Posted on 11/11/2015 2:09:40 PM PST by NYer
Some Catholics get apoplectic about apologetics. They argue with atheists and pick fights with Protestants. They not only need to win, they want to bash the enemy. Valiant warriors for Catholic truth, they shout down the unbelievers and shoot Bible verses back and forth like gunslingers in a shootout. As veteran apologist Patrick Madrid has observed, “They end up winning an argument but losing a soul.â€
“Apologetics†is the attempt as St. Peter advised, “to be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have within you†(1 Peter 3:15). To give that answer, one must first gather the information and study hard to understand and master the content. Secondly, one has to identify the person asking the questions.
For apologetics to be an effective part of the New Evangelization the right tone must be established between the Catholic and the inquirer. I often get e-mails from Protestants or atheists who are trying to pick a fight. I have learned to never take the bait. Instead I thank them for the e-mail and explain that I don’t argue with people, but if they have questions about the Catholic faith I’ll take all the time in the world to answer them to the best of my ability.
The approach is never to prove another person wrong, but always to connect with what is good about their belief. Everyone longs for truth, beauty and goodness. That’s the way we’re wired. Therefore, no matter what a person’s religion or belief system, there is some good within it. If there weren’t, they would not be so committed to it. The effective apologist therefore looks for what is beautiful, good and true in his sparring partner’s belief system and connects with that, affirms it and builds on it.
This principle is established in a document, Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, which was published 50 years ago this month.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth that enlightens all men.â€
Catholics are called to recognize the goodness, truth and beauty that is present among those who are followers of Jesus Christ despite their separation from the Catholic faith. The Catechism teaches, “One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. … All who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church†[para. 818].
The effective Catholic apologist therefore builds on the positive aspects of other religions, other Christian groups and even on the humanitarian values espoused by atheists. Does this mean evangelization is unnecessary? No. As soon as church documents affirm the presence of goodness, truth and beauty in other religions, they also call for Catholics to be tireless in their efforts to share the fullness of God’s love and life, which is available only within the Catholic faith.
This is done most effectively by combining intellectual arguments and positive answers with real human examples of living faith. Why I’m Catholic is a great website that publishes genuine conversion stories, while the Eternal Word Television Network provides a huge online compilation of biographies of saints. The best “answer to the hope that lies within us†is therefore a combination of reasonable arguments, compassionate answers and the dynamic evidence of lives transformed by the power of God alive in the world today.
Resources:
Training for apologists is available in recognized college courses and informally through personal study. Excellent books, audio and visual materials are available from Catholic publishers, but some of the best resources are available online. Famous Christian and theist apologist William Lane Craig runs the Reasonable Faith website for example, while new-media expert Brandon Vogt provides an internet forum for conversations with atheists and agnostics at Strange Notions. Anglican Wycliffe Hall runs a smart website called Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics, while Catholic writer and blogger Dave Armstrong maintains a huge site called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, which is full of resources specifically for dialogue between Protestants and Catholics.
My “defacto leader”? The only one I follow is the Lord Jesus Christ. I wasn’t aware He was a Freeper. LOL!
Projection and inappropriate laughter, gotta be worth a paper for someone in the NEJM.
Thanks but how would anyone know that, unless "real world" excludes printed media, or live forums, while that Catholics argue with Prots and others in "real street life" can also see attestation.
Less likely is that they argue about whether Catholic argue!
But thanks again for getting back to me.
You misunderstand Mary’s unique role in salvation as reflected in the incarnation. From early Christian practice intercessionary prayers were common. Christ performed His first miracle even before His time at the intercession of Mary. This is why one cannot separate the theology of salvation without recognizing Mary, comparable to that of a co-redemptrix in the salvific plan.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.Note the parallelism with the oneness of God. There is not a multiplcity of Gods. There is only one. It is a term of exclusion. Were this language to appear in a contract, it would be insurmountable evidence of how the writer inteneded "one" to be understood in the next clause, not as simply a mediator, but the one and only Mediator, just as in the one and only God.
(1 Timothy 2:5-6)
Mary didn't intercede for anyone...You treat this incident like Jesus and the servants had an ongoing conversation with Mary as the go-between for both sides....That is not at all what took place...
Mary told the servants to do whatever Jesus told them...That's not intercession...Jesus then left Mary out of the conversation...There's no intercession or mediation taking place...
Your religion built an entire false doctrine on a piece of scripture that has nothing to do with what you claim...
Christ performed His first miracle even before His time at the intercession of Mary.
A far more accurate description would say, 'Christ performed his first miracle even before his time at the meddling of Mary'...And that's the truth of the matter...
AMEN!
Wrong. It is prayer to created beings in Heaven that is the issue, as this is what is done toward Mary, and which cannot be extrapolated out of interactions btwn those in the same realm here. Only God is shown being able to hear the multitudinous prayers Heaven, while interchange btwn created beings was personal face to face so to speak, and required both to be in the same realm.
Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches there is only one heavenly intercessor, which is the Lord Jesus, whom souls are only told to come to Christ for heavenly intercession, and by Him believers have direct access into the holy of holies. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:15,16; 7:25; 1-:19)
Thus there is absolutely ZERO prayers by believers in Scripture to anyone in Heaven except to God, despite it being a basic common practice, for which the Holy Spirit inspired and recorded approx. 200!
Just admit PTDS comes from Cath tradition, not Scripture.
Christ performed His first miracle even before His time at the intercession of Mary. This
Wrong, that is not prayer to anyone in Heaven, nor was Mary even asked to do anything (and the Lord reminded her that He was under no necessary obligation to help her here (as examination of the phrase, "what have i to do with" evidences) but was only obligated to do the Father's will.
This is why one cannot separate the theology of salvation without recognizing Mary, comparable to that of a co-redemptrix in the salvific plan.
Wrong, as while in the technical sense then even Israel, of whom Christ came, (Rm. 9:5) as well the parents of Mary, can be said to instrumentally play a part in the redemption of mankind "co-redemptrix" is not the as co-worker, as being the redeemer of mankind signifies a unique function which only Christ could accomplish, while "co" infers, as with co-pilot and like terms, that one can and is doing the same thing. But despite what certain Mary devotees assert, she was not redeeming mankind due to her instrumental service, anyone more than blessed Rufus was who helped carried the Lord's cross for some time.
You are the one who evidences esteeming learned men as Ratzinger above that which Scripture affords them, (1Co. 4:6) and yet, as shown, you oppose Ratzinger's judgment on the title co-Redemptrix.
For when asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix†departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings†(53).
He went on to say that, “ Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix†would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language†(God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306)
Frankly I perfectly understand Mary’s honored role in the history of salvation. She carried and gave birth to our Messiah.
If your point is without Mary there is no Jesus Christ and thus no salvation eliminates God’s sovereignty and design for salvation. But I don’t think that is your point. So I’ll eliminate this.
However you stated specifically “without Mary’s intercession there is no salvation.”
Now that’s striking given the NT teaching to the contrary.
The apostles say One Mediator which is Jesus Christ. One Redeemer which is Christ.
So the burden of proof texts is on your view. Resorting to eisegesis makes matters worse.
[I wrote about Paul and the Athenians--see Acts 17.]
Paul didn’t take that approach with the Galatians though. I agree there is a time and place for both approaches.
There can be, though maybe I've been reading the wrong threads in the Religion Forum and have the impression that some people believe that "foolish Galatians" is the main (or even only) approach to be used.
I never would've imagined before coming here that I'd see so much quotation of Matthew 24--as if that passage, "foolish Galatians," and a few other select verses constituted the entirety of guidance to Christian speech and related conduct.
In fact, seeing all of that inspired me to search the Bible, and it struck me that there is quite a bit of guidance that does not neatly match using "foolish Galatians" as one's only approach to speech.
This difference is not evidence of so-called contradictions in the Bible, but there is more to the Bible than Matthew 24. There is more to Christianity, I would suppose, than proving that Christians have a perfect right to call others "fools" in all circumstances. (Where are all the people quoting Matthew 5:22?) If the essence of Christianity were just arguing with other people on internet forums, then Christians would truly be most to be pitied.
I am wary of an idea that the external appearance of success is a perfect guide to the actual numbers of the saved, but I've noticed that the most "successful" apologists and evangelists seem to be able to bridle their tongues.
Excellent, as usual.
Matthew 5:22 uses two words not used in Galatians 3:1. According to Greek expert AT Robertson, “Raca” is an assault on one’s intelligence, and “More” (as in moron) is an assault on character. These appear to be more severe than what Paul used of the Galatians, “anoetos”, which conveys an unwillingness to use the mind one has, a much more charitable assessment.
And please realize this is not a disagreement with your premise. I would love to see everyone here “speak the truth in love,” and I think many attempt it. But we all have differing ideas of how best to do that, which takes us back to the Golden Rule. Don’t talk to others in a way you would not want them to talk to you, even if you were wrong.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. My rendering of the Golden Rule, how I would want others to persuade me if in fact I were wrong, would be for them to be frank, and to come up with a convincing argument for their position. I can respect that, and I can even change my views in such a context.
But if someone begins with an assault on character, or sweeping generalizations about intellect, what most people do is become defensive, which helps no one. In my experience here at FR I have tried to avoid responding to any of that. My initial, knee-jerk reactions to low blows can be pretty ugly, but sometimes holding back that initial response and giving it a little time and thought allows for a calmer, more useful response. It’s a discipline. The objective, for me anyway, is to respond to the substantive arguments, if there are any, and ignore the rest. Like a pastor friend of mine used to say, eat the chicken but throw out the bones and feathers.
Peace,
SR
Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that what you say contradicts not only the teachings of the Church for nearly 400 years before the Church authenticated the books in the Bible as the Word of God in AD 384, but contradicts every theologian from Augustine to Aquinas, and Newman to Benedict (called the “theological Einstein of or times”), to say nothing of prominent Lutheran and Episcopalian theologians who have converted to Catholicism.
God’s Word does not need man’s stamp of approval to be Truth or to validate it.
My goodness have Catholics got things backwards.
I see I have reached the same automated response center.
Seriously, why do you continually assert such things as if that establishes Truth? For one, it was not in AD 384 that authenticated the books in the Bible as being the Word of God, as for one, the Decretum Gelasianum (or Gelasian Decree) in which is a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made Canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, in understand by scholars as being derived from a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
In addition, though there was recognition by popes and consuls afterward, these were not universal binding decrees and doubts and debates about the nature of the Apocrypha continued for centuries and into Trent which provided the first infallible definition of the Catholic canon in 1546 - after Luther died.
That is what real scholarship attests to. Luther simply did not have an infallible, indisputable canon to dissent from, despite RC propaganda. As for what my post states being contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome and men RCs look to above that which is written, what does that prove? Their beliefs no more make he Bible to teach prayer to created beings than the opinions of the most learned in the times of Christ made Christ to be a false teacher.
Faced with such things as an utter absence by the Holy Spirit of Truth including even one prayer among the approx. 200 in Scripture which He inspired, and only teaching that God is address in prayer to Heaven, and that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, you continually rely on invoking the names of some learned propagandists for Rome's sake.
And which hermeneutic is contrary to Scripture and the NT church which began with common people heeding itinerant unlearned (by formal schooling) men, who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
You mantra of men is meaningless as establishing Truth, as they are not above Scripture and all their opinions will not substitute for the lack of Scriptural warrant for their unScriptural traditions.
Meanwhile, if opposing Mary formally being called a co-redemptrix is contrary to your class of clones then you can add Ratzinger to those who oppose them, as shown. One educated professors versus other professors, yet he claims they are on his side. But Scripture is in this case, and which is what matters.
Yet that is what they claim.
Quite fitting.
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a log
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[7][8] ical fallacy.[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.