Lou Rugg

As a Calvinist, I sometimes get challenges from anti-Calvinists to debate.  Such is the case with Lou Rugg.  Lou had been repeatedly informing me and others in anti-Calvinist rooms that I wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with him.  Finally, on 12/31/03 he and I were in the process of agreeing on a debate topic:  Total Depravity.  We also agreed on the definition of Total Depravity:  the doctrine that sin has touched all of what a person is and that an unregenerate person cannot choose God on his own because of the effect of that sin upon him.  Of course, my position is that the unregenerate man cannot choose to come to God of His own free will.  Lou's position is that he can.

Great.  We had agreed upon the topic.  But, then Lou said that he would "help me out" by telling me his strategy in advance.  He said that in the debate he would go to Prov. 1:28 (“Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me") and base his position off of that verse.  He then said that I would have to prove to him that regeneration precedes faith. He raised the topic of Moses, Abraham, etc., and continued on with his requirement that I "prove that they were regenerate before believing." To this last statement I responded that that wasn't what we agreed to debate.

Finally, after some discussion where I pointed this out several times, as well as others pointing it out in the room, that the issue of regeneration preceding faith was not the topic, and that he needed to stick to the topic.  Finally, he agreed to do so.  We then began to work out the particulars of when the debate would occur.  However, during our conversation he again returned to the requirement that I answer the issue of regeneration preceding faith.   In his statement he said, "Matt, I want you to prove that a person is regenerated before faith."  I again called him on this change of topic.  He then said I was being evasive.  I told him I was not being evasive, that he was, and that I wanted to stay on topic.  He then said that I had already debated a person named Jademiner on this and that we should debate something else.  I told him that we had agreed on the topic, a topic that he said I could choose because he could beat me on any Calvinist doctrine I were to pick.

Unfortunately, Lou continued to require of me to respond to an issue that I didn't agree to debate.  Our debate arrangement fell apart after that and he left the discussion.

Since I am cautious about this whole thing, I thought it would be wise to present a brief review of this event in case Lou tried to state that I had backed out of the debate, which I did not do.  Therefore, I asked people who were in the room to PM (Private Message) me with their comments so that I could further document what happened.  I asked them to respond to whether or not Lou was evasive, tried to change the topic, and tried to get me to respond to something that I had not agree to topically.  This is what I received.

• flesh_profits_nothing: Matt tried very hard to get along...didn't work.
• PuritanHope: He change the topic of the debate in a matter of seconds. He was telling Matt what he was going to discuss and the topic he changed it to was regeneration of Old Testament Saints. And not Total Depravity...PURITAN HOPE
• mamadog: Matt: this is what I heard----Lou agreed to debate total depravity then stated he wanted to prove that Abraham, Moses, and Noah chose God on their own without God's help. 'That these three were not totally depraved.

Okay, so others confirmed my observation.  But, the next day, Lou PM'd me again.  Normally, I do not post people's private messages to me.  But, I have prepared this page on a "just in case" basis.  Following is our conversation, unedited, except to make our names bold:

LouRugg_777: Remember, if you debate me on the TULIP, I will force you to illustrate regeneration before faith. That you cannot do. Therefore, you will lose. That's just a warning.
Matt Slick: oh brother.
LouRugg_777: Have a Happy New Year :)
Matt Slick: you failed to agree to the debate terms and you failed to stick to the topic
Matt Slick: it is not the ordo salutis
Matt Slick: i told other calvinists about your statements
Matt Slick: they all said, and I agree, that you don't understand the issues
LouRugg_777: Matt, the TULIP will wither in front of your eyes if you cannot show regeneration before faith
Matt Slick: so, when you are ready to debate total depravity and not the ordo salutis, then let me know.
Matt Slick: lou, your comments are meaningless to me.
Matt Slick: you can't even see your logic errors
LouRugg_777: Its easy to destroy Calvinism. Thats why White couldn't address the issue of CHOICE in my debate with him. And neither can you
Matt Slick: you can't even stick to the debate topic.
Matt Slick: like i said, when you're ready to actually stick to the topic, let me know.
LouRugg_777: Matt, I'll debate my way and you debate yours. Until you get out of Calvinism, your teachings will be weak
Matt Slick: really? is that why you TOLD me what to respond to and how to answer?
LouRugg_777: Shalom (That means peace in Hebrew) :)
Matt Slick: This is the point Lou, You make mistakes like that and can't see them.
LouRugg_777: Matt, debate me and I will expose you. You have been warned
Matt Slick: I've been warned?
LouRugg_777: End of conversation!
Matt Slick: You're warning me? What does that mean?
Matt Slick: Lou, you can't even agree to stick to the topic we previously agreed on. The issue was total depravity and the unregenerate's innability to freely choose God.
LouRugg_777: I'll expose you as a false teacher
LouRugg_777: That's the warning
Matt Slick: But, you DEMANDED that I answer, in the debate, that regeneration precedes faith. That is not the agreed upon topic
Matt Slick: The fact is that you couldn't stick to the topic and then you wanted to change it to something else.
LouRugg_777: I was being nice and telling you my strategy. Next time I won't! :)
Matt Slick: Then you come here and "warn" me?
Matt Slick: Lou, next time, you need to try and stick to the topic.
LouRugg_777: Matt, I debate my way and you debate yours. Remember, I'll drag you all over the scriptures and show you combos you've never seen before. Like I did with White :)
Matt Slick: and you need to not require of your opponent what he should respond to when it isn't on topic.
LouRugg_777: <---that's what I get for being Mr. Nice Guy! :)
Matt Slick: You keep boasting about how I wont' last five minutes in a debate, how you'll expose me as a false teacher, how you'll drag me all over the scriptures. Yet, Lou, when I have asked you specific questions before, you didn't answer them. I answered your comments, yet you let many of my scriptural challenges pass by. That is what many of us have seen with you, Lou.
Matt Slick: It isn't being "nice" to demand of your opponent to respond to something different than the agreed upon topic.
LouRugg_777: Matt, don't worry! You'll be just fine! Trust me! :)
Matt Slick: There is no debate.
LouRugg_777: That's your decision. Shalom! :)
Matt Slick: You have failed to comply with the agreed upon topic.
Matt Slick: I tried to get you to stick to it, but you refused, then you tried to change the topic.
LouRugg_777: I said SHALOM!
Matt Slick: I suggest you review this dialogue and when you are ready to debate the topic we agreed upon, let me know. I also suggest you do not tell me, in advance, what I am obligated to prove to you -- especially when it isn't the topic. Have a nice day.

Lou Rugg would be a good Christian apologist if he weren't trying to attack other Christians, as so many others like to do.  Furthermore, I wish he could learn to stick to what he has agreed to discuss instead of changing the subject so much.

Since this kind of thing has happened before with anti-Calvinists, and since they offer challenges, and since they don't play fair, I am getting more and more reticent about agreeing to debate any of them.  It isn't that I can't defend my position.  I can and have numerous times.  But, how many more times must I do this?  How many more times must I bow to every person who demands I debate him/her on Calvinism?  After two years of this on paltalk, I'm pretty much getting fed up with it all.  So, if I were to tell them I don't want to debate these things anymore because it is getting old, doesn't really accomplish anything, tends to polarize the body of Christ into opposite positions, and that I have my website (www.carm.org) to work on, a book I am researching and writing, then I will be accused of backing out of debates, being chicken, or whatever.  This kind of thing has is puerile.

But what do I expect from people?  After all, total depravity teaches that sin has touched all of what we are and that truth is exemplified not only in my life, but also the lives of the anti-Calvinists -- especially when I hear their caustic misrepresentations of Calvinism.

By the way, check this out.  http://www.calvinistcorner.com/we.htm