|
Update,
5/31/03:
While traveling in New York I have been informed that CAI and
Robert Sungenis simply must have the last word, which always
includes some kind of allegation that it is everyone else who
just doesn't get it rather than Robert "Alone" Sungenis. Now
Sungenis is accusing me of dishonesty based upon a very brief
private message session with a 14-year old Catholic kid! It
is rather ironic: a young kid, with whom I have talked off and
on in our chat channel for a few months, pops in and asks a
question. I give him a very brief response since I was
in the middle of other projects and I had already
addressed the issue on The Dividing Line. This then
becomes the basis of accusations of dishonesty on Sungenis'
part. Disappearing 23 year old "historical assistants" and 14
year old chat moles....what is next? Perhaps Mr. Sungenis
will begin to promote the idea that the Donation of
Constantine really was genuine, that on the basis of an
epiphany to a 12-year old in AOL Instant Messenger perhaps?
We shall let Mr. Sungenis have the last word, since we can't
possibly imagine how he can self-destruct any more fully than
this, but we are certain he will do his best.
Recently an article
appeared on the main page of Catholic Apologetics
International (CAI), the "apostolate" of Robert Sungenis.
It read:
Challenge to James White to
Debate:
Recently, CAI challenged James
White to a debate on the topic of
Predestination. Unfortunately, Dr. White has
not responded to our invitation. Thus, we make
this public notice. For those in contact with
Dr. White and who would like to see such a
debate take place, please contact us at
cairomeo@aol.com
The "challenge" referenced
was actually contained in an e-mail from Jacob Michael, who is
no longer with CAI. He suggested a three-way debate with
Dave Hunt. Now given that we have not been successful in
getting Mr. Hunt to agree to debate even one-on-one, and may
not be successful in arranging such an encounter, it was
grossly premature to even suggest a three-way debate.
Further, this e-mail arrived during the "MrX" fiasco. I
ignored it, knowing that the near future was going to be
focused upon the false accusations being presented by CAI, not
about any future debates. Sungenis simply replied to
Jacob Michael's e-mail with an acknowledgement. Again,
given how close we were to exposing the falsehoods being
posted by CAI regarding the MrX debacle, I barely gave it a
second thought.
I have often commented that it would be useful, in a
sense, to have such a debate, just to show Arminian
evangelicals that their arguments against the sovereignty of
God's grace are identical to those used by Rome. I have
pointed out the direct parallel to Dave Hunt. Such a
debate would not really be a three-way debate, but two against
one! Be that as it may, I have never been in a position to
speak for Dave Hunt, let alone arrange such a debate.
Our first priority is to arrange the one-on-one debate with
Mr. Hunt relevant to his book, and the upcoming publication
from Multnomah wherein he and I debate Calvinism. It
would be foolish to speak of anything beyond that as far as
debates are concerned.
But beyond all of this the main issue comes down to
credibility. That is something CAI is lacking.
Over the recent months CAI has purposefully removed itself
from the mainstream of Catholic apologetics. Not only
has Sungenis embraced a traditionalistic stance, but his
writings on geocentrism, combined with his comments on Israel
and the Jews, along with the appearance of a litany of
articles criticizing such notables as Scott Hahn, Karl
Keating, Tim Staples, and (irony of ironies), Art Sippo, have
made it clear that CAI is off on its own when it comes to the
apologetic realm. In fact, we have received criticism
for "seeking out" the "fringe element" by debating Sungenis
and Matatics. It should be noted that in reference to
the Salt Lake City debates, we did not seek these men out:
those sponsoring the debates sought out these individuals due
to their former Protestant confessions. We simply agreed
to present the truth in that context. [Further, I did
write to Mr. Matatics in reference to an appearance he made on
the grounds of a liberal Baptist University and challenged him
to return there for a debate so that the students could hear
both sides.] But we are fully aware that neither
Sungenis nor Matatics any longer represent mainstream Roman
Catholic apologetics as both have embraced forms of
traditionalism.
On April 29th, 2003, we aired a Dividing Line webcast
featuring David King, William Webster, and Rich Pierce.
During this program we documented the errors in the
accusations leveled in an article posted on the CAI website.
During that program I made the direct statement that we would
no longer be engaging in debates with Robert Sungenis as a
result not only of the slanderous article posted on the
website, but also due to the previously mentioned
marginalization of Sungenis as a representative of Roman
Catholicism. The combination of these events, along with
the response by Sungenis in e-mails sent to Eric Svendsen,
made it clear that there was no reason to engage in further
debates and, in so doing, help prop up (through the production
of new materials) an "apostolate" that was dwindling very
quickly. Despite the "apology" that was posted, we have
seen no reason to change that course.
Update: 5/24/03
We can only assume Mr.
Sungenis does not have time to look over the above article,
for on his website he has posted a "response" that does not
cite this article, but seemingly is based upon someone's
second-hand accounting of comments made on The Dividing
Line. As a result, Sungenis' rather rambling
response completely misses the point made above: that his
marginalization of himself was capped off by his behavior in
the "MrX" debacle. This fact does not appear in his
reply, rendering it rather useless. He goes on and on
about points that are utterly irrelevant. He would know
this if he would check his sources rather than depend on what
he "hears through the grapevine." He writes in his
article:
In the end, however, James
White is fooling only those who want to be
fooled. As it stands, the challenge to debate him on his views
of Predestination will remain open. We hope that White will be
honest and courageous enough to accept the invitation and
cease giving false excuses.
Well, perhaps Mr. Sungenis
should again check his facts. This article was linked
from our main page. He could have accessed it if he was
interested in accuracy. Recent events have demonstrated
a deep problem with the accuracy of Mr. Sungenis' statements
and research, and here is just another example. He also
said in his article, "The proof is in the putting." Yes,
well, I admit I'm not much of a golfer. Oh, you meant
"pudding" Mr. Sungenis? Indeed it is. As my article
notes, I would welcome a debate on the subject from a Roman
Catholic apologist who has not marginalized himself and
destroyed his credibility with such actions as the MrX debacle
and now this second-hand knee-jerk reaction. Such would
be most useful in demonstrating the compelling biblical truth
of God-honoring monergism. Perhaps Mr. Sungenis will go
back and listen to the Dividing Line where I made my
announcement concerning him, as noted above? Probably
not. Who has time to invest in that kind of research
when you are so busy perfecting your putting?
|
