Any tips on faith sharing? (Edited Title)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paratroopa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paratroopa

Guest
Before i asked a few questions, and was given lots of good recources. Thanks. Now however i still have the issue of protestants not even considering what it is i have to say during a debate. Its like some of them are just programmed robots, not taking anything in and just replaying the same record. Anyone out there want to share something from an experience with this? Thanks.
 
ALWAYS. Use Scripture, History, and Evidence

Protestants respond to scripture, that is what they know best and rely upon. If protestants see their source of strength is being questioned, their whole faith will be shook.

History is important. Give them quotes from Early Church fathers and what the Apostolic fathers stated about our Church.

Evidence will play a large part too. Evidence such as the incorruptible saints, solemn exorcisms only by priest, not pastors, miraculous gifts given to nuns, priest, clergy, Catholic laity, etc.

These three things will be great when arguing.
 
If they’re debating with you, it’s probably because they expect to change your mind, not the other way around.

I grew up with lots of protestant friends and associates, and have lots of practice in debating with them. But not any success in changing anyone’s mind. At best, it has been helpful in confirming my own beliefs and forcing me to look deeper into our great faith.

I have had some success in helping some protestants see Catholics in a better light and dispel some of their misconceptions. But many of them have such strong conviction of their own faiths (which is admirable) that they do not entertain the possibility that they may be incorrect. I prefer to focus on what we have in common - a great love for Christ and acceptance that He redeems us.
 
Paratroopa said:
Before i asked a few questions, and was given lots of good recources. Thanks. Now however i still have the issue of protestants not even considering what it is i have to say during a debate. Its like some of them are just programmed robots, not taking anything in and just replaying the same record. Anyone out there want to share something from an experience with this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Ask them if marriage exists or if it is just symbolic and whether a loving God would walk out on His Church and let everyone go unsaved for a thousand years.
 
Present the facts but remember we are all brothers and sisters who share one baptism and are all part of the body of Christ.
 
Trebor135 said:
I see one flaw in your argument: two individuals, if one is Catholic, can legitimately marry without the involvement of a priest under extreme circumstances–e.g., being stranded on a desert island.
Click to expand...
The issue is not canonical form of the ritual but rather whether the ritual is real or symbolic.
 
Paratroopa said:
Before i asked a few questions, and was given lots of good recources. Thanks. Now however i still have the issue of protestants not even considering what it is i have to say during a debate. Its like some of them are just programmed robots, not taking anything in and just replaying the same record. Anyone out there want to share something from an experience with this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
What I would recommend is to ensure that you go on the offensive straight away. Before any further discussions, formulate and employ a list of those questions which will cause your Protestant interlocutors severe difficulty.

John Martignoni has a video series entitled “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer”. The first installment can be viewed here: “Is a Dead Body Really a Body?”
 
History is important. Give them quotes from Early Church fathers and what the Apostolic fathers stated about our Church.

To amplify what is stated above,
please stress to them that
THE APOSTLES LIVED ON, FOR DECADES, AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS,
and they preached sermons, day after day, hours in length, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, FOR DECADES,
in all the churches ALL OVER THE ROMAN EMPIRE from ONE END of it to the OTHER.

THIS is VERY important.
In these sermons, they EXPLAINED what they MEAN by what is WRITTEN in our
almost WAFER-THIN New Testament.
THIS, too,is VERY IMPORTANT. So, after all those decades of apostolic sermons day in and day out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, for decades, after ALL that, what did ALL those churches believe???
They believed in
a) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION of the Episcopate with elders - presbyters - who had
…PRIESTLY offices, not just “elder” (in the protestant sense) offices.
b) SEVEN SACRAMENTS, including WEEKLY eucharist and communion (that’s Mass!).
c) THE REAL PHYSICAL PRESENCE of the RISEN JESUS in COMMUNION.
d) CONFESSION OF YOUR SINS TO THE PRESBYTERS FOR ABSOLUTION.
e) THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME WAS FOUNDED BY PETER and also PAUL.
f) THAT THE ROMAN BISHOP HAD PRE-EMINENCE OVER THE OTHERS
…(that’s the papacy, folks).
g) THAT MARY, JESUS’s MOTHER, IS THE “NEW EVE” and IMMACULATE.
Know what we call this? Simple. This is Catholicism.
THAT is the Church, doctrinally and in practice, that the Apostles left behind.
And that is the truth, no if’s, no and’s, and no but’s.
There are no valid arguments against these statements, they can easily be proven,
have been proven many, many many times,
and seriously, if a person is confronted with this evidence, and lots of it,
and STILL refuses to even CONSIDER the claims of the church, then it is seriously
likely that this is a Person of BAD WILL.
 
Here are my top recommendations:


  1. *]You stay in control of the agenda. Let him choose the first topic, but don’t let him switch topics when he starts loosing. If you don’t think that topic has been covered, don’t let him jump to something else.
    *]If he ever claims to have “lots of verses” or whatever to support some position, or claims to have “lots of objections” to Catholicism, or whatever - ask him to supply the one which he finds the most persuasive. If you can dismantle his BEST argument, it calls his inferior objections into doubt. Never let him rattle off a list of Bible quotes - ask him to name his BEST quote for the situation, and deal with it exclusively.
    *]Use the Socratic method - make your points by asking lots of questions. That assures him that you respect his opinion, and he feels like he is educating you (when, hopefully, he winds up educating himself). If you have not read any of the debates of Socrates, I recommend you do so - start out with Ion.
    *]Never assume a protestant is well-versed in Scripture. Most protestants I have met are very familiar with just a few passages (the ones that their preacher returns to often). I have never met a protestant whom I really believed had read the entire New Testament. (FWIW, the protestant TV preacher, Jim Bakker, admitted that he never read the whole Bible until he was sent to prison for defrauding his congregation). Some Catholics are intimidated by protestants when discussing Scripture, assuming they are all practically Scripture scholars. This is rarely the case.
 
Mormons are the worst, brainwashed fools of them all.

They believe a man, Joseph Smith, who molested a 13 year old girl, and two other underage girls, was a prophet of God. Are you serious? You really believe Joseph Smith is a prophet? How sickening.

They spew total ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the Bible. No matter the sound reasoning presented to Mormons, they believe they are right no matter what. Their parents do a good job at brainwashing them.
 
In my experience, a lot of them seem to feel, even if they don’t realize it, that they are here not to converse with you, but to tell you truth. As such, most of the stuff I say is often glossed over and ultimately ignored. Stand firm. If they neglect to address a point you made, point this out to them. Do not let them divert the conversation, change the subject, refuse to answer, or give a non-answer answer (if it’s a yes or no question, and their “answer” is nothing but a scripture quote, that is a non-answer answer).

To be honest, most of the time, when I do this, they get angry, defensive, and accusatory. In my opinion, the people who do this just wanted to hear themselves speak in the first place.

Either way, it is of the utmost importance that you remain calm, cool, and collected at this point, as any display of emotional weakness is pounced upon as though it invalidates every word you said. On other forums, the more vitriolic anti-Catholics will basically invent and attribute fake emotional weakness to me to attack.

In the end, everyone is different and every person responds differently, so there is no ultimate guide. It’s not some mathematical equation you can calculate in your head. You’ll just have to try, try again.
 
Trebor135 said:
What I would recommend is to ensure that you go on the offensive straight away. Before any further discussions, formulate and employ a list of those questions which will cause your Protestant interlocutors severe difficulty.
Click to expand...
This is great advice. Not so much for the “offensive” aspect, but to build yourself a strong background knowledge base from which to pull. You don’t want to barrage him/her with questions…only those that apply to the subject at hand. Know your opponent and learn some of the arguments they have and learn how to defeat those before you even start. And don’t think that a Protestant will be insulted by this. They want you to intelligently discuss issues with them…and will stop listening altogether if you resort to “the Church says so”. Fundamentalism and Catholicism is another great book for this.

The most important thing in my opinion after the above, is to keep your cool, take your time, and be long-suffering. Be willing to let it drag out over several days…weeks…if necessary. You may find in the end that they don’t change their mind…but you’ll have planted a seed there…or at least scratched the surface for a future seed.
DavidFilmer said:
Here are my top recommendations:


  1. *]You stay in control of the agenda. Let him choose the first topic, but don’t let him switch topics when he starts loosing. If you don’t think that topic has been covered, don’t let him jump to something else.
    *]If he ever claims to have “lots of verses” or whatever to support some position, or claims to have “lots of objections” to Catholicism, or whatever - ask him to supply the one which he finds the most persuasive. If you can dismantle his BEST argument, it calls his inferior objections into doubt. Never let him rattle off a list of Bible quotes - ask him to name his BEST quote for the situation, and deal with it exclusively.
    *]Use the Socratic method - make your points by asking lots of questions. That assures him that you respect his opinion, and he feels like he is educating you (when, hopefully, he winds up educating himself). If you have not read any of the debates of Socrates, I recommend you do so - start out with Ion.
    *]Never assume a protestant is well-versed in Scripture. Most protestants I have met are very familiar with just a few passages (the ones that their preacher returns to often). I have never met a protestant whom I really believed had read the entire New Testament. (FWIW, the protestant TV preacher, Jim Bakker, admitted that he never read the whole Bible until he was sent to prison for defrauding his congregation). Some Catholics are intimidated by protestants when discussing Scripture, assuming they are all practically Scripture scholars. This is rarely the case.
Click to expand...

  1. 👍
 
filter2700 said:
Mormons are the worst
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. Mormons are the most Catholic-like non-Christian religion. They accept the validity of the Early Church, but claim that the Church fell into total apostasy.

This is not much different than many protestant versions of Church history, and can be dealt with using the same approach - but it is even easier. Most protestants who value historic authenticity will claim that the Early Church was really protestant in theology, but this was suppressed (but practiced in secret) for many centuries, only to reemerge with the protestant rebellion. This is a complicated claim to refute. While this claim has absolutely no basis whatsoever in history, a secret practice might (by definition) have eluded notice by historians. The fact that the people who invented protestantism (Luther, Calvin. Zwingli, etc) never alluded to such a secret lineage (to establish their historic authenticity) just goes to show how good these people are at keeping their secrets. It’s hard to argue that historic secrets are false simply because they are not clearly established in history.

But the Mormons will have none of that secrecy nonsense. They claim flat-out that the Church gradually fell into total apostasy as a matter of open historical fact, citing many shameful episodes in Church history (the Cadaver Synod, the Rule of Harlots, etc).

As an exercise to the reader, I will defer expressing why “gradual apostasy” is impossible, or why the historic events used to support this claim do not actually support it.

But, at least, Mormon doctrine offers a field upon which to debate doctrine. We begin with the same premise (that the Early Church was valid). The real issue is the question of total apostasy, which is Apologetics 101 for many Catholics on this forum.

Now - Jehovah’s Witnesses are a whole 'nuther story. I spent two years trying to figure out WHY they believe what they believe. I spent a lot of money buying various Watchtower publications, to no avail. Whereas I do not agree with the Mormons, but I can understand their position, I am absolutely unable to comprehend the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I know what they teach - but I am at a complete loss to understand why any rational human being believes it. I perceive their theology as intellectually vapid - utterly devoid of common reason.

So, I would argue that among the quasi-Christian movements, Mormons are the best. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the worst.
 
Paratroopa said:
Before i asked a few questions, and was given lots of good recources. Thanks. Now however i still have the issue of protestants not even considering what it is i have to say during a debate. Its like some of them are just programmed robots, not taking anything in and just replaying the same record. Anyone out there want to share something from an experience with this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
You’ve received sound advice on this thread…I would add only the following:
  1. Pray before you engage them in discussion.
  2. Pray during the discussion.
  3. Listen carefully.
  4. Share your own story of how much you love the Lord, and how the Lord has been working in you through the Church, especially through receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.
  5. Know everything there is to know about the Eucharist in scripture. Read Dr. Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
I will pray for your efforts.

God bless.
 
DavidFilmer said:
This is not much different than many protestant versions of Church history, and can be dealt with using the same approach - but it is even easier. Most protestants who value historic authenticity will claim that the Early Church was really protestant in theology, but this was suppressed (but practiced in secret) for many centuries, only to reemerge with the protestant rebellion. This is a complicated claim to refute.

…It’s hard to argue that historic secrets are false simply because they are not clearly established in history.
Click to expand...
I wanted to elaborate on this idea a bit further in case someone reading this thread ends up in a debate with people who make the sort of claim that David illustrated (about the existence of pre-Reformation Christians who had a Protestant-type theology and Church structure).

As David pointed out, it is hard to prove that such Christians did not, indeed, exist. The reason is because (generally speaking) it is impossible to prove the absence of something. For example, I don’t believe that gnomes exist (actual living gnomes, that is) but it is impossible for me to prove that they do not exist. For all I know, they may exist in some remote forest, or on another planet, or in a house down the road. For obvious reasons, I am unable to check through the entire universe to verify their non-existence.

Therefore, in a proper debate, it is up to the person making the positive claim to provide the evidence or proof to back it up. In other words, if someone claims that there were pre-Reformation Protestant-type Christians, he needs to provide the evidence that properly demonstrates such a claim. It is not enough, for example, for him to say, “Prove that there weren’t.” (As a side note, one would think that this sort of thing would be obvious, but, alas, it is not. Consider a brief exchange between haparker321, an adherent of Sola Scriptura, and Randy Carson which can be read in this link)

To this date, I have not seen anyone produce any authentic evidence demonstrating the existence of pre-Reformation Protestant-type Christians. Some cite heretics as examples of early Protestants, but a closer examination of their teachings show that they had a theology contrary to what is taught in Protestantism. What usually ends up happening in these debates is the emergence of “wishful thinking” (i.e., someone says that there were pre-Reformation Protestants because they want there to be pre-Reformation Protestants) and/or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Such conspiracy theories usually present the idea that early Protestants had to hide and operate in secret, and the ones who publicly challenged the Catholic Church were executed as heretics (and their Protestant teachings were altered by Catholics in the public records to appear as heresy, etc.).
 
filter2700 said:
Mormons are the worst, brainwashed fools of them all.

They believe a man, Joseph Smith, who molested a 13 year old girl, and two other underage girls, was a prophet of God. Are you serious? You really believe Joseph Smith is a prophet? How sickening.

They spew total ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the Bible. No matter the sound reasoning presented to Mormons, they believe they are right no matter what. Their parents do a good job at brainwashing them.
Click to expand...
You might want to consider formulating your opinions a tad more charitably.

Chuck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top