Sungenis Responds to Douglass critique


#1

Wow, it looks like things just took a turn for the worst:
catholicintl.com/index.htm
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/bdcc.pdf


#2

Sungenis made some fair points, and after reading this and looking at the big picture I dont think there is really a huge difference between his concerns and those of Douglass considering they both recognize there are problematic passages in Schoeman’s book. In reading this article I do think it would be a good idea for Schoeman to publicly clear some stuff up. The problem is the wound has become so big and it is only getting worse and worse with each exchange.
True there is still a dispute about a future conversion (Rom 11) but I think that can be worked out if other issues get settled.


#3

Catholic Dude I use to be with you on that but I just read what Douglass wrote back again.

I’ve gotta admit theres something wrong there. Theres a real difference between Ben and Sungenis.

personal.psu.edu/bmd175/sungenis2.htm


#4

Actually in this response it is clear the problematic passages of Schoeman’s book are still a mutual concern:
At the same time, I have always been open to the possibility that Schoeman is inconsistent, and constructs a premise from which this heretical conclusion necessarily, logically follows, without having realized the full implications of what he was saying. In that case, I have repeatedly informed Robert, the proper criticism of Schoeman is that is that he is inconsistent and constructs a dangerous premise. It is not to obstinately and repeatedly claim, in the face of his explicit denials, that he really does hold to the heretical conclusion. While I think it would be a positive thing for Schoeman to publicly address this through a formal retraction, Douglass fears “When I imagine what Sungenis’ reaction would be to such a retraction, I am disgusted by it.” The problem here is not the truth because the truth would be out in the open, the problem is the wounds are so deep that a retraction will come off as a “I was right all along” instead of the fact the matter is settled and that should be the end.

In the end, I think Sungenis is hurting his ministry focusing on what has become a no-win situation and, if its not to late, CAI needs to change course.


#5

I didn’t say they were compltely different. But I mean come on, you know?

Thats not the point. Ben showed pretty clearly that Sungenis was way out of line for calling Shoeman a heretic. Ben said there’s a difference between not thinking everything through and teaching a heresy outright. And he’s right.

But I saw a lot things Ben said Bob was just plain wrong about Shoeman’s book too. And I trust Ben. Why would he do this? He was totally in Sungens’ corner and fought for him. Now Sungenis is going after him like he’s a traitor to God. I’m sorry but that’s enough for me. I never thought he would do something like that.

But I hope you’re right that he can turn it around because I loved his NB books. But the problem is he said God called him to do this so I don’t think he’ll stop.

I tried to write to him but I don’t think he wants to hear from me anymore. Did you write to him too?


#6

I believe its totally unacceptable for a Catholic to give the impression another Catholic is a heretic, especially after the claims are denied by the other Catholic. If Shoeman claims he doesnt believe that stuff then that should be enough. The underlying problem here is his words are in a popular book and apart from a formal retraction or even editing the future editions of that book people can get the wrong impression. The main concerns of Sungenis are not unwarranted (eg supersessionism) , the problem is he has introduced so much other unnecessary comments and factors that he has dug himself into a hole.

I have made it clear on a previous thread that when Douglass left I knew it had gone too far.


#7

Okay I hear you. I never saw that. I think we’re on the same page.

I finaly bought the book a couple of weeks ago and I expected that it was going to be full of things to make my hair stand on end. It didn’t. All sorts of proof about Nazis not being Christian and Jews who converted. The things Sungenis wrote are in couple of pages out of almost 400 but you wouldn’t know that from reading the way he put it. And when I read it altogether it didn’t look like what I expected.

On some of Shoeman’s ideas on prophecies about Israel I think he’s out in left field. But he did say he was speculating to be fair.

I hope Ben keeps writing now that he’s gone. But he only has that little personal site.


#8

Let me guess, this whole disaster was a giant conspiracy by Schoeman and Sungenis to start some hype about his book in order to sell more copies . :smiley:


#9

:thumbsup:

Dude, if they ever come out with that announcement on April 2 I would laugh so hard! What a marketing idea!

That would be so funny.


#10

I just helped organize a seminar with Dr. Sungenis here in southern California… This whole issue was brought up. I think what he is doing to expose the fallacies of anti-suppersessionism is a very noble cause. I would rather it not get into this whole personal debate, which it has become, but that’s how it goes. I received a copy of a proposal last month for a public and moderated debate between Sungenis’ critics and Sungenis… Let’s see if these folks have the courage to come out and really debate the issue, and not atttack each other’s character.
God Bless,
Laurence Gonzaga


#11

BTW- It is sad to see the rift which is growing between ben Douglass and Robert Sungenis.


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.