My Opponent Split Before It Was Over, Every Time (!)
This just occurred to me, after writing two papers in response to the anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer, whom I have sparred with as early as 2000.
I can recall four times where some anti-Catholic was gonna put me in my place and refute me and shut me up once and for all, and (whaddya know!) it never happened. In fact, they wound up fleeing for the hills before the encounter was anywhere near finished.
It would be like a boxer “throwing in the towel” as they say, after 4 1/2 rounds of a 12-round fight. He just gave up, or forfeited. No one could possibly say that he prevailed in the match, if he did that. And so it is with these theological debates. If they split, they have clearly lost the debate. No one would think otherwise.
1) James White: “Postal Debate” of March-May 1995
This is the very in-depth and intense debate on many topics, that went back an forth in the US mail, before I was on the Internet. It takes up about 100 pages in my book, Debating James White. Both of us sent typewritten replies. I have them all in my possession.
Lo and behold, we went through two rounds (me / him / me / him), and then I wrote what would have been the beginning of a third round: a 36-page, single-spaced reply. White decided to utterly ignore it. Six days ago (May 15th), it was the 25th anniversary of my reply that he never even tried to refute, and has not remotely touched these past 25 years. So he forfeited the debate. It’s as simple as that.
Anyone can read the whole thing on my blog. It’s there word-for-word (with White’s permission at the time), whereas James White has never published any part of it or linked to mine, and even denies that it is any sort of “debate” at all. Very telling, isn’t it?
2) Tim Enloe: “Live Chat” Debate in James White’s Chat Room (29 December 2000)
Tim was an interesting guy. He was going like gangbusters for several years (very colorfully and prolix), with particular animus and zeal towards refuting me. At length, some years ago now, he decided to end his active contra-Catholic polemics (he’s not really an anti-Catholic, as he allows that Catholics are Christians).
Back in December 2000 he was still quite gung-ho and we meticulously planned this “chat debate” which is a live and spontaneous back-and-forth: and it was in anti-Catholic territory, with all those folks (James White’s following) watching. If I recall correctly, it was about whether Catholics are Christians.
Well, we went back-and-forth for a while (I think it was maybe 45 minutes), and Tim just quit all of a sudden. He seemed to think he was doing a lousy job and didn’t want to attempt it any longer.
I don’t have this preserved because one day Tim made a statement that I would never remove all the debates we had had and other papers of mine about him. So I did just that. But it happened, and I would be able to retrieve it from Internet Archive if someone challenged me about it.
3) James White: “Live Chat” Debate on Marty and the Church Fathers in James White’s Chat Room (29 December 2000)
After Tim’s collapse / forfeit, James White stepped right in, trying to salvage the fiasco for the Protestants. He asked if I would like to chat and I agreed: even though I was obviously totally unprepared and had no idea what the topic would even be (a clear initial advantage for Bishop White). White quickly turned the subject to the Blessed Virgin Mary (likely thinking that was where my argument — especially without any notes or preparation — would be the weakest).
Typically of him, he came at me with all he had, with rapid-fire shots, one after another. At first I was a bit taken aback, but eventually I started to get my bearings and I believe I got the better of him, and started trapping him with some questions that he couldn’t answer. It was our only “live” encounter before an audience ever. If anyone wants to see what happened when me and White went head-to-head “live”: this is it!
So what happened then? Well, it was claimed that technical problems caused White to not be able to connect and debate any longer. Maybe, but then again, maybe not. If I may be cynical and speculate a bit: perhaps the prospect of getting his butt kicked in a debate with me (a person he had already despised and detested for five years) was simply too horrifying to contemplate and something had to be done.
I stayed in the room (his venue, remember) for several more hours, chatting. All of this is online on my site, word-for-word (needless to say, White has never published it on his website). Make your own judgment. That was bad and embarrassing enough for Bishop White. But when I added “notes” to the debate a few days after, it really ticked him off. That was a naughty no-no. I don’t see why. I played his game: live, spontaneous back-and-forth, with no preparation at all on my part. Now this was my realm: written analysis, which goes much deeper.
Later, I also analyzed his response even more deeply, showing how he used dishonest, sophistical tactics in order to “score cheap points”.
4) Jason Engwer: Big CARM Debate About Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers (July 2003)
This was a much publicized confrontation, advertised at CARM: which was the largest Protestant (and virulently anti-Catholic) discussion forum on the Internet: and remains so now. Again, I was gonna be put in my place by the Great Protestant Hope: Jason Engwer: who has remained active, blogging on Steve Hays’s site, Tribalblogue.
The debate was about ten Church Fathers and what they taught about the rule of faith: i.e., did they teach sola Scriptura? As I described it in a new introduction dated 11-20-15:
Jason hedged and hawed and avoided direct argumentation with me (interaction with my arguments) from the beginning. He started in with the personal insults early on. It’s been that way in all the attempted debates I have had with him through the years. It’s what anti-Catholics do when they get with Catholics who can defend their faith.
It was so bad that out of the ten Church fathers originally to be debated, Jason dealt with only four and then decided to split from the debate (much to the disappointment of his fans). I continued on analyzing all ten. I had predicted that he would leave, five days before it happened. I could see the writing on the wall, and so observed:
‘One could not be blamed for thinking that you are setting the stage for your potential departure from this discussion. If you do run, the reason has already been given: I am an ignoramus, in over my head, and “everyone knows this” and this is why no one wants to dialogue with me, my paper has little of worth for you to spend your precious time, etc., etc. This is standard methodology people use for avoiding defending their propositions (and well known in political campaigning and rhetoric): immediately attack the person as ignorant, incompetent, not worth the time, and so forth. So if you leave, that is the reason (so you say), not, of course, because you are unable (and hence unwilling) to answer the substantive charges.’
Five days later, Jason made a prophet out of me!
See the truncated semi-“debate”: Part One / Part Two:
Engwer (oddly enough) never posted this debate on his website, either (we detect a certain pattern by now, don’t we?).
Someone once classically observed: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em!” Not for these anti-Catholic so-called “champions.” Their philosophy seems to be, rather, “if you can’t beat ’em, flee for the hills and then pretend the whole thing never happened, by completely ignoring it, with endless insults.”
***
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In