And so, quite consistently, I have made exceptions in some cases. I attempted to discuss why I decided not to try to dialogue with anti-Catholics (because that was not a theological debate but merely a clarification), with your big buddy Steve Hays, but he refused to interact with my reasoning
When you are an anti-Catholic and find yourself unable to reply to rational, fact-based, documented arguments (often with the aid of Protestant scholars) from a Romanist . . .oops, Catholic . . . ooops, ROMAN Catholic, what do you DO? Well, that's easy! You flee for the hills in terror and insult the Papist and make out that he is a highly disturbed individual, etc. (IOW, massive use of the ad hominem fallacy, complete with repeatedly insulting comic book graphics), and then ultimately ask your readers if you should ban said person from your environs. This is an old story, folks: I've observed it firsthand in Svendsen, White, Engwer, Webster, King, Hays, Ankerberg: all the leading anti-Catholic "lights" - as soon as they run out of "answers".
Thus far I’ve chosen to sit out Armstrong’s temper tantrum over Frank Turk, in large part because it’s all so incredibly trivial, and in small part because it’s only tangentially about me.
But since it’s getting too late to write anything serious, I’ll indulge myself in a few comments.
i) I don’t know of another man who has such an inexhaustible capacity for going on and on about absolutely nothing.
The historical etymology of “anti-Catholic” is irrelevant to this debate. All that’s relevant is Armstrong’s self-serving usage.
ii) The record will show that I did interact with Armstrong’s diversionary tactic by exposing it for the diversionary tactic that it was.
What I refuse to interact with is a Catholic epologist who wants to “reason” about his own precious motives instead of reasoning about Catholicism.
iii) To my knowledge, I’ve always been consistent in my use of synonyms, employing “Catholic,” “Romanist,” “papist,” “popery” and the like interchangeably for purposes of stylistic variety and euphony.
My usage isn’t normative for anyone else.
Armstrong is of the stated view that you should call folks whatever they want to be called. I disagree. We should call people what they are. I value truthful speech over PC speech.
Mohammedans prefer to be called Muslims. Mormons prefer to be called Christians. Sodomites prefer to be called gay or families. Witches prefer to be called Wiccans. Arab terrorists and suicide-bombers prefer to be called martyrs and Palestinians. Illegal aliens prefer to be called undocumented workers. Hyperpreterists prefer to be called full preterists. Abortionists prefer to be called health-care providers. And so it goes.
I’d just note that Armstrong’s ecclesiastical superiors do not play by Armstrong’s own rules.
For example, they refuse to dub any Protestant denomination a “church.” They reserve that term for their own communion and analogous denominations.
According to the Vatican Fathers, the Lutherans don’t have a real church. The Baptists don’t have a real church. The Presbyterians don’t have a real church. Instead, we’re merely “ecclesial communities.”
BTW, I, as a Calvinist, have no hesitation in calling a Lutheran denomination like WELS or LCMS a church. I don’t consider it any less a church than some Reformed denomination like the OPC or PCA.
Now, the Vatican Fathers aren’t trying to be offensive. They have a principled reason for their linguistic discrimination: they view the Church of Rome as the only true church, although they extend their penumbra over the Orthodox Church and other suchlike.
I’m not offended by this linguistic discrimination. But, by the same token, I have an equally principled reason for my own usage.
iv) Finally, I understand why Armstrong doesn’t find me especially likable.
But he’s exactly the same way with nice, polite guys like Steve Jackson and Jason Engwer. When you’re not nice to those who are nice to you, then you forfeit any right to take umbrage when others treat you the way you treat them.