Why do Apologetics?

Q:     Nothing personal, but I’m really not a big fan of what you do.  All of this apologetics stuff just seems to be filled with so much conflict and tension. How does that evangelize anyone?   Whatever happened to St. Francis’ way of evangelization, “Preach the Gospel always and, when necessary, use words.” 
  
A:    Well, first of all, and I know this may be difficult for some to read, but St. Francis actually never said that, at least, not that anyone has been able to find in anything his early biographers wrote about him.  Secondly, if you read about St. Francis, he actually used a whole lot of words in his evangelization efforts.  One story in particular, about his meeting with the Sultan of Egypt during one of the Crusades, would probably stun a lot of folks as to how “in your face” he was with the Sultan.

       Anyway, to your point about apologetics being filled with conflict and tension, before I tell you why I disagree with what you’re saying, I want to first address what I believe is a larger societal issue that seems to underlie your contention.  It seems, in my humble opinion, that just about the only mortal sin a person can commit in our society today, is to tell someone else they are wrong about something.  

       We can’t tell the adulterer that he is wrong, so let’s have no-fault divorce.  We can’t tell anyone abortion is wrong, so let’s just respect everyone’s privacy.  We can’t tell homosexuals that same-sex relations are wrong, so let’s just live and let live.  Again, telling someone they are wrong is just about the only sin one can commit in today’s society.  So, in such an environment, debate becomes inherently wrong.  Argument, in the classical sense of the word, becomes inherently wrong.  Disagreeing with someone on issues of faith and morals becomes inherently wrong.

       Thus, engaging in apologetics seems to be inherently wrong under such a prevailing societal attitude.  To tell those who disagree with Catholic teaching they are wrong, becomes a sin, of sorts.  It is viewed as being filled with “conflict and tension,” and as being unnecessarily adversarial.  But, it just isn’t so.  

       First and foremost, apologetics is about seeking the truth.  Jesus said, “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free,” (John 8:32).  Apologetics is not about argument for argument’s sake, but about discovering truth.  In order to help my separated brethren in Christ discover the truth that the Eucharist is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not merely a symbol, I have to engage in apologetics.  

       Second, and closely related to the above, apologetics is about love.  If I truly love those who are not Catholic - whether they be Baptist, Evangelical, Presbyterian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or even atheist - would I not want to do everything...everything!...in my power to bring them to Jesus Christ in the Sacraments, and, particularly, to bring them to Him in the Eucharist?

        I mean, if I really and truly believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, and that a Catholic can receive Him at any given Mass, then why would I not want to do all that I could to bring everyone into the Catholic Church so as to receive Him?  Why would I not want to share the truth with them?  Can I truly be said to love someone if I am unwilling to step out of my comfort zone to share the truths of the Catholic Faith with them?  

       Now, do discussions about faith and morals sometimes involve conflict and tension?  Absolutely.  But, does searching for truth sometimes involve conflict and tension?  Does loving others sometimes involve conflict and tension?  Indeed they do.

       So, apologetics, just like any search for truth and anything that involves love, sometimes involves conflict and tension.  But, do you want to know what can cause more conflict and tension than a Catholic who is versed in apologetics conferring with a non-Catholic on some issue of faith or morals?  A Catholic who is not versed in apologetics conferring with a non-Catholic on some issue of faith or morals.  

       I would be willing to bet that the percentage of Protestant churches in Birmingham that do not have at least one former Catholic in them is very, very low.  There are, in fact, some very large Protestant churches in Birmingham that are made up of 20%, 30%, and even as much as 50% former Catholics.

       Why?  Because those former Catholics were never taught how to defend their faith, so they had no answer when someone came up to them and asked them, “Are you saved?”  Or, “Have you been born again?”  Or, “Why do you Catholics call your priests ‘father’ when the Bible says ‘Call no man father?”’  Or, “Why do you Catholics say Mary was ever virgin when the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters?”  

       Any one of those - or dozens of other - leading questions have started many a Catholic down the path that leads straight out of the Catholic Church.  Why?  Because they were defenseless.  They didn’t know apologetics.  And do you know the kind of conflict and tension that is caused in Catholic families when a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a mother or father leaves the Faith?  And, even worse, the tension and conflict caused when these former Catholics come to a Thanksgiving or Christmas gathering of the family and sometimes talk about how Catholics are not “saved” and constantly question the faith of their family members?  

       So, not only can apologetics bring non-Catholics, and fallen-away Catholics, closer to, and even into, the faith, but it can help keep Catholics in the faith and help them to deepen their understanding and love of that faith, while enabling them to defend that faith.  Conflict and tension?  Sometimes.  But is love worth the risk?  Is bringing people to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist worth the risk?  

       I’ll close with a story about something that happened to me a few years ago.  My family and I had just moved to a new parish.  A few weeks after being there, a young lady came up to me and said, “Do you remember me?”  I told her she looked familiar, but that I couldn’t place where I knew her from.  She said, “You spoke at a Theology on Tap meeting a few years ago and I was the one who hit you with a whole bunch of questions.”  Immediately I remembered the exchange I’d had with her.  She continued, “I was Baptist at the time and I was really mad at you that night, and so I started doing a lot of research so that I could prove you wrong.”  

       In other words, my apologetics talk had caused a lot of conflict and tension.  And then she told me where that research born of conflict and tension led her...to an RCIA program and, a few months later, into the Church.  She now receives Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  

       So, yes, what I did caused conflict and tension.  Should I not, then, have given the talk?  Was it somehow wrong, then, to speak about the truths of the Catholic Faith in an unapologetic manner and thus upset one or more of my listeners?  Was that counterproductive to evangelization?  Well, I’ll just let the young lady who now receives Christ in the Eucharist answer those questions...     

       Here’s the thing, if we are afraid of speaking the truths of the Faith - of proclaiming them, explaining them, and defending them - because of some overblown fear of offending someone, then we will never truly be like Christ.  He spoke the truth - in season and out.  He offended people.  He afflicted people.  He was crucified for it.  And He did it all out of love. 

Taken from: www.biblechristiansociety.com

God Bless
Nathan

Once Saved, Always Saved

I once was challenged by an email correspondent to show him where is the book / chapter / verse that supports my claim that a believer in full possession of the gift of eternal life can be cut off.

 

Now, before I could answer him though, I needed him to clarify what he meant exactly by the phrase “a believer in full possession of the gift of eternal life”.  This turn of phrase was something new that he introduced and so I needed to make sure I understood exactly what he meant before we could go ahead and debate the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved” (OSAS).

 

And so I asked him a yes or no question.  I asked him that “if one receives the Grace of God and is described as being a member of the Body of Christ, would you call that person 'saved', ie to have full possession of the gift of eternal life?”

 

I’m unsure if my question unnerved him or that he knew where I was going with this but instead of answering with a yes or no he avoids my question altogether and in its place brings other verses that he believes proves his position.

 

Rather than show him that these new verses don’t prove what he thinks they prove, I kept pressing him on answering my question so that we may move on.  My question was rather simple.  From the perspective of my Protestant friend, an individual who he considers to be ‘saved’, is that individual a member of the Body of Christ and therefore in full possession of the gift of eternal life?

 

If he answered no, then I would ask him to clarify exactly what he means by having “full possession of the gift of eternal life.”  But if he answered that yes, when one is a member of the Body of Christ then he is in “full possession of the gift of eternal life”, which I suspect he would have to if he were honest with himself.  Then all I would have to do is bring a verse which shows that even when one is a member of the Body of Christ, i.e. in full possession of the gift of eternal life, can still be cut off from the Body of Christ.

 

That verse is in John 15.  Jesus said: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.  He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit […] I am the vine, you are the branches.  Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.  Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.” (John 15:1-6)

 

Notice that Jesus is talking about those ones who are the branches while He is the vine.  The branches are part of the body of the vine.  These branches, these people therefore are in ‘full possession of the gift of eternal life’ by virtue of being members of the Body of Christ.  These ‘branches’, these ‘saved’ individuals though can still be taken away and burned (v.6).

 

Rest assured that if he ever comes back to start a new subject that I will bring back this exact exchange so that he might finally answer my question.  If he won’t then he will show his true colors to all the others who are reading along of his intentions of not of finding the truth but to avoid all that might confuse him of his current mindset that “Once Saved, Always Saved” must be correct.

 

And that is the reason that I continue in my efforts to evangelize on internet groups.  I don’t put so much time and effort in this to convince those that I’m talking to but for those many who might be reading along that I may not ever know are there.

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

An On-line Conversation With a Cafeteria Catholic

Charles’, the Cafeteria Catholic, began:
The Roman Catholic Church is undergoing its greatest reform. Women will become priests. Priests will be allowed to marry. Homosexuals will be married sacramentally. Children will be conceived through artificial insemination. Masturbation will be recognized as a natural and healthy phenomena. It will all come to its greatest culmination under a female Pope. By what great awareness has this fallen upon me? The common sense that comes with being rational and a reasoning human being. The Church in all its greatness was most aware of its fallibility, and incorporated a well-known doctrine into the institution.

Nathan replies:
So now Charles knows the future.
Well, certain things that are defined as doctrine (ie. the Truth as the revealed Word of God) will not and cannot ever change because God does not change.

Here's what the church teaches:

1- Women cannot become priest just like men cannot become mothers and this will never change.

2- Many Roman Catholic priests are married even today. The church generally chooses men who have made a vow of celibacy for the priesthood but that practice can change any day. It is not a doctrine revealed by God.

3- Men with homosexual tendencies can be married sacramentally even today but can only marry women. The opposite is true for women as well because that's how God designed the male and female counterparts. They are complimentary of each other, no such complimentarity exists between two men or two women.

4- Children are already conceived through artificial insemination but that doesn't make it right. For example, 3 to 10 times more children die from the rejection of the embryo by the lab techs then there are successful artificial inseminations. These children deserve to live but died because the parents were willing to allow the deaths of so many for the life of the one.

5- Wasting ones seed (ie masturbation) has always been seen as wrong even from Biblical times (Gen 38:9-10).

Ones "common sense" can be terribly misguided especially when ones conscience is ill-informed.

To have a good conscience is to have it align with church doctrine because we KNOW that Church doctrines are always true since the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Charles answered:
I'm afraid that I cannot go there or would ever wish to. I have children watching and listening to me, especially a gay son. I teach that God is a most loving God and far more understanding than the Catholic Church teaches at the moment. But with patience and perseverance reason will win out. Those who think, keep hope alive, and education shall lead the way.

Having blind faith, is no excuse, for not thinking.

 

Here a lurker (a third-party) chimes in:
What many Catholics and most non Catholics fail to understand is that the Catholic Church welcomes homosexuals or divorced into the church. They ask no more from homosexuals than they do from single Catholics. The urge to have sex with someone is not wrong but doing so outside of marriage is the wrong part. I struggle with the logic of some of the Catholic teachings but I understand them.

Nathan replies:
Very well put [lurker].  Thanks for the clarification.

Charles then said:
The two of you are not aware that my wife's first husband tried to kill her, while high on cocaine. It was at my advice that she extricate herself from the threat of being assaulted and perhaps killed the next time. Did she know when she was a bride that 5 years later under the influence of cocaine that her sacramental partner, blessed by God, would try to kill her? No. But, isn't it reasonable to recognize that if a person tries to kill you, that perhaps they don't love you, and that in fact, staying married to that man, is not sanctioned by God? Something to contemplate.

Nathan answers:
A statement from the USCCB states this in regards to spousal abuse:

Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing.

The document can be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

I hope this helps.

Charles answers:
Thank you Nathan.  I did not know that such a socially aware document existed.  I do commend our American Bishops for their pastoral understanding in this area.

Finally, Nathan replies:
You’re welcome.  I’m glad I could help.

God Bless
Nathan

Be Prepared

We are to be ready for those times that we will be in a position to defend the Truth. Here is an exchange I recently had online. His words in italics, mine in bold as well as interspersed within his response. It all started when my friend posted the picture you see at the top of this leaflet with the caption: “Homosexuality is unnatural? Not according to nature.” I commented that the underlying premise was false. That is, just because you see a certain behavior in nature doesn’t mean that the behavior is morally ok to engage in. For example we find that sometimes lions kill rival's lioncubs. He answers back this way…

Oh[ Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong. What IS though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural. So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

Here’s my underlined answer interspersed within his original post. His words in italics:

Oh [Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong.

Loving another is never wrong whether he is of the same sex as you ro not. But the behavior between two lovers of the same sex is always wrong and you simply saying the contrary doesn’t make it true.

What IS [morally wrong] though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural.Whether some things are lawful does not determine what is moral. For example, is it morally ok to have extra marital affairs? Adultery is not punishable by law so by your standard it is morally ok. The laws of man can be moral laws but only when they are in line with natural law.
So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

Just because I don’t agree with the lifestyle and me saying so does not mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. One cannot logically go from me disagreeing with something to automatically mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. If that were the case then the government could prosecute me for disagreeing with anyone else on any given issue. That means that even defense attorneys could be prosecuted for inciting criminal activity because they are defending those who acted against the law. There is no logic in your statement, one does not follow the other.

If there is nothing wrong as long as it is with consent then what is wrong with a father and daughter being intimate with each other? Even if they are of legal age and both consent, is it still morally ok? By your standard it would be.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

Why are you bringing up all these different things? We were talking about the false premise that because you see a certain behavior in nature then it must be morally ok. And now you bring up the subject of marriage? For the record, I agree with the point you made in the above paragraph.

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

I agree that no one should be unjustly discriminated against. Why are you talking about marriage anyway? The subject was that just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world doesn't mean that it is ok to do.

To come back to my original point. Just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world does NOT mean that the behavior is morally acceptable.

God Bless
Nathan