- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I've been called an anti-catholic more times on here than I care to mention, what I find troublesome about this whole labeling is that it incites an emotion within people, it is true I deny that Rome teaches a saving gospel because of their view/teaching of justification and I am not afraid to drive that home, question is; does this in itself make me an anti-catholic? truth is I am defending MY faith... if thats the case then I may as well be called an;anti-nontrinitarian, anti-mormon, anti-osteen, anti-arminian, anti-JW, anti-exchanged life, anti-episcopalian,anti-emergent, anti-universalist, anti-well you get the idea...I debate with everyone of these other apologists and have never been called anti-anyofthem.
While I am more active debating against catholics than most of the others i've had no shortage of debating the others on here, it is just by pure numbers that the catholicism debate seems to surge to the top.
My whole point of this thread is why isnt the label anti-catholic considered a flame? You don't see us reformed apologists calling others anti-reformists.
While I am more active debating against catholics than most of the others i've had no shortage of debating the others on here, it is just by pure numbers that the catholicism debate seems to surge to the top.
My whole point of this thread is why isnt the label anti-catholic considered a flame? You don't see us reformed apologists calling others anti-reformists.