Sungenis responds to White...

Sungenis wanted to respond to White’s claims about him that were brought up from this forum…
I hope I am not breaking any rules or anything else I just thought it would interest some since it clears a few things we had doubts about…

White writes:

Sungenis Responds:

Fooled by a “very troubled kid”? Yes. But with the “the most absurd accusations,” not even close.
The very reason I put stock into Mr. X’s accusations against Webster and company is that I had discovered long ago the same cut-and-paste distortions of the Fathers on the subject of Sola Scriptura of which Mr. X was accusing them!!!
It only made sense to me that Mr. X was privy to the source of those manipulations, since I had seen the results in Webster’s book for myself.
William Webster has a reputation for selective citations from the Fathers, as does James White. They are like two peas in a pod. In fact, if either one of them would like to publically debate this issue, I would be more than obliged to show the world their devilish manipulations of the patristics.
As for White’s argument that “Sungenis is out of the mainstream,” it doesn’t hold a drop of water. Understand this, my fellow Catholics. James White was declining to debate me long before I took on a more traditional slant in the apostolate of CAI in 2002. I have the documentation to prove it.
And then add this to the unbalanced equation. While James White was singing the blues that he wasn’t going to debate me because I had “left the mainstream” and had become a “traditionalist,” White arranged a debate with Gerry Matatics, a traditionalist that is more out of the mainstream than I, during the same time he was complaining to me, and he followed through with the debate even after I pointed out his hypocrisy in doing so!
As for Keating, Hahn and Sippo, as is usually the case, White is trying to capitalize on disagreements I have with other people to give himself an excuse not to debate me. I’m counting, and this is now the fifth excuse that White has used in order to escape the scrutiny of his Reformed Baptist belief system.
For the record, Sippo and I communicate quite regularly. Ask him yourself. There is one thing about Art Sippo, he gives everyone a fair shake. As for Keating, our disagreements lie mostly in the fact that Karl refuses to touch the hot button issues that are most troubling the Church, and that is why I don’t hesitate to criticize some of the work of Catholic Answers. As for Hahn, I’ll talk to him anytime he wants to drop me an email or call me on the phone. Despite our disagreements, Hahn and I together engaged a Protestant last year on the Internet, and we sent him home with his tail between his legs.

As for debating “mainstream” opponents, I suggest that you visit some of the people White has debated in the last few years and count how many fringe groups and individuals he either invites to debate or accepts their invitation to debate. You will see that the “mainstream” argument is nothing but a smoke screen.

My books, Not By Faith Alone and Not By Scripture Alone, remain top-sellers at both Amazon and Barnes and Noble. White wrote his own book on justification, “The God Who Justifies,” long before I left the “mainstream” (as he calls it), but White purposely didn’t make one reference to Not By Faith Alone. Some scholar. Some people told me he did so because he didn’t want me to come back and rebut his book.
And now, White has done the same thing with his latest book, Scripture Alone, pretending not to be polemical so that he can minimize his critics. But his plan has backfired. As soon as I’m done my present projects, I’m going to do a major written critique on both The God Who Justifies and Scripture Alone, and I can tell you this, I am not going to be merciful to James White.
The real truth is that James White wants to debate people like Rutland, Michuta and Pacwa because he knows they don’t have good debating skills, and thus he comes out smelling like a rose. He is a hypocrite of the first order, and you’ll do your best to stay away from him.

Robert Sungenis

a second response…

White: 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.

R. Sungenis: Funny, these concerns were never brought up in our past debates, nor has White brought them up concerning anyone else he has debated. Why, all of a sudden, is “inadvertently helping to keep another false teacher” such a concern for White? Apparently, it’s just another excuse he’s dreamed up. We’re at six excuses now, and still counting.

For the record, CAI shows no signs of struggling, and White has no proof to the contrary. We have more patrons now than we did before, and our website gets about 10,000 hits per day. So in reality, we have just another smoke screen from White. He said it himself, he is, indeed, “indulging [his] own ego.” We got it right from the horses mouth.

White: 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,

R. Sungenis: Trust?? What has trust have to do with debating someone? I’m not asking White to be my friend; I’m not asking him for money; I’m not giving him stock tips. Trust has nothing to do with it. In fact, debate opponents enter the forum with a mutual mistrust for one another. I certainly don’t trust White, especially when he resorts to the personal attacks he has lowered himself to in this and many other letters. Why would I trust someone who resorts to character assassination rather than public debating? Someone please tell White to stop making silly excuses, unless, of course, he gets some satisfaction out of making himself transparent.

White: 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?

R. Sungenis: Funny, my associations with various groups was never an issue in White’s five past agreements to debate with me. So why is it an issue now? Because White is running out of excuses, and thus he has to resort to trying to make me look like a fringe nut case. In other words, character assassination is White’s MO. We’re at seven, and counting.

In reality, all White’s complaints do is confirm in our minds that Protestantism is a labyrinth of treacherous roads that pulls its victims this way and that way until they find safe haven in the true Church of Christ, of which I have been a faithful member for 12 years.

White: 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.

R. Sungenis: Who knows, or who cares, what White is talking about here. I guess this is just another means to get us sidetracked off of the real issue.

White: 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!

R. Sungenis: We call White a “chicken” because he acts like one. He boasts about all his debates, claiming that he has won every time; he sells his debates in tape, CD and even MP3. He makes a living off of debating. Yet when asked to debate, even before CAI’s ministry changed to a more traditional apostolate, White declined to debate us. After half a dozen refusals (at the same time White was accepting and arranging debates with other less qualified individuals), we could only come to one conclusion: White is fearful of debating us. If I’m wrong, then White has just one way of disproving me. Eight, and counting.

White: 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.

R. Sungenis: Hahn and Keating have admitted they don’t like to debate and are not good debaters. White, on the other hand, claims to be a skilled debater, and even claims that he has won all his debates. I can just imagine that if he got a trophy for each debate, White would have them all lined up on his fireplace mantel. As for Akin, he already wiped White’s tail in a radio debate several years ago, and there is no reason for Akin to dirty his hands again. But, since it is a dirty job, somebody has to do it, and I’m volunteering.

White: Is Michael Paul suggesting that these men are not as capable as Bob Sungenis?

R. Sungenis: The only one who gave them that suggestion was White, when he refused to debate Bob Sungenis.

White: 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?

R. Sungenis: Such a sham. People, don’t call into White’s program, ever. When the heat is on, he’ll get belligerent or cut you off and then make excuses for his behavior over the air. Or, he’ll do what he did to CAI apologist Ben Douglass. Ben called in, and Richard Pierce, the President of White’s ministry, answered the phone. Pierce then asked White if he wanted to talk with Ben on the air. White said no, knowing Ben was with CAI and that Ben had just posted a major critique of White’s book on Justification on our website. Ben was then cut off by Richard Pierce.

White: 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.

R. Sungenis: Then White wonders why people just love to hate him. Talk about backyard bullies! I guess White wants to leave the impression that he never makes spelling mistakes. My, my, I wish we were all that perfect. It wouldn’t be so bad if I hadn’t had to correct White’s spelling numerous times in his written debates.

White: 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. :slight_smile:

R. Sungenis: Enough with the excuses. Put up or shut up, White. Let’s see if the CAI phone rings and on the other end is White accepting our request to debate. We’ll even give you our toll-free number: ******************.


This thread is now closed.

General reminder:

Participants are asked not to post for third parties. Those who wish to post on the site are expected to register on their own and post their own entries. In this case, this is a personal matter between the parties involved and does not belong on the Catholic Answers Forums.

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