Blog

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

Thanks to all of you who wrote to let me know what a “git” is. Silly naive me: if I had known this fellow was a student of Art Sippo, I would have thought the worst, but since I didn’t, and there were numerous other problems with the spelling of his insulting invective, it seemed logical to look for another

I never dreamed just how appropriate the terminology I chose was. For a number of years I had experienced the constant hatred and attacks of Paul Owen, first when he was a student in seminary, then when we was off in Scotland working on his doctorate, and now that he has returned and his spreading his unique variety of theology

A poster using the name “BenYachov (Jim Scott 4th)” writes in response to MarieP, who protested that there’s a whole lot of accusing going on, but precious little proving: Well in his Bible Answer Man debate with James Akin the smarmy git implied the merits of our suffering in purgatory where from our own efforts & not from the Grace

The RC pep rally and general back-slapping rave going on at DA’s blog has continued unabated for a few days now, though I think eventually even these folks will get tired of repeating the same mantras over and over again. “Wow, that James White, we sure have refuted him, haven’t we!” “Yeah, sure did! Wow, he’s as dumb as a

      Mr. Armstrong has just recently noted, in reference to myself and others, Carry on, fools . . . we’re all watching, and it is high entertainment, believe me. You think you will get me to change my mind by these childish tactics and colossal errors of fact? You go right ahead. I’m documenting every vacuous, vapid insult and dumb

David Pacitti wrote to me (publicly, on DA’s blog): What is amazing to me is how James White and his followers actually think that he is write about anything. I have read James White work and have compared it to yours and others such as Steve Ray and Bob Sungenis and White’s work does not stand up to the evidence.

It was the late 1980s. Remember them? Yes, well, things were developing in the Roman Catholic apologetics arena. Benny Diaz, a former Roman Catholic, and one who was working with us in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses, kept pushing me to study the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He introduced me to Catholic Answers and the materials they were producing.

I was not blogging when Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God came out. I did, however devote two Dividing Line broadcasts to a review of it. The book set new “groan” records for its horrible, never-ending, “please, have mercy, it stopped being funny four chapters ago” use of pun-filled subtitles. It truly

Quick note: yesterday, when Dave Armstrong first posted his “I’m done with critics” stuff, his blog showed exactly two articles. Everything else was gone. Later in the day the rest of the material re-appeared. Obviously, at some point, an error was made in posting material (a common enough event). I’ve seen something similar happen at PowerLine, where all of a

As I noted in Part I, Dave Armstrong’s attempt to substantiate the sinlessness of Mary is one of the longest sections in his book. We have noted that he specifically claims to be offering sound exegesis and analysis of Luke 1:28, but so far, we have not found his comments to live up to the claims he makes for them.

Interestingly, though I presented these passages and this objection in the same section from which Dave Armstrong quoted, he did not address them. He did, however, make one of the most common errors one encounters in literature such as this: the “let’s look at a really basic definition in a Greek grammar and hope it applies to our particular text”

Now, all of this, up to this point, has simply been to work through the first of two issues I myself raised regarding what a serious Roman Catholic would have to explain to make a serious Protestant feel at all “confounded” at Luke 1:28. If kecaritwme,nh is telling us that Mary was sinless due to the possession of a perfection