# A Dialogue where a Theist gives a beat down to an atheist



## ChristianTrader (Sep 13, 2004)

http://www.rmiweb.org/html/sansone-cheung.htm

[i:2494aec7c8]
DEREK SANSONE vs. VINCENT CHEUNG

Or, psycho assertionism vs. biblical rationalism



INTRODUCTION

The following written exchange started when Derek Sansone, an atheist, contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in a formal debate with him. I declined a formal debate, but I gave time to have several email exchanges with him.

In what follows, we covered the details of neither my worldview nor his. In fact, I did not permit him to make any progress throughout. There are many ways to engage an opponent, and many things that you can talk about. Sometimes this depends on what you are trying to do. My aim was to disable him without wasting a lot of my time, and to get rid of him without appearing to be afraid of him. In what follows, I think that I have accomplished this and more. Although I want you to learn from what follows, I do not suggest that you should mechanically imitate my approach toward him. Again, it depends on the situation and what you are trying to do, and also the method, arguments, and attitude of your opponent. Unlike the following brief exchange, when speaking with your friends and relatives, you can and should indeed get into the details of your worldview and theirs over the course of several hours, days, or weeks.

Also, although we did not get into the details of our worldviews, note that in my books I have provided answers to the very questions that I asked him. So it was not as if I used those questions to distract him or to avoid answering anything myself, since I already wrote about these things in detail in my books, as I also reminded him.

I have made some minor changes to the text to make it more readable and coherent, such as correcting typos (both his and mine) and deleting some irrelevant materials (such as personal information, greetings and formalities, etc.). In any case, I have left the substance of the original text completely unchanged. The original text is available upon request.

Sansone seems to like making up words that his opponents do not use and then apply these words to them, such as "presupper" "theo-logic," "theo-metaphysics," "theo meta concepts," and so on. Therefore, it seems fair that I make up only one term that he does not use, but that seems appropriate to his position. That is, I will call his method "psycho assertionism" (or PA), where "psycho" means crazy, and "assertionism" refers to his practice of asserting his views again and again without providing arguments to support them.

-- 
Vincent Cheung
Reformation Ministries International

[/i:2494aec7c8]

As an aside, Mr. Cheung is a presuppositionalist, but is not van tillian or clarkian, but is friendly to both.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 14, 2004)

Paul Manata debated Derek Sansone on Sept 11, I think. Maybe I can find out how it went and let everybody know.


----------



## RickyReformed (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks, Craig! Do you think you could find out if Paul's debate with Sansone was recorded (and if tapes are available for purchase)?

I, for one, would like to know where the seeds of Mr. Sansone's apostasy were sown. Is anyone aware of what his background was theologically? I know he says he was Reformed and a Calvinist, but that's like saying you live in America without saying what region, state, town, etc. your from.

And thanks Christian Trader for providing the link. Derek Sansone sounds like he's an Objectivist. It's nice to see someone take these guys to the intellectual woodshed and give them a good spank!


----------



## RickyReformed (Sep 26, 2004)

Derek Sansone reveals his background in this conversation with Gene Cook Jr.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=690404146

After reading the Sansone vs Cheung dialogue I was under the impression that Sansone had actually formally debated Cook, and maybe even done well (even if in his own opinion.)

Neither was the case. Theologically, Sansone states he was a big fan of Sproul and Packer. I was shocked, since I myself was introduced to Reformed Theology by Sproul. Listening to his "de-conversion" was for me very heart wrenching since I know that I am no better - and do not deserve more grace - than Derek Sansone. In fact I would argue that Sansone "deserved" (if you'll allow me this oxymoron) grace more than myself since by his own testimony he was actually out defending the faith and had a ministry (he gave the website but I don't remember what it was.)

As an aside, Gene Cook also debated (formally in this case) the hyper-preterist H.L. James, who has also debated our very own Paul Manata. It's a small world, eh?

Ricky


----------

