So you slandered me when you said, “Would you please stop riding this objection out, ignoring it as if it has already been met?” Of course this objection has already been met long before this. Every time I answer a specific objection, it is only an application of the biblical system expounded in my works. It is important for my readers to realize this. I might be more proficient at it, but once you have learned the system, you possess the same equipment as I do to handle any intellectual opposition against it. But you judge my materials by your incompetence. If you are going to let this critic remove God from your thinking, and if you are going to block out all mention of God from my writings — although I refer to his role again and again — then of course you will regard them as “not adequate.” I am happy to confess that my occasionalism is unable to defend atheism.

It is not my fault that you let someone completely remove God from the picture. On the other hand, it is entirely your fault that you did not even notice when God himself was taken away from you. And then you turn around and blame me? And you dare say to me, “I am calling you out to take responsibility”? What kind of person are you? Do not lecture me about my “responsibility” if you claim to be a believer but cannot even remember God while thinking about Christian apologetics.

The same goes with the critic — if you indeed claim to be a Christian but your reflex is to block out God from your mind like this, my occasionalism is the least of your problems. Actually, it is the cure.

 

THE ROAD AHEAD

The good news is, if this is already my “Achilles heel,” then I think I am going to be around for a while and will not “wilt and fade away.” In fact, I wonder if these objections are meant to destroy me by flattery rather than by argument, because if this is my Achilles heel, and if to misrepresent me as an atheist is one of the best objections, then I am pretty much invincible.

The above illustrates why I do not rush to answer every objection against me.

First, it is because there are so many, and they are all so stupid. Sometimes in legal battles, lawyers do not necessarily have to win all the advantages by sound arguments, but they can buy time or neutralize their opponents by filing motion after motion, thus drowning them in paperwork, so that they cannot make any progress. Likewise, the most straightforward tactic against the biblical system is of course to refute it, but since this is impossible, the devil can incite people to raise one stupid objection after another, drowning a ministry in frivolous controversies so that it cannot pursue its mission. We refuse to be so easily deceived. Also, consider that it takes less effort to raise objections (especially stupid ones) than to answer them in a presentable and satisfying manner. I could have answered the above objection just by saying, “What about God?” or “He left God out,” but then some people might not understand why this answers the objection, and many more might fail to perceive the atheistic assumption behind the objection.

Second, time and again, I have demonstrated how outrageously stupid are the objections against our biblical system, and how easily they are answered. There is no weakness at all in the biblical system, and therefore no weakness at all in the approach of apologetics taught by this ministry. The problem is in the anti-biblical mentality that resides in the critics and those who are troubled by them. This time it is implicit atheism. Another objection (and the failure to answer it) will reveal some other spiritual defect. Therefore, by focusing on our teaching mission, this ministry is doing exactly what is needed to cure the root of the problem, instead of just dealing with the symptoms. We proclaim the greatness of God, the coherence of revelation, the depravity of man, the work and wisdom of Christ, and the divine commands for holy living. From this biblical worldview comes a natural and invincible apologetic.

I have spoken harshly to the sender of the message, but I still want this person to do well. I wish him to realize that it is wrong to blame me when the problem lies within himself. Unless he corrects the mentality that is so easily manipulated by the critics, he will soon come across another objection that he cannot answer, and then he will blame me again. I also appeal to the rest of you to gauge yourselves by how much difficulty you had with the above objection. When someone removes God from the conversation, or from a representation of your position, do you even notice? If I speak to you as I would a dog, you might find that obvious. If you are a man and I refer to you as if you were a woman, it is likely you will notice that as well. And if you speak only English but I talk to you in Chinese, you will probably scratch your head and think something is amiss. So how can it completely bypass your attention when someone speaks to you or about you as if you were an atheist? Perhaps these other things are more central to your identity than being a Christian. There is no need to despair, but humble yourself and do not blame other people for your shortcoming. This is the type of problem that any faithful minister must aim to fix, mainly not by giving you a list of answers to stupid objections, but by helping you become a biblical thinker.

As a Christian, you should never make apologetics the main focus of your spiritual life. Divine providence might require some of us to focus on apologetics in our public ministry, although even then I would urge a strong teaching ministry to go along with it. But I am mainly referring to your personal life before God. Apologetics is so easy such that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose. Just look at the foolishness that I must deal with — there is nothing new, nothing clever, and nothing stimulating or challenging. Never confuse debates and controversies with spiritual food. Always define your life and ministry in positive terms that direct you toward right doctrine and right worship. Such a pursuit yields constant reward and never loses its attraction.

As for the critic who raised the objection, he might read this response and attempt another one. I will probably ignore him, or more likely, I will be unaware of his new attack. But this does not mean that I cannot answer him, or that you cannot answer him. The fact that he was unable to even describe my position, but left God completely out of the picture, betrayed his incompetence and irreverence. Whether he is a man of no account or one of reputation makes no difference to me, I implore him to repent of his atheism and embrace the simple reality and power of God. What he has against me is trivial and I harbor no bitterness toward him — he has a much greater problem than I can ever give him or wish upon anyone. And please, do not send me anymore objections from this person or anyone related to him. He is just not good enough. He possesses an altogether lower class of intellect. There is no competition, no comparison — I have no interest in him and no use for him.

Do I sound arrogant to you? That is a very American reaction, but not necessarily a Christian one. You still do not understand, do you? I have confidence in God’s word, and it is because I depend on God’s word that I can never be defeated. Because the wisdom of God is so vastly superior to the wisdom of man, I will always win any debate with almost disheartening ease. It is this confidence that I wish to impart to every Christian. Indeed, humanly speaking, it can be lonely here looking down at the rest from the top of the world — and that is where a person is when he stands upon God’s word. This is a place of separation, but it is also a place of victory and rest, and an end to all struggles. Here is where we can experience constant communion with the mind of Christ. This place belongs to every Christian, will you not join me?