17 search results for: crimson

   TurretinFan, whose RSS feeds seem to be considerably more advanced and useful than mine, noted a comment by Jonathan Prejean (“Crimson Catholic”) that contained the following statements: In my opinion, Calvin’s Institutes is the equivalent of spiritual pornography, worse than anything you hear in 99% of Beatles’ songs, and most people who read it aren’t doing it as an example

I had written: And I cannot help but contrast such a statement with Jesus’ own words, which again so strongly illustrate the contrast between the anthropocentric mind-set of Roman Catholicism (God wants to save, tries to save, but fails to save so often because He is dependent upon the cooperation of man’s will–and yes, I know, that’s Arminianism as well)

Part of the reason I even responded to the assertions of Patty Bonds last evening was because I knew, in light of the current spate of “Hate White” posts following the Great Debate X, one of those, probably on Envoy, who are so highly impressed with themselves, would seek to jump all over it. That would give me the opportunity

Jonathan Prejean has offered some comments on the first sections of my interaction with Dave Armstrong. Since they are brief, I will be brief in response. As he quotes me extensively, I will put my original words in blue, his replies in red, my replies are in purple. Intro Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted

   I noted that the Crimson Catholic, Jonathan Prejean, has been active, well, everywhere, in the current blogsplosion of “charity” amongst Roman Catholics aimed my direction. One of the common themes is how terrible, horrible James White hung up on saintly Prejean when he called the DL! Further documentation of just how much of a low-life I truly am.    However, those

Hmmn, should I fall for the trap? Will I call up Mr. White, only to have him hang up on me like he did crimsoncatholic, and then, once crimsoncatholic couldn’t respond, bash him for saying he was laughing at God’s Word, when it was obviously not the case? Or will I call in to give my specific examples, and then

   “Crimson Catholic,” Jonathan Prejean, has actually attempted to offer an excuse for Hugh Barbour’s refusal in the Envoy article to either name me directly, or even provide meaningful bibliographical references (i.e., so that his readers can do something more than just “trust him” and check things out for themselves). Now, let’s remember that Barbour wrote his article in response to

   The “Crimson Catholic” seems to be jumping from forum to forum hoping to be noticed or at least to be seen as a great defender of the Catholic faith. I noted tonight that he has decided I am a Nestorian now–if you don’t bow down before statues or think there is a difference between latria and dulia and hyper-dulia, you

   When in the service of Mother Church, any response, as long as it uses words, is a refutation of those who are not part of Mother Church. This is proven out by the appearance of “Crimson Catholic” (Jonathan Prejean) on the Envoy boards. Those who are familiar with the Catholic Answers forums, and a long, long long interaction between Eric

Bill Rutland has provided a “response” that is again instructive to examine, though briefly, as I have limited time before heading back to Phoenix in a matter of hours. I would like to address some of James’ comments on my comments. But, before I do, I would like to thank Pat for allowing James to post from this forum so

Yesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences. Unlike those folks, we documented our assertions fully. Today I move on to Bill Rutland’s comments in the same thread. Mr. Rutland was my opponent only a few

What is the best way to hide the fact that you have been guilty of engaging in consistent ad hominem argumentation and are not, in fact, capable of a meaningful defense of your position? Of course! Accuse the other guy of everything you have done! If he says someone who is in error is “confused,” don’t look at that as