I was curious if anyone is familiar with Vincent Cheung’s writings and philosophy? I tend to agree with a lot of what he says; ...
Hi there, and welcome to Christian Forums. Yes, I am familiar with Vincent Cheung. I had read quite a lot of his material when I was first exposed to presuppositional apologetics (although I no longer remember how I happened upon him). I found myself in agreement with him at first but, as it is written, “The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him” (Prov 18:17).
... [Cheung] seems consistent, biblical, and analytical, all for the most part.
He definitely has an analytical mind—and sharp, too, equaled only by his sharp tongue. And I sure hope he is biblical, given his commitment to scripturalism. However, I’m sorry but he is not consistent. I would recommend to you the critical review of Cheung published by James N. Anderson over 15 years ago (Anderson 2005a). Cheung made a couple of attempts at responding but, in the final analysis, Anderson's critical review has stood firm (Anderson 2005b). And to this day, as far as I know, Cheung has not satisfactorily addressed it. The two most serious criticisms were that Cheung's scripturalism (a) is self-referentially incoherent, and (b) it provides a refutation of Christianity, not a defense of it.
Two questions for those who enjoy reading Cheung.
1. Do you agree with all of his writings?
2. Specifically, do you agree with his view of the Unpardonable Sin?
1. As you may know, presuppositional apologetics is sort of split into two basic camps, those in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til and those in the tradition of Gordon Clark—and Cheung is a kind of Clarkian scripturalist. On that account, his view and mine are not in agreement, for my view is informed by Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, and the like (i.e., Van Tilian, not Clarkian). So, no, I don't agree with his writings. I have benefited from some of it (e.g., his tennis game analogy was quite helpful), but generally I disagree with him (and especially with the hints of narcissism that pervade his work, where he can be found evaluating his own work in very glowing terms).
2. When it comes to the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, Cheung is a continuationist (unlike most Clarkians), whereas I am a cessationist (as is typical in Reformed theology), so I don't agree with his view of the unpardonable sin, either. For Cheung, the unpardonable sin is related to his belief that the spiritual gifts (such as miracles and healings) continued beyond the apostolic age. Cessationists who oppose, criticize, demean, or otherwise persecute the ministry of healing and miracles are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Cheung claimed. If you criticize signs and wonders by calling it demonic, evil, or some such thing, you are speaking against the Holy Spirit and have committed the unpardonable sin. Basically, he was claiming that cessationists like Warfield are eternally lost for having committed the unpardonable sin by claiming that no signs and wonders are of God because such things had a specific purpose, and once that purpose was accomplished divine miracles ceased. It's almost as if Cheung is suggesting that to oppose or criticize his continuationism is to risk committing the unpardonable sin.
I agree with a lot of his writings, but his view of the unpardonable sin freaks me out. I tend to worry that if his view is correct, what if at some point I said something that crossed the line? I have OCD, which does not help with worrying and fears. I love the Lord with all my heart and am very devout, but it’s been hard to have peace of mind lately when thinking about Cheung’s writings on this.
The fact that you worry about it is a fairly strong indication that you haven't committed the unpardonable sin, as is your confession that you dearly love the Lord. Cheung is a strange one, and definitely an outlier. Don't give him too much credit.
