|
Dr. Art Sippo has chosen to misrepresent the issues yet once again in trying to explain why he refuses to debate me after having harangued me on the subject for more than a decade. It is very difficult for those unfamiliar with Sippo's consistent forms of behavior to just "jump into" the topic in a meaningful fashion, especially since most folks are not accustomed to the kind of consistency mean-spirited, "in your face" style of "apologetics" Sippo is famous for. His favorite terms seem to be "coward," or "bigot" or "fake" etc., and yours truly is his favorite target, and has been for a good bit more than a decade. He has even insulted my parents (it has never crossed my mind to even think about Sippo's parents--I can't possibly understand the mindset of anyone who would engage in that kind of behavior). I include in my e-mails to Dr. Sippo numerous citations of his own words--not once does he even acknowledge them, let alone explain why, once I answered to his challenge, he adopted a completely different attitude and mindset. A person who has been shooting at you for years, and then all of a sudden tries to put on a face of sweetness and light, is simply playing games (and I told him that right up front). Sippo never explained the massive contradiction in his own words.
Over the months prior to this exchange I had noted many of Sippo's personal attacks, and had in fact taken the time to review, and refute, one of Sippo's articles on Romans 9. In all of this Sippo refuses to engage any subject directly; he simply continued his personal attacks without bothering with documentation or even considering the need to be truthful. Here is an example of his rhetoric immediately prior to the debate issue, from August 7, 2005 (please note: Dr. Sippo does not believe it necessary to proof read his writings. They are filled with typographical errors, all in the original):
I have an even better idea. I think that the cowardly Mr. White -- phony degrees and all -- should post his objections on this board if he dares. It seems that he has all kinds of time to read this material and attack it in his own controlled venue -- pace his excuse that he is too busy to take notice of it -- but no guts to come outside and play with the big boys.
I would no more recommend Mr. White;'s trashy writings to an honest inquirer into the Catholic faith than I would recommend Mein Kampf to someone who wanted to learn the history of Judaism or Elmer Gantry to someone who wanted to learn about American Protestantism.
Ignorance may be bliss but wilfull misrepresentation is virtually orgasmic. White does not over document. He cobbles together misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works and pawns them off as Magisterial statements. He also is incapable of distinguishing the devotional from the doctrinal and what is permissible from what is defined Chruch teaching. And his presupposition is always that his wown interpretation and beliefs are normative while those of the Catholic Church are questionable.
Patrick, believe whatever you want. You have free will. If you hate the Catholic Church and us who are members of it, then you have chosen to do so for your own reasons. But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.
Regardless, I have made extensive BIBLICAL defenses for basic Cathoilc position to which neither you or Mr. White have dared to respond. If you guys really want a discussion, we can have it here in this forum one topic at a time. I'm still here.
At this point I was quite simply fed up. So, I contacted Pastor Van Lees. I was already scheduled to speak in St. Louis at Covenant of Grace Church on the topic of New Perspectivism. Sippo had, repeatedly, indicated my utter ignorance of the topic, and how it was so supportive of his own views. So, since Sippo lives in the St. Louis area, it seemed appropriate to add a debate on a related topic to the conference. So, I posted the following on my blog and sent it to Dr. Sippo in e-mail:
OK, Sippo, Let's Debate
Ignorance may be bliss but wilfull [sic] misrepresentation is virtually orgasmic. White does not over document. He cobbles together misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works and pawns them off as Magisterial statements. He also is incapable of distinguishing the devotional from the doctrinal and what is permissible from what is defined Chruch [sic] teaching. And his presupposition is always that his wown [sic] interpretation and beliefs are normative while those of the Catholic Church are questionable.
Patrick, believe whatever you want. You have free will. If you hate the Catholic Church and us who are members of it, then you have chosen to do so for your own reasons. But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly [sic] to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me. Let's ponder another example of Art Sippo's world. If my works are filled with "misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works" that I then pawn off as "Magisterial statements" it would be real easy to prove this, yes? Will Sippo do so? Of course not! He can't. And if someone had the guts to challenge him to provide a single example, he'd simply bluster about their being hate filled prots and move on from there.
Now, let's remember the truth here: Sippo will not debate me on the Papacy. Sippo will not debate me on purgatory. Sippo will not debate me on the Mass. Sippo will not debate me on the Marian dogmas. Sippo will not debate me on anything but one topic: he wants to reprise his outrageous behavior in Toledo Ohio on the subject of justification. He will not debate in writing, either. He is dodging challenge after challenge, but, in his little kingdom, his servants are not informed of this reality.
So, I confess, I have tired of this man's constant outrageous behavior and the utter hypocrisy of his compatriots in allowing him a platform for it. So, since Art Sippo thinks the New Perspective on Paul is his "ace," and suffers under the delusion that NPism aids him in his position, how about this: I am already scheduled to present a seminar on New Perspectivism in St. Louis (Sippo lives in the area) the first weekend in December. I have already contacted the church where I will be speaking and they are willing to assist in this endeavor. I challenge Art Sippo, M.D., to debate the following proposition at the Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles on December 1:
"Resolved: We are initially justified before God by baptism, our justification is increased by doing good works; and subsequently, should the grace of justification be lost, we are again justified through the sacrament of penance."
This is the very position of Roman theology, enshrined in her dogmatic teachings. So, Dr. Sippo, I'm coming to your area, to your own back yard. You don't have to travel. You don't have to pack a single bag. You will not debate me on every single one of the topics your compatriots have been willing to tackle: here is your one subject, justification, and I will even allow you the positive position and the first word. How about it, Dr. Sippo? I await your response.
Sippo replied August 8th:
Dear James,
Good to hear from you again. So you do not have a new degree from Fuller. It was that correspondence course. Sorry, Jim. It doesn't count. Oh well.
I am glad we are talking turkey now. Let us try and work this out this debate thing.
Your proposed topic is too complex. We need to keep the topic tight and focused.
We also need a better venue. No prot Churches. A neutral location.
And let's get a real moderator who will moderate and not take sides.. Some one who does forensic debating.
Let me think about the topic. I will also propose a format.
Later.
Art
===
At this point he is still in his Envoy persona ("No prot Churches" etc.). I immediately noted the irony: he would rather debate the wide, wide, wide topic, "The Council of Trent's view of justification is biblical" rather than the far more focused thesis I had proposed, but says that is more "focused." Now previous to this I had likewise asked him when Fuller Seminary (from which I graduated in 1989) had lost its accreditation. Despite having lied about me for years, it became quite evident that he had never even bothered to check for himself. Hence his snide response regarding Fuller above. I replied:
Dear James,
Good to hear from you again. So you do not have a new degree from Fuller. It was that correspondence course. Sorry, Jim. It doesn't count. Oh well.
You are simply incorrigible and beneath rational dialogue. I have a Master's Degree from Fuller Theological Seminary from 1989. Contact Fuller yourself (as if you would even bother). What part of that is beyond your tortured reasoning? Are you so utterly entrenched in your lies you cannot admit to it? Unbelievable! If you continue to say otherwise you are simply a slandering liar, nothing more.
Next, I have NO correspondence degrees! Distance learning with Columbia is not correspondence--if you had a CLUE about how education is done in Europe you would understand a mentoring relationship in doing serious scholarship. Good grief, are you utterly beyond all rational reasoning?
I am glad we are talking turkey now. Let us try and work this out this debate thing.
Your proposed topic is too complex. We need to keep the topic tight and focused.
Yes, you must always be in control, and, you will find any and all ways out of a debate. Quite obvious.
We also need a better venue. No prot Churches. A neutral location.
If you wish to pay for a neutral location out of your own pocket, fine. If not, then you are dodging again. I have debated in Catholic churches and Catholic venues. If you refuse, you are ducking the debate. Just that simple.
And let's get a real moderator who will moderate and not take sides.. Some one who does forensic debating.
Yes, you need to have someone to control you. If you leave the stage while I am speaking, you are disqualified. Period.
Let me think about the topic. I will also propose a format.
I'm sure you will. Unlike your far braver counterparts who are serious apologists, you cannot possibly undertake a debate challenge without modifying it to fit your particular needs. You wrote:
"The Catholic Doctrine of Justification as taught by the Council of Trent is Biblical." I would take the affrimative [sic] and open the debate. You would take the negative and get to speak last.
There is your debate topic. I am sure, as I said before, you know better than to engage in real cross examination with me. You know you cannot survive it. Set up meaningful time frames. I'm sure Pastor Lees can recommend someone from a local university to moderate and to enforce the rules of decorum that, given the presence of video cameras, you may just find the ability, this time, to observe.
James>>>
===
Dear James,
I am happy that you are satisfied with your educational credentials. There is no doubt that you are well read and a formidable debate opponent on theological topics. I am humbled that you would single me out as a possible debate opponent.
You have also been very gracious in selecting a venue near my home. I am surprised that you gave in so easily on the topic. I thought we would have to negotiate about it. But I could not ask for more than that your accepting the topic I originally proposed. Thank you.
Since you have been so accommodating it would be ungracious of me not to at least consider the venue you have proposed. Please give me the name of the Pastor and I will speak to him and visit his facility. If it seems acceptable, then it will be fine.
Did you have any ideas for a moderator? As I noted I would like someone fair to both of us. One of the problems at your debate with Bill Rutland was that crowd control was very poor. We must remember that we will be discussing the Gospel itself and it is important that "all things be done to edification" (1Cor 14:26). We need someone who can control us and the crowd. We can discuss this further.
As to the format, I suggest the following:
Since I will take the affirmative, I will go first.
Opening statement: 20 min each
First rebuttal: 10 minutes each
Second rebuttal 5 minutes each
Break 20 minutes
Cross examination: Three questions each. You may ask the first question.
Asking the question - 1 minute
Answering - 5 minutes
Rebuttal - 2 minutes
Counter - 1 minute
Summation: 10 minutes each. I go first, you go last.
Will this be acceptable?
Do you have any objection to using some PowerPoint slides? In the military we do all our presentations with PowerPoint.
Once we have agreed on format, venue, moderator, topic, etc. I recommend that we put this in writing and both sign it and each keep a copy. I am not asking for a legally binding document but a morally binding one. We should include pledges that there will be no ad hominem attacks or gratuitous personal comments nor should we bring up any old conflicts we have had in the past. Let's start with a clean slate. We should also agree that we will stick to the topic and not import in other topics that will distract from the matter under discussion.
For purposes of the debate, I intend to address you as James, Reverend White, or Doctor White. You may refer to me as Art or Doctor Sippo. It is my preference that we address each other by our first names. We have known each other too long to be formal and frankly, I think it will make for a better atmosphere during the debate. It is my hope that our debate will generate more light than heat. I will be interested in your mature reflections on how caths and prots differ in our understanding of being righteous before God.
We should also have a separate statement of rights to orignal audio and visual masters with full rights of distribution and sale for both of us. This latter document should be in the form of a legal contract to protect us both and be contingent on the debate taking place as planned.
Also, I think we will need to talk on the phone periodically to make sure that everything is on track. My home phone number is xxx-xxx-xxxx. Please provide yours to me.
My mailing address is:
Arthur Sippo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If we do agree to do this, I would not be averse to calling in to your radio show to help promote the debate. I would expect that we will BOTH be on our best behavior and discussion of various issues would remain possible.
Thank you for your offer and the opportunity to give public witness to my Catholic faith. I look forward to hearing from you.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
===
I have, of course, removed Dr. Sippo's phone number and address from the citation above, for hopefully obvious reasons. Now, when someone who a few days earlier, consistently with his behavior for over a decade, had been boasting about crushing you in debate and calling you a coward, etc., all of a sudden goes into "sweetness and light mode," you had better be suspicious. There was a day when I would have fallen for such a ploy: Sippo's own behavior in 1991 (and since then) had helped to remove my naivete, to be sure. I found the sudden change (as it was not accompanied by his dealing with his own words and statements) not only utterly disingenuous, but downright offensive. It did not bode well. I replied:
I am happy that you are satisfied with your educational credentials. There is no doubt that you are well read and a formidable debate opponent on theological topics. I am humbled that you would single me out as a possible debate opponent.
Dr. Sippo, please stop playing games. We both know how you feel about me, and what you have said about me. Within seventy two hours you were calling me a coward. I keep documentation. This "I shall now adopt a completely different persona from the man who insulted your parents" game is petty and childish. It reminds me a good deal of Hannibal Lector playing mind games. Just drop it.
You have also been very gracious in selecting a venue near my home. I am surprised that you gave in so easily on the topic. I thought we would have to negotiate about it. But I could not ask for more than that your accepting the topic I originally proposed. Thank you.
I am writing a blog article as we speak on the subject, and how adopting a wide, unfocused topic, at your demand, fits in with your program.
Since you have been so accommodating it would be ungracious of me not to at least consider the venue you have proposed. Please give me the name of the Pastor and I will speak to him and visit his facility. If it seems acceptable, then it will be fine.
Pastor Van Lees, ******@aol.com.
Did you have any ideas for a moderator? As I noted I would like someone fair to both of us. One of the problems at your debate with Bill Rutland was that crowd control was very poor. We must remember that we will be discussing the Gospel itself and it is important that "all things be done to edification" (1Cor 14:26). We need someone who can control us and the crowd. We can discuss this further.
Like Patrick Madrid did? I see. As I said, I'm sure Pastor Lees will have some recommendations.
As to the format, I suggest the following:
Since I will take the affirmative, I will go first.
Opening statement: 20 min each
First rebuttal: 10 minutes each
Second rebuttal 5 minutes each
Break 20 minutes
Cross examination: Three questions each. You may ask the first question.
Asking the question - 1 minute
Answering - 5 minutes
Rebuttal - 2 minutes
Counter - 1 minute
Summation: 10 minutes each. I go first, you go last.
Will this be acceptable? If you insist upon dodging meaningful cross-examination, I cannot stop you. The format you have chosen allows for complete avoidance of pointed textual questions ("explain the consistency of the form of this verb in light of Trent's statement that..." or "explain how Sanders' statement concerning this statement found in Kiddushin 1.10a is at all consistent with Paul's definition of ca,rij here" etc. and etc.). Since 1996 *in every single debate I have done* we have had meaningful cross-examination---this includes debates with Father Mitchell Pacwa, Father Peter Stravinskas, Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Patrick Madrid, Gary Michuta and Bill Rutland---ALL to a man had the intestinal fortitude and courage to engage the subject in a meaningful fashion. If you wish to openly say "I am unable to do what all my compatriots have done, and insist that give and take questioning is less helpful to the audience and less helpful to the debate itself," fine, I will make note of that, publicly, and we will go with the obviously less rigorous, "I can't handle the depth of information required to do that kind of thing" format you request. However, the time frames are absurdly long. Five minutes? Never heard of such a thing. 45 seconds to frame, 3 minutes/2 min redirect/ 1 minute reply is the longest that could possibly be useful in any fashion.
Do you have any objection to using some PowerPoint slides? In the military we do all our presentations with PowerPoint. An unusual request again (no Roman Catholic apologist has, to my recollection, asked for PowerPoint usage) but I utilize the medium quite often and would be happy to adapt my presentation thereto.
Once we have agreed on format, venue, moderator, topic, etc. I recommend that we put this in writing and both sign it and each keep a copy. I am not asking for a legally binding document but a morally binding one.
Actually, a legally binding contract will be sent to you regarding the video taping of the debate. We had attorneys draw it up in the aftermath of the Barry Lynn situation where he sought to suppress the distribution of the video tape of our debate on homosexuality. Every Roman Catholic opponent since then has had no problems signing it, and all have received their video tapes as per the agreement.
We should include pledges that there will be no ad hominem attacks or gratuitous personal comments nor should we bring up any old conflicts we have had in the past. Let's start with a clean slate. We should also agree that we will stick to the topic and not import in other topics that will distract from the matter under discussion.
If by that you agree to stay on the stage during the debate itself, stick to the subject, and abandon the vast majority of your written verbiage over the past almost fifteen years, that is fine with me. I have done more than four dozen debates since we last met: no one has the slightest ground for suggesting I will not engage in a proper debate.
For purposes of the debate, I intend to address you as James, Reverend White, or Doctor White. You may refer to me as Art or Doctor Sippo. It is my preference that we address each other by our first names. We have known each other too long to be formal and frankly, I think it will make for a better atmosphere during the debate.
I will refer to you as Dr. Sippo. We do not know each other. You are not my friend, I am not yours. You have slandered me personally for years, insulted me in every possible fashion, and have done so recently in reference to my parents, without the slightest hint of remorse. I have documented your outrageous behavior. Your sudden change of demeanor means nothing to me, and as I said above, it is but a game without a heart felt repentance for the behavior that has marked you for over a decade.
It is my hope that our debate will generate more light than heat. I will be interested in your mature reflections on how caths and prots differ in our understanding of being righteous before God.
But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly [sic] to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.
So, which Art Sippo do I believe, anyway? As I requested, quit playing games.
We should also have a separate statement of rights to orignal audio and visual masters with full rights of distribution and sale for both of us. This latter document should be in the form of a legal contract to protect us both and be contingent on the debate taking place as planned.
Already noted above.
Also, I think we will need to talk on the phone periodically to make sure that everything is on track. My home phone number is ***-***-****. Please provide yours to me.
···I'm sorry, sir, I do not trust you. The ministry number is 602-973-4602. You may speak to Mr. Pierce.
Arthur Sippo
************
******************
Ours is on our website.
If we do agree to do this, I would not be averse to calling in to your radio show to help promote the debate. I would expect that we will BOTH be on our best behavior and discussion of various issues would remain possible.
When I see apologies on the Envoy board and your behavior change there, I will believe you. I haven't a single reason to believe you at the moment.
Thank you for your offer and the opportunity to give public witness to my Catholic faith. I look forward to hearing from you.
You publicly witness for your Catholic faith by using insult, lies, and slander, on a daily basis. I've already had one apologist contact me and ask me not to give you the time of day in public because you are an embarrassment to him and to his cause. While I sympathize with him, since he has not bothered to publicly rebuke you and stand against your tactics and behavior, I can hardly invest his request with much weight.
James>>>
===
I should note this particular RC apologist (to whom I referred immediately above) did, a few days later, post a brief note on the Envoy forums telling Sippo his behavior hurts the Roman Catholic cause. Cudos to him for that. Sippo replied:
[I'm sorry, sir, I do not trust you. The ministry number is 602-973-4602. You may speak to Mr. Pierce.]
No. Either you and I talk directly or the deal is off. If you cannot control yourself enough to be civil on the phone with me, then I do not trust YOU. Unless this is all done in mutual respect I will not do it at all. I have been extending every courtesy towards you in light of your generous offer to debate. But I will point to your hateful behavior and lack of charity as the reason for not debating you.
One thing I would caution you about James. You pay lip service to Christianity, but when push comes to shove you do not even give the veneer of Christian discipleship. My Lord and Savior said that the world would know that we are his disciples by the love we have for one another. You have been guilty of lies, personal attacks, and insults directed towards me for many years but I am trying to rise above that. You need to learn to turn the other cheek.
There is only one person's conduct you need to worry about. That is your own.
Unless you have a change of heart, then I will not assuage your ego by submitting to your requests. Until you and I can talk civilly to each other directly, we will have nothing further to discuss.
I await YOUR phone call.
Art
===
At 01:31 PM 8/9/2005, you wrote:
[I'm sorry, sir, I do not trust you. The ministry number is 602-973-4602. You may speak to Mr. Pierce.]
No. Either you and I talk directly or the deal is off. If you cannot control yourself enough to be civil on the phone with me, then I do not trust YOU. Unless this is all done in mutual respect I will not do it at all. I have been extending every courtesy towards you in light of your generous offer to debate. But I will point to your hateful behavior and lack of charity as the reason for not debating you.
Point to what you wish. I know you are desperately looking for a way out, but you are the one who has been calling me a coward for ages, you are the one with enough documentation of your hate-filled screeds to fill volumes, and I will be glad to document entirely your behavior. Mr. Pierce arranges details. If you will not speak to him, you are making up an outrageous excuse to duck this debate, since I did not speak with Bill Rutland prior to our debate, and in fact, it is extremely unusual that I would speak with any opponent prior to doing so. Everything should be done in writing---which was how I was able to document your slanderous lies about the Rutland situation, for example. And I can guarantee you every single word you are currently writing is being saved as well.
···And if charity is the standard of debate, you would never qualify, Dr. Sippo. I repeat your own words to you:
But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly [sic] to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.
Those are your words, Dr. Sippo, not mine. Live with them.
One thing I would caution you about James. You pay lip service to Christianity, but when push comes to shove you do not even give the veneer of Christian discipleship. My Lord and Savior said that the world would know that we are his disciples by the love we have for one another. You have been guilty of lies, personal attacks, and insults directed towards me for many years but I am trying to rise above that. You need to learn to turn the other cheek.
No sir, you are the one who lies and attacks: I have documented your lies, you cannot do the same in reverse. That is another fact that you seemingly cannot handle. One of us has the truth, one has nothing but his bluster and cavils.
There is only one person's conduct you need to worry about. That is your own. Since I have documented your behavior in our debate, and my behavior in more than fifty moderated public debates is a matter of public record, your level of self-deception is incredible indeed.
Unless you have a change of heart, then I will not assuage your ego by submitting to your requests. Until you and I can talk civilly to each other directly, we will have nothing further to discuss.
···I await YOUR phone call.
I shall take this as your means of declining the debate challenge. I knew you would, I just expected you to do it in another fashion. The debate challenge stands. You have now declined to debate every single issue that has been raised to you. The character of your constant slanderous lies has been fully documented.
I repeat: we can either take care of arrangements in writing so that there is no charge of "he said/no he said" or you can use this as your way out. You can insist I am a mean, nasty person, and your small cadre of followers will surely believe you, but the documentation of your own words, the literally hundreds of pages of insulting, degrading, slanderous, and simply false statements you have made on websites and web boards, stands as irrefutable evidence of your behavior. I remind you again of your own words:
"Guys, I have first hand knowledge of James White, his tactics, his family and the way he acts. He is not a serious scholar. He is a bigot. He was raised that way by his father and mother who are vicious anti-Catholics."
That is the Art Sippo everyone knows. The man willing to insult someone else's parents. The man who is so self-deluded he doesn't even care to check the accuracy of his slanders of others. And I will not give my personal number to someone who speaks like that, and has done so for over a decade, and no semi-rationally minded person on the planet is going to blame me for not wanting to. You have the ministry number. You have access to the president of the ministry: the one who arranges debates, arranges the video taping, the entire nine yards. This excuse is so ridiculous even some of your own followers might find it silly, who knows? But if you want to say "I refuse to debate unless James White gives me his personal number and we can chat" then you go for it. Otherwise, stop the games and get back to the real issues.
James>>>
===
Dear James,
Sadly, you still do not understand what Christianity is all about. You can have all the degrees in the world, but if yo have no love, you are nothing.
I am not backing out, James. I am insisting on civil conduct and mutual respect. If you are going to continue to act as you are, then I will let your conduct speak for itself. If I had talked to you the way you talked to me in these correspondence, you would have had every right to tell me to get lost. Instead I feel sorry for you and I will pray for you. You have so much hatred that you need to let go for your own sake. If you do not, James, it will destroy you.
I will not be a party to a sub-Christian "grudge-match" between us. It will serve neither our own spiritual needs nor those of the Gospel. But I will feel free to continue to comment on the deficiencies in your gratuitous attacks on the Catholic faith in other venues.
If you choose to accuse me of cowardice for not debating you, then I will release all of our correspondence on this matter on the Catholic-Legate board and I will ask people to judge for themselves which of us acted as the gentleman. I will have to do this in defense of my good name. Let us just admit that we could not agree on the particulars and that the debate will not now occur.
By the way, I looked up your claims about Fuller Seminary. It appears that indeed you did earn an accredited Master's Degree. It was your ThD that was unaccredited. I apologize for the mistake which I have inadvertently repeated several times. I let my personal dislike get the better of my judgement. I should have checked the facts first. I beg your forgiveness and I will make it clear in public that I was in error on this matter.
Art
===
Sadly, you still do not understand what Christianity is all about. You can have all the degrees in the world, but if yo have no love, you are nothing.
Dr. Sippo, do you apologize for these statements?
But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly [sic] to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.
"Guys, I have first hand knowledge of James White, his tactics, his family and the way he acts. He is not a serious scholar. He is a bigot. He was raised that way by his father and mother who are vicious anti-Catholics."
If you do, we can continue.
Secondly, Richard Pierce, the president of A&O, is being cc'd on this response. He is most interested to note that you would insist that I handle this debate in a completely different fashion than all our others, thus violating corporate policies established after the Barry Lynn fiasco/lawsuit. He would like to talk to you about that.
Dr. Sippo, I repeat what I have said before: you have spewed nothing but hate and venom at me for years. On an almost daily basis I read words of denigration, hatred, and dishonesty, coming from your keyboard. To turn around and expect me to ignore those things without any show of repentance on your part is ridiculous. If you are serious, then you will respond to the above, and we can proceed. If not, then it ends here.
James>>>
===
James, is there anything you would like to apologize to me about? Right now that is the issue between us.
I have not asked you to do anything that violates "corporate policy." We were discussing terms and I made some proposals. You were free to give counter proposals.
In any case, I am not finding this proposal of yours to be a godly one. I have been trying to mend fences and act like a civilized person. Never once in these correspondence have I acted in an inappropriate fashion towards you. It is you who have tried to make this into a personal vendetta. I am trying to bear witness to my faith. I take that seriously and I will not be party to a program that does not reflect Christian values.
I am sorry if you have been offended by my remarks that were made in other venues, but nothing I said there was false. You are a professional anti-Catholic. That is how you make your living. Your parents raised you in a religion that looked down on Catholics and openly villified them. You have said and continue to say many things about Catholicism that are not true and you refuse to accept fraternal correction when it is given. I have found many of your comments on my religion to be hateful and insulting. You are not well thought of by Catholic apologists for several reasons. Most of that has to do with the condescending way you treat people and try to use them for your own ends with no regrad for their human dignity. I cannot think of one apologist that respects you and I know several who are seriously concerned about your spiritual and mental health.
These people may be too 'polite' to tell you these things to your face. I am a physician. It is my job to be blunt when the welfare of my patients is at stake. I tell it like it is. Sometimes I may be too blunt and for that I apologize. But sometimes there are things that people need to hear.
When people ask me to evaluate your work, I have to tell them the truth. I do not find your criticisms of Catholicism credible and I do not agree with your scholarly presuppositions. You assume Luther and Calvin to be correct in tehir theolgoical anti-semitism. I assume that Jesus and St. Paul must seen in their sitz im leben as practicing Jews. This is the real crux of the debate over the New Perspective in St. Paul.
···In any case James, if we cannot do this with mutual respect for each other, we ought not to do it at all. I would not be right. I have prayed about it and I will not debate with anyone who is only doing so because he hates me and not becasue he wants to advance the truth of Christ. Sorry.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
===
James, is there anything you would like to apologize to me about? Right now that is the issue between us.
No sir, there isn't. I have not insulted your parents. I have not lied about your education. Do you just skip the quotations of your own insults, I wonder? I do not see you even beginning to deal with them. Or maybe you cannot see your own insults? Or do you live by a different standard than all the rest of us?
I have not asked you to do anything that violates "corporate policy." We were discussing terms and I made some proposals. You were free to give counter proposals.
Excuse me, but have you already forgotten what you wrote? You said I would give you my personal numbers or you would not debate. How is that saying I am "free to give counter proposals"? You words again, sir:
No. Either you and I talk directly or the deal is off. If you cannot control yourself enough to be civil on the phone with me, then I do not trust YOU.
You did write this, yes? You rejected talking to the man who arranges these things. You rejected following the same path *every single other debater I have engaged* has followed. You make unique demands and you did not offer me the "freedom" of another option.
In any case, I am not finding this proposal of yours to be a godly one. I have been trying to mend fences and act like a civilized person.
Excuse me? Mend fences? You have done nothing but ignore your own words and, aside from admitting a documented fact that has been documented and known since 1989, have not repented of your slanders, lies, and general slanders in the slightest, and you say this is fence mending? You cannot possibly be serious! You demand contact with a man you have insulted and degraded for years without apology, insulted his parents without remorse, and only a few days ago called a coward, again without apology, and expect me to hand you my cell phone number so we can "chat"? Again, you cannot possibly be serious! I once again remind you of your own statements:
In a state of fear and panic James White has begged me not to debate him on justification! He grovels asking that I pick any other topic but not THAT!
My areas of special interest is St. Paul and Justification. I know that area inside out.
It is also the only thing that matters in a cath/prot debate. As Martin Luther stated the heresy of "justification by faith alone" (JBFA)is the doctrine upon which the Deformation stands or falls. If it can be shown that the prot doctrine of JBFA is false, then the whole prot system collapses and Catholicism remains standing triumphant. Purgatory is trivial by comparison and is indeed a derivative topic from Justifcation.
This is a grudge match, James. We debated this topic before and you lost. You have written several books dealing with Justification. Why are you afraid to revisit the topic now? You should be able to do this one in your sleep.
Puragatory is out. Our respective fans what to hear us do justification. We should give them what they want.
It's time to put-up-or-shut-up.
Did you write these words, Dr. Sippo?
Never once in these correspondence have I acted in an inappropriate fashion towards you.
Of course not: this correspondence has lasted two days. Your diatribes against me have lasted fourteen years. You have not once even referred to or re-cited ANY of the citations of your own words from Envoy that I have cited, and I am beginning to see why. You are preparing to explain your declining this debate challenge as well, and you figure if all you post is this correspondence, maybe even just your OWN e-mails, you can create an illusion (and an illusion it would be) that I was treating you unfairly while you were the cherub-like innocent, all the while hoping folks will not realize, a few years down the road, what you had actually been doing immediately prior to my challenge. I am again forced beyond words at these ploys.
It is you who have tried to make this into a personal vendetta.
And once again I provide counter-documentation from YOU:
This is a grudge match, James. We debated this topic before and you lost. You have written several books dealing with Justification. Why are you afraid to revisit the topic now?
Your words betray you, Dr. Sippo. Sorry, so far, you have only one reason for avoiding this: you and I both know what it is, too.
I am trying to bear witness to my faith. I take that seriously and I will not be party to a program that does not reflect Christian values.
Like all your citations above "reflect Christian values" Dr. Sippo? Insulting my parents is a Christian value, but refusing to give you my cell phone number isn't? Calling me a coward reflects Christian values while challenging you to at least step up to the bar set by your fellow apologists does not? A fascinating view of Christian values to be sure.
I am sorry if you have been offended by my remarks that were made in other venues, but nothing I said there was false. You are a professional anti-Catholic. That is how you make your living. Your parents raised you in a religion that looked down on Catholics and openly villified them. You have said and continue to say many things about Catholicism that are not true and you refuse to accept fraternal correction when it is given.
And you, sir, are a deeply deluded false teacher who is so enslaved to false religion you cannot possibly see how utterly circular your statements are. You are an anti-Protestant for you cannot possibly begin to even *listen* to what non-Catholics are saying. You care nothing about doing original research, about letting us define our own positions. Hence your constant straw-men and simply laughable argumentation. And when you are refuted, you do not even listen to the refutations! I can respect certain Roman Catholic apologists (like Mitch Pacwa). I can listen to them, interact with them, and our debates have always been very fruitful, properly done, and without rancor. This is simply beyond your capacity, Dr. Sippo, and that is why you are an anti-Protestant.
Fraternal correction? How can you call your harangues "fraternal correction"? You abuse the language!
I am sure you believe anything my sister says. But I will not expose my family to your abuse by even deeming your ignorance with further response. Suffice it to say that the fact that Rome's apologists have to attack my aged parents on the words of a disaffected apostate says far more about the bankruptcy of Rome than it does anything else.
I have found many of your comments on my religion to be hateful and insulting.
Such as? You are long on accusations, tremendously short on providing examples. I have documented your behavior, all you can do is throw about wild accusations in response. This has been established beyond all reasonable debate.
You are not well thought of by Catholic apologists for several reasons. Most of that has to do with the condescending way you treat people and try to use them for your own ends with no regrad for their human dignity. I cannot think of one apologist that respects you and I know several who are seriously concerned about your spiritual and mental health.
Self-referential statements, Dr. Sippo. You know how you behave regularly. You know I have the facts on my side. You know I can document everything I have said about you. You know I have called you out, and you know you are running away because, in the final analysis, you know you have been living on your own self-proclaimed glory from 1991 when there was no reason for it. If you truly thought the issue was a matter of eternal truth, you would not care one iota whether you talked to the head of my ministry or directly to me; you would not care if you have my private cell phone number or not. You would not care about the venue. You would answer the challenge. You are refusing to do so and constructing the most shallow, simply laughable excuses to do so. Face it, Dr. Sippo: you call me a fraud. You, sir, have been exposed for pawning on your followers the real fraud---that you are the great defender of the faith, when you are what you are: a medical doctor who dabbles in religion but who, for whatever reason, desperately wants to be known as the great defender of Rome.
These people may be too 'polite' to tell you these things to your face. I am a physician. It is my job to be blunt when the welfare of my patients is at stake. I tell it like it is. Sometimes I may be too blunt and for that I apologize. But sometimes there are things that people need to hear.
Physician, heal thyself.
When people ask me to evaluate your work, I have to tell them the truth. I do not find your criticisms of Catholicism credible and I do not agree with your scholarly presuppositions. You assume Luther and Calvin to be correct in tehir theolgoical anti-semitism. I assume that Jesus and St. Paul must seen in their sitz im leben as practicing Jews. This is the real crux of the debate over the New Perspective in St. Paul.
You haven't a clue what I believe, Dr. Sippo, face it. You do not know enough about Reformed theology to even begin to represent it correctly. I demonstrated this in my responses to your Romans 9 comments, and you have failed to even begin to provide a response, and you know it. You have not read Waters, or Carson or anyone else, in response to NPism. You can no more evaluate Sanders' use of the Mishnah than I can diagnose cartilage damage in a knee. You are out of your field, and your evaluations of my work, such as your recently refuted and absurd comments on my work on Mary, only demonstrate it to any and all willing to think with a modicum of fairness.
In any case James, if we cannot do this with mutual respect for each other, we ought not to do it at all. I would not be right. I have prayed about it and I will not debate with anyone who is only doing so because he hates me and not becasue he wants to advance the truth of Christ. Sorry.
That's OK, Dr. Sippo. I was prepared for some excuse. Your hatred of me has been documented in public with such frequency that when you actually tell people why you ducked even the debate that you yourself demanded I give you, they will have to work very hard to suppress the resultant chuckle. You know why you are rejecting the challenge. You know what your fingers have typed. You know how many insults you have publicly posted about me. Hide behind the cloak of pseudo-spirituality if you wish. God knows the truth, Dr. Sippo. You can fool your followers. You can't fool God. God watched every single time you posted lies about me. God knew your heart every time you typed "pseudopodeo" and "coward" and "fraud" and "bigot" and the like. And God knows your heart now. He knows why you are running for the hills. He knows better than I, but I can assure you, I know well enough, too. You've blinked, Art. You've lost.
James>>>
===
[[James, is there anything you would like to apologize to me about? Right now that is the issue between us.]]
[No sir, there isn't. ]
Then there is nothing further to discuss.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
====
Then there is nothing further to discuss.
Correct. Since you refuse to address your own words and behavior, on that issue, no, there isn't.
···But do not deceive yourself further: such has nothing at all to do with your running from this debate---and all debates. For example, I was told that you have written on Envoy just today,
"Sorry Volente, but you are guilty of a typical "Whiteism." James is notorious for deconstructing a text by taking unlikely meanings of words from the edges of their semantic fields and then cobbling them together to make a passage mean whatever he wants it to. "
See, you can do that on Envoy---you could never get away with it in a debate, since we both know you can't back up your claims, especially against me. But at Envoy, your followers will not demand that you document your assertions, so, you can lie till the cows come home, and all will be well. But you are a smart, if uttelry deceived, man, and hence, you know in a debate you would have to back up your claims, and you can't. Hence, you hide in your tiny cyber-enclave, surrounded by a dozen adorers, but you will never venture outside, because you know what would happen.
Finally, let me document the lies you have posted within just a matter of hours on Envoy:
Despite overtures of good will on my part James kept spewing vitriolic comments at me and personal insults.
Document it, Dr. Sippo. You can't. That's called a lie.
She has posted to this website more than once documenting this.
Documenting? You mean expressing her hatred toward her family is a documented fact? Amazing. Lie #2.
Okay, so James took umbrage at my comments and basically wanted revenge.
I've documented your own words and you have ignored them every single time. Since you can't respond to your own words, that's Lie #3.
Meanwhile, it was also very obvious that james did not want to debate me this time either. He was ambivalent about this debate and continued to escalate his rudeness in every e-mail (all of which I saved).
I guess I will have to post them all now? What an amazing act of self-deception. "He didn't really want to debate, and I, the king of ad-hominem and nastiness, was insulted!" Unbelievable!
It became clear to me that James was not interested in debating the topic to further the Gospel.
How does someone like you write what you have in the past:
Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.
and then turn around and act like you have such high and pure motives in dodging this debate challenge? The level of hypocrisy and self-deception in such an action is simply off the scale.
There is so much more, I will simply have to post all the correspondence, as I promised. I will get to it later.
You have been exposed for what you are, sir. For that, I am thankful.
James>>>
===
Mr. White:
I consider you persona non grata. I told you I had nothing further to discuss with you and I meant it.
Art
Around this same time Dr. Sippo posted the following on Envoy:
Since James White has not put on his website his version of the story, I feel free to discuss the matter openly.
When James offered to debate me by e-mail, I responded courteously and said that I would consider it. Despite overtures of good will on my part James kept spewing vitriolic comments at me and personal insults. He is very upset that I question his feeble credentials and do not agree with his opinions. He is also not happy with being labeled an anti-Catholic bigot (which he is) who comes from a bigotted anti-Catholic family (which he does). Anyone having doubts about this can have it confirmed by James' sister who not only was raised to be a bigot but -- when she became a Catholic -- became a victim of the family bigotry herself. She has posted to this website more than once documenting this.
Okay, so James took umbrage at my comments and basically wanted revenge. As we discussed the details of the debate it became obvious that he hates me and that he was only making this offer becasue I had called him cowardy for not debating a second time. Meanwhile, it was also very obvious that james did not want to debate me this time either. He was ambivalent about this debate and continued to escalate his rudeness in every e-mail (all of which I saved).
It became clear to me that James was not interested in debating the topic to further the Gospel. His gesture was made purely out of hatred for me personally and he intended to escalate his personal abuse towards me as the process continued. By being increasingly vile, he hoped to scare me off.
But there are somethings that White and his cronies do not understand: like honor, human dignity, respect, and Christian charity. And love of enemies? James just cannot comprehend that. He is so driven by his ego that he thinks that is all that motivates the rest of us. I finally got to the point of realizing that this entire charade of his was an ungodly ruse to assuage his sense of personal inadequacy and rage while embarassing me.
At that point I told James that if we cannot debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and treat each other as Christians should, that I would have nothing more to do with him.
Sadly, James now will pretend that he made a "good faith" offer to debate and that I turned him down. Actually I made the good faith offer. It is James who acted in bad faith. Continuing to let him snipe at me was neither right nor godly. I declined James' offer because it was a serious near occasion of sin for James and for me.
It has become clear that James is too far gone mentally and spiritually for any meaningful dialog with Catholics. His antipathy is ingrained and beyond rationality. Consequently, we should follow the advice of my Lord and Savior:
Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
I will continue to oppose Mr. White whenever he spouts his bigotry and lies against Catholics. I will no longer call for a face to face debate with him. He is not a worthy opponent who can conduct himself in an honorable or godly fashion. I will not consort with a moral and spiritual reprobate. That would only give him credibility which he does not deserve. Instead, I will continue to point out the lies in the hopes that decent people will ignore him. He has placed himself outside the Church and will remian there, wailing and gnashing his teeth, until he repents and learns to love his neighbor.
Then a little later:
It is apparent that you and Mr. White are cut from the same jib. To you debating about the Christian faith is a matter of egoism and self-righteous pride. To me it is a sacred privilege and an opportunity to defend my Lord and Savior from the lsander of his enemies. I will not act in an ungodly fashion to save face just because some "false walker" makes an offer in bad faith. Since he is not an honorable man, it is not possible to engage Mr. White in honorable debate. I will continue to attack his errors and condemn his perfidy but I will follow the command of my Lord and Savior and shun him as the heathen he is.
Thankfully, even Sippo's biggest fans can see through his rhetoric:
Dr. Sippo.
I am a Catholic and I do not want to cause dissensions, but good Lord. I read your posts in the past about how White was a coward and I believed you. I believed that you would slaughter him in a debate. I listened to the first debate and you did amazing. You even said that it would be a grudge match. You called it that, not White.
Now that the protestant steps up to your challenge, you stand down?
Scripture teaches us to Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.
If white wants to behave like a donkey, then let him. But set the example. Defend our Faith. Defend our Holy Church. If you are going to make thunder, then be ready to stand up.
I am very disappointed.
And there you go. There's the actual documentation. Nothing like this has ever taken place, of course, with anyone else, with the possible exception of Robert Sungenis, who is, in many ways, very much like Art Sippo, at least as far as the rhetoric he uses in e-mail, etc. But even Sungenis has never behaved like this, and, unless I am mistaken, has never stooped to insulting my parents.
A search of aomin.org's blog for "Sippo," along with this article, should provide a person all the information needed to evaluate the claims and statements of Dr. Art Sippo.
|
