[af_vet_1981]

Pointing out inconsistencies in your opponent's arguments is standard and ethical debate practice.

1. Just because the term "dogs" is a proper biblical term used to refer to Gentiles does not mean it is appropriate to use it to refer to another poster on this forum, even if he or she meet the criteria. I would expect (hope) you would rebuke me if I did so. I have no objection, and take no offense, to using this biblical language for this discussion. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

[Springfield Reformer]

Dogs vs judaizers is apples to oranges. Judaizer is a term of art fully appropriate as a summary encapsulation of a particular heresy. It expresses an entire body of systematic apostolic thought in a single word. That’s why its been used for many centuries in these “grace vs law” debates. We should no more relinquish it to political correctness than any other term in the Christian theological lexicon. Yes, it may offend some. The cross offends as well. So it is not the offense that should be our measure of our speech, but whether we speak these truths in love.