Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Quick Update on the Catholic Answers Forums Thread
06/22/2005 - James WhiteIn reference to the preceding article on the Catholic Answers Forum thread, I note the thread has now been closed by the moderators. But before it was closed a few more comments worth noting appeared.
First, for some reason, a number of folks on the forums have been willing to throw Bill Rutland under the bus, so to speak. One writes,
Funny. I read in the past that White doesn’t believe that K. Keating won’t debate him because he (Keating) says that he is too busy with other aspects of his apostolate. However, he expects everyone to take his word for the reason that he won’t debate Sungenis. He says something like Sungenis is not mainstream enough. Then he (White) debates someone like Rutland. I have asked in this forum who Rutland is and no one can (or hasn’t) told me. He is apparently unknown to most if not all folks here. I never heard of him before But I’m thinking that there aren’t many here who do not know who Sungenis is. Did you see the clips of the White/Rutland debate? Rutland may be a very good Catholic but he is not up to taking on the likes of White. Sungenis is. White is obviously afraid of losing. And he would.Let me say something right up front: I would love to debate Bob Sungenis on Calvinism. I really would. I haven't the first qualm about it, since it has been made painfully obvious, in our past interactions, that such would be a wonderfully clear contrast between a very man-centered religion and the glorious grace of God. In fact, I am almost certain that no one on the CA forums board has ever read this exchange from a while back (note some segments of this exceeded 200k in size!). But once again, the issue is whether by so doing you are assisting the people of God, indulging your own ego, or inadvertently helping to keep another false teacher and his "ministry" afloat. I do not trust Bob Sungenis. His credibility is shot with me, and with anyone else who has followed his tortured path to his present position, and truly, what is accomplished by vindicating Reformed theology against someone who was once with Harold Camping, and once a Presbyterian, and once a member of the International Churches of Christ, and now off on his own in the rad/trad camp somewhere, who may well be who knows where next year? Far better to find a meaningful Roman Catholic apologist who remains in the mainstream to debate the issue, not as a part of the Great Debate Series (there is not a wide enough interest for those on Long Island to invest so heavily upon it), but at a local church (still to be video taped and made available, of course). And in fact, discussions are on-going on that very subject right now. I do find it odd that none of these folks give the first evidence of even being aware of the debates I have done on this subject, nor the books written. Just another example of how these folks come to their conclusions.
There is one other reason to ignore Sungenis' challenges: read his site! The phrase "playground bully" comes to mind. "Debate me or I will call you a chicken and throw a temper tantrum!" Please!
Further, Bill Rutland not only contacted us and sought to be involved, but was recommended by those on the Roman Catholic side on Long Island (you have to have local assistance/cooperation to make these things work). So, to Michael Paul and the others who are insinuating that I went looking for an "easy mark," first, I think you owe Bill Rutland an apology, as well as the Catholics on Long Island, and secondly, we have had a standing invitation to the likes of Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, and Scott Hahn, to join the series on Long Island from its inception. Is Michael Paul suggesting that these men are not as capable as Bob Sungenis?
SemperReformanda posted a portion of the previous blog article on the thread (which is probably what got it shut down, to be honest---it had been running since May 21 with lots of personal attacks against me all that time, but only when I take notice of it and bring it to the attention of others is it shut down) and Lillith from Kentucky replied, "Dang---an open invite!! Call the big guns!!!" There is nothing new about the open invitation. I have challenged many of the brave souls who rant away behind their keyboards to call. Only two have over the past year or so. Many are ready with the insults and misrepresentations, few really believe what they are saying enough to repeat their assertions to my face. But why call in the big guns? The invitation is for those who have decided to air their accusations, insults, and various false statements, in a public forum. If you really believe what you are saying, shouldn't the DL's audience be the people who need to hear it?
Finally, the last person to get a shot in before the door closed on the thread was Jedi Master. He posted a portion from Sungenis' playground bullying article, which included this kind of rhetoric:
What’s the upshod of all this? Nothing more than that James R. White is a Pharisaical hypocrite of the first order. Unfortunately, he has so bamboozled his admirerers that they can’t see through the thick smoke screen in which he has surrounded himself.OK, just a quick note for Mr. Sungenis: if you are going to rip someone's lips off, at least try running your spell checker. It's "upshot" not "upshod," and it is "admirers" not "admirerers." I just love it when someone blows their stack like this and doesn't even bother to check such things. Anyway, Jedi Master then added this odd statement: "White debated Fastigi on Indulgence...and let me tell you...HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND what an indulgence is. Fastigi continuously corrected him on it." Since I read directly from Indulgentiarum Doctrina, I would just love for Jedi Master to inform all of us about how I don't know what an indulgence is by calling the DL tomorrow, 877-753-3341. I think that would be a great call. Let's see if the phone rings. :-)