Using Catholic Apologetics

[Aggie]

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologetics were big reasons for my deconversion.  Catholics and Orthodox use different "touch verses" and lenses in which to view Scripture.  They also have the argument that Protestants have a dubious claim to the Holy Spirit since (1) Christ said the Church would be perpetual (2) there are no Protestant churches until the 1500's.

 

Here are some thought-provoking ideas (to me anyway):

 

Why you should hold to unwritten apostolic traditions:

2 Thess 2:15  

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

 

Why the Church is the ground of the truth and not the Bible: 

1 Timothy 3:15

"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

 

Why praying for the dead is proper:

2 Maccabees 12:44-45

⁴⁴For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. ⁴⁵But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

Why "faith alone" is false:

-"Faith alone" only appears once in the Bible: 

James 2:24

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

If "faith alone" was so important, would the Bible say "NOT by faith alone"??

 

-Paul is hard to understand and one should beware of basing doctrines solely on Paul:

2 Peter 3:16

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

-No one taught "faith alone" before the Reformation.  Why didn't the Holy Spirit put have this doctrine in any of the early creeds?  Why didn't the church fathers (both before and after Constantine) teach it?  Why didn't the Greek fathers who read Greek as their native tongue see it?

 

-Here's Latin father St. Augustine on faith alone and merit:

"Therefore, let us now see what must be torn away from the hearts of the God-fearing to prevent the loss of salvation through a treacherously false security, if, under the illusion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, they neglect to live a good life and fail by good works to persevere in the way that leads to God" – On Faith and Works

"Previously grace, now your due; previously grace was granted, now what is due is being rewarded 

... So you kept the faith by God's mercy, not by your own strength.  So for the rest 'there remains for you a crown of justice, which the Lord will award you on that day, the just judge' [cf. 2 Tim. 4:8].  He will award it, after all, to your merits, that's why we can say he's the just judge.  But even here don' t start swaggering, because your merits are his gifts" –Sermon 298

 

Relics have power in the Bible:

"As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into

the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up

on his feet" (2 Kings 13:21).

"God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or

aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil

spirits went out" (Acts 19:11-12).

 

Typical Protestant iconoclasm is unbiblical:

The Temple had cherubim on the ark, bulls on stands, flowers, etc.  Jesus, the "image of the living God," made a new economy of images since God-- who once could not be seen-- was clearly seen:

John 12:45  "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me."

 

Protestants have no tenable theory of how to select canonical books:

-How do you know which books are in the Bible?  Have you looked at the books that have been excluded?  Have you personally entered into the debates on the ones that were kept?  Why rely so much on early Catholics for the canon when they had so many "unorthodox" aspects to their theology—which included saint veneration, the belief in the miraculous powers of relics, the holy calling of the monastic life, apostolic succession, praying for the dead, the authority of Councils, the authenticity of episcopal government, the “Real Presence” in the eucharist, and baptismal regeneration—and excluding justification by faith alone?

 

Now, I think all this stuff fails too.  But it does show some major weaknesses in Protestant thought IMO...

 

[florduh]

In my view, Protestant thought is no improvement on the original, and no less corrupt in practice. As with anything originated from Bible verses, there is support to be found for each of many conflicting doctrines. As a Protestant child I sort of envied the community and traditions my Catholic friends enjoyed. Due to geography I actually spent a year of grade school with the Catholics and came to realize they had more fun than my Dad's church. After all, even the priests smoked, drank and gambled! 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Some of these things spurred me to change from Calvinist to Catholic... after a while though I had to ditch the whole Christian thing.

[RipVanWinkle]

It seems to me that both faith alone and faith plus works fail for the following reasons:

 

1. If we were to assume that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, then there could be no one saved until the Protestant Reformation. Before Luther the concept of being saved by faith alone was not taught. Only the Catholic Church existed until they split with the Orthodox Church. So every Catholic was unsaved unless they rejected the Church doctrine requiring Church approval for salvation. Millions and millions of Catholics gone to hell?  

2. Nor could Catholics be saved before the reformation even if they believed that faith plus works were required for salvation. That's because they would still have needed the Church approval before they were saved. Remember there were no other Xtians in the world but Catholics until the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

 Is it believable that, if protestants are right that no Catholic Church approval could be required for salvation, since no one knew that before Luther no one was saved? For over a thousand years after Christ?

 

3. On the other hand if the Catholics are right that their Church approval, plus faith in Christ, are needed for salvation then none of the millions and millions of protestants or Orthodox Xtians or other non-Catholic Xtians have ever been saved.

 

I have not researched the Orthodox Church on its requirements for salvation. Perhaps someone can enlighten us (me) as to have it fits into the above salvation picture.   bill

[francesco]

Apologetics: because god cannot defending himself :yao:

[DoubtingNate]

Thank you for sharing.  Catholic apologetics is a strange and foreign world to this ex-Calvinist!

 

They're so different, really completely different faiths with different salvation requirements, sacrament theology, pretty much everything.

[Adam5]

Hi Aggie, I used to be on the Catholic Answers forum.  Many are competent at apologetics and picking holes in protestant doctrines, especially those who have converted from protestant to catholic.  However what is clear is that you can cherry pick verses to support many different positions, as there are so many contradictory and conflicting points of view in the Bible.  All of which of course proves that it is man made, as if it was co-authored by God/s, you would expect to have much more consistency.

[Aggie]

It seems to me that both faith alone and faith plus works fail for the following reasons:

 

1. If we were to assume that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, then there could be no one saved until the Protestant Reformation. Before Luther the concept of being saved by faith alone was not taught. Only the Catholic Church existed until they split with the Orthodox Church. So every Catholic was unsaved unless they rejected the Church doctrine requiring Church approval for salvation. Millions and millions of Catholics gone to hell?  

2. Nor could Catholics be saved before the reformation even if they believed that faith plus works were required for salvation. That's because they would still have needed the Church approval before they were saved. Remember there were no other Xtians in the world but Catholics until the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

 Is it believable that, if protestants are right that no Catholic Church approval could be required for salvation, since no one knew that before Luther no one was saved? For over a thousand years after Christ?

 

3. On the other hand if the Catholics are right that their Church approval, plus faith in Christ, are needed for salvation then none of the millions and millions of protestants or Orthodox Xtians or other non-Catholic Xtians have ever been saved.

 

I have not researched the Orthodox Church on its requirements for salvation. Perhaps someone can enlighten us (me) as to have it fits into the above salvation picture.   bill

 

Bill,

 

IMO Orthodoxy and Catholicism (as well as Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East-- i.e., all the early major branches of Catholicism) have similar views of salvation-- sacramental, a process as opposed to just an event, can fall from grace due to mortal sin, etc.  

 

I would view Orthodoxy as less scholastic and more "mystical" but much more like traditional Catholicism than Protestantism.  They reject the authority of the pope, are generally suspicious of indulgences, don't like the term "merit" that much, and usually reject purgatory.  But they are big into icons, believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, pray for the dead, pray to saints, hold Mary in especially high esteem, believe in baptismal regeneration, have a sacrament of Confession, have bishops and archbishops, believe in conciliar authority, and have the Apocrypha in their canon (with some minor variations from the RC canon).  Traditionally they have also held to the Catholic doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation"-- of course you can guess who they believe is the actual "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" ...

 

Timothy Ware (an Anglican turned Orthodox) wrote a great intro on the subject if interested: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-Timothy-Ware-ebook/dp/B002XHNNHA

 

I think you are dead-on about the history of justification BTW.  Any Protestants reading?  I challenge you to find one example of a Christian interpreting the Scriptures to teach justification by faith alone before the Reformation...  

[DoubtingNate]

All of which of course proves that it is man made, as if it was co-authored by God/s, you would expect to have much more consistency.

 

 

Yep; to save lots of killing, God could at any point come down and say to everyone at once, no, no, this guy is right and this guy is wrong.  This is how it should be.

 

But apparently he can only explain these things to one person at a time, in some crazy vision that no one else can verify.  Which leaves us in basically the same place as before. <resume killing>

[Aggie]

Hi Aggie, I used to be on the Catholic Answers forum.  Many are competent at apologetics and picking holes in protestant doctrines, especially those who have converted from protestant to catholic.  However what is clear is that you can cherry pick verses to support many different positions, as there are so many contradictory and conflicting points of view in the Bible.  All of which of course proves that it is man made, as if it was co-authored by God/s, you would expect to have much more consistency.

 

I used to listen to Catholic Answers all the time.  It really exposed my ignorance to a lot of Christian history and Catholic theology.

 

Yes, I think that ultimately Catholic and Protestant apologetics are much more adept at proving the other wrong than proving themselves correct...

[Aggie]

Thank you for sharing.  Catholic apologetics is a strange and foreign world to this ex-Calvinist!

 

They're so different, really completely different faiths with different salvation requirements, sacrament theology, pretty much everything.

 

It is pretty foreign in many ways... Greer must be a tough place to be a non-believer!

[DoubtingNate]

 I challenge you to find one example of a Christian interpreting the Scriptures to teach justification by faith alone before the Reformation...  

 

 

There Scriptural basis for this is Ephesians 2:8-9; but I was never clear on why it took 1500 or so years for Luther to point this out.

 

It would be neat if someday there could be another reformation based on Ecclesiastes 9:7-10.  Or perhaps Amos 5: 10-24.  I'm not holding my breath.

[Aggie]

 

 I challenge you to find one example of a Christian interpreting the Scriptures to teach justification by faith alone before the Reformation...  

 

 

There Scriptural basis for this is Ephesians 2:8-9; but I was never clear on why it took 1500 or so years for Luther to point this out.

 

It would be neat if someday there could be another reformation based on Ecclesiastes 9:7-10.  Or perhaps Amos 5: 10-24.  I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

I think Luther had a reasonable approach to certain Scriptures-- it's just that he was against the history of interpretation on justification.  Likewise, I think that the Catholic tradition struggles more with Pauline thought but has a more natural interpretation of James and the Gospels.  What Calvinist describes faith like James does?  What Catholic is comfortable with the Pauline faith v. works dichotomy?  (Really, I think it boils down to the Scriptures not being unified in their message and being often based on nonsensical or inherently dubious ideas.  Any system that you create will necessarily be flawed because of the flaws in the sources...)

[Aries256]

all xtian apologetics is bullshit. Its a attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

[DoubtingNate]

Apologetics is Christianity's retention department.

[Aggie]

all xtian apologetics is bullshit. Its a attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

 

True.  I remember John Loftus remarking how much reading different religion's/sect's critiques of each other helped him to refine his arguments.  It sure was helpful to me...

[RipVanWinkle]

Thanks Aggie for the information. In my  research on biblical and Xtian history I have paid little attention to the orthodox. You have provided the main question I had, which was whether they believe "faith alone" was sufficient. Since they don't, I believe my conclusion holds. Thanks again.   bill

[RipVanWinkle]

It's kind of interesting that the fear of the Catholic Church about making the bible available to the masses turns out to be true:

It caused the formation of multiple denominations of Xtianity.    

 

But my primary point is that I don't see how one can be a protestant christion, believing that either faith alone or faith plus works are the only paths to salvation, if they know that neither were preached for over 1,000 years after christ? God would allow  the wrong doctrine(s) on salvation of mankind to be taught in the whole world for over a thousand years with no one preaching the "true" way? Nobody got saved after Christ's death until the Reformation? What a ridiculous plan. Or, on the other hand, after the Reformation god allowed millions and millions of protestants go to hell because Luther erroneously decided that the Catholic method was wrong? What an "I don't give a shit" god they worship.  bill

[Aggie]

Thanks Aggie for the information. In my  research on biblical and Xtian history I have paid little attention to the orthodox. You have provided the main question I had, which was whether they believe "faith alone" was sufficient. Since they don't, I believe my conclusion holds. Thanks again.   bill

 

Bill,

 

Glad to help.  This issue was really the most central reason for my deconversion.

 

Evangelical Alister McGrath wrote a fascinating book on justification called Iustitia Dei.  Too expensive to buy, but a good one to check out from a library: http://www.amazon.com/Iustitia-Dei-Christian-Doctrine-Justification/dp/0521826489

 

He explains, I think correctly, that the earliest fathers, Augustine, Hus, Wycliffe-- really all pre-Reformation figures-- did not hold to this justification by faith alone/imputed righteousness idea which evangelicals call "the" gospel.  

 

Interestingly, some evangelicals have disowned C.S. Lewis over the issue...

 

"Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ.  I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is necessary.  … I am afraid this is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity.  I am puzzled, but I am not surprised.  You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate in watertight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together."

[Aggie]

It's kind of interesting that the fear of the Catholic Church about making the bible available to the masses turns out to be true:

It caused the formation of multiple denominations of Xtianity.    bill

 

My basic take on that point is that it's often exaggerated anyway.  They were definitely against Protestant translations-- and Catholics were horrible about book bannings and burnings (not to mention people-burnings at times).  But there were some vernacular translations that were approved in different times and places.

 

Of course-- and this is the kicker for me-- Greek fathers and the Orthodox Church never banned the Greek New Testament!  Yet, when confronted with Lutheran version of the gospel, they rejected it as false and against the teachings of the Scriptures.  They, rightly I think, held that Luther was against the whole history of interpretation of the early Church.  (Furthermore, Lutherans don't line up with any "heretical" group before them either.)  There was an interesting episode where some German scholars from Tubingen in 1573 were told by the Orthodox that they were wrong...

[RipVanWinkle]

I imagine the thing that attracted the view that "faith" alone is the correct doctrine, is the certainty of it. The faith of a mustard seed is all that is needed. But the certainty  of faith is an illusion. "Faith without works is dead". But illusion or not "faith alone" became  a huge selling point, at least here in America. It fit like a glove with capitalism and free competition and thrust Xtianity into the world of business, big time. I think "faith alone" is so appealing to so many Xtians that "indoctrination" by the church was much easier. You get eternal life and all you have to do is believe. How can they worry about compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. when the game has already been won? It's truly a bad doctrine if the goal is to improve behavior of the masses, rather than collect a bunch of money. But, you know, one really can't have faith without tithing. (How's that for a starting line in the sales pitch?)   bill

[Aggie]

Bill,

 

No doubt, "faith alone" is a catchy slogan.  I think you're right that's one reason why it caught on.

 

I also thought of this you may be interested in the 1672 Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:  http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

 

The Orthodox responded to Calvinism in this council explaining, with Scripture citations, why faith alone (Decree XIII), Calvinistic predestination (Decree III), the perspicuity of Scripture (Question II), etc were false.  They were particularly harsh on Calvinistic predestination to damnation describing those who believed such things like this:  "Far be it from us, while we have our senses, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels."

 

It's only a few pages long and you may be curious to check it out if you get a minute.  It's a good little summary of Orthodoxy, especially since it specifically responds to Protestantism...

[francesco]

catholic have many fetishes, which is minimize the role of jesus himself from the perspective of outsider

think about saints, worship of mary, pope, bible, cross mark, rosaries, transfiguration of bread and wine, etc

try to read their apologetic about those and you'll be  

[DoubtingNate]

I asked my dad, who is a Presbyterian minister, about any existing precedent for 'sola fide' prior to Luther; he said that Wycliffe and Hus were just starting to touch on it a few centuries prior, but Luther was in the right place at the right time because of the printing press enabling more widespread literacy.  Gving the Church the power of being a gatekeeper for salvation just makes sense,and would naturally be in their best interests.

 

Moreso than 'sola fide,' the accompanying doctrine of 'sola scriptura' couldn't really exist without widespread literacy.  of course, Wycliffe was branded as a heretic by the Catholic church for the crime of translating the Bible into English, so in my opinion that's something the Catholic Church has to answer for.  Any institution that sees widespread literacy as a threat should be viewed as suspect.  Whatever problems there are with Scripture, making them accessible to everyday people should be seen as a step forward.

 

That's one reason that Reformation theology has held a certain appeal to me, at least over Catholicism, despite other obvious problems.  I like the idea of playing Catholic and Protestant theology against each other, because both traditions are full of shit in different ways.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Catholic controversialists at least back as far as Bellarmine (1542-1621) were pointing out that "sola scriptura" does not satisfy its own requirements because it is not a doctrine stated in the Bible.

 

When I realized that, the linchpin of my Calvinism was yanked out from under me.