Apologetics:hard And Soft Approach

  • Thread starter Thread starter marineboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our approach needs to be that we examine ourselves daily to see if we are speaking out of love or the need to win arguements. However a criteria in evaluating this is not whether or not we make people mad by speaking the truth. i.e. the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth. Peter and Paul in Acts got the carp beat out of them. Stephen said some very inflamitory words in Acts 6. He was killed. We need to speak the truth and speak it boldly.

It should also be noted to the poster above that if someone is turned off by this language of truth we speak is not neccessarily a bad thing. The initial reaction to truth many times is confusion and anger. Paul, then Saul heard the words spoken by Stephen and I am sure was angered. My wife the first time she heard scott hahn was angered. She told me she couldn’t stand to listen to his voice. But later confided in me that it was his message that angered her. But she had to wrestle with it and eventually come to grips with the things he said that she could not reconcile with her beliefs at the time. Then she became angry because she had been decieved all her life by her Protestant upbringing. Now she is of course Catholic. Conversion is not always without pain.

I have come to the conclusion that if you are not angering some you are not pushing the envelope enough.

Speak the truth in love. But for his sake speak it.

Blessings
 
Jkirk you suggest that they read all my posts—well if you took your own advice you would see that I repeatedly have rejected the Feeneyite (water baptism and explicit faith are absolutely necessary) position–yet you accuse me of it–I am not ill informed, but you may be in theological error because you seem to imply that Protestants can be saved in their Churches—Pius XII was very clear in Mystici Corporis that NON_ Catholic christians are not members of the Church–so are you suggesting that a Protestant can be saved as a Protestant?? If invincible ignorance doesnt appy to Protestants then how can they be saved?? You call me rude, well look at Luke 11: 37-til the end of the chapter—Was Jesus being rude?? He was even told he was being rude–and what was his response?? READ IT–DONT BE LAZY GET YOUR BIBLE OUT AND LOOK IT UP!!! mY WRITING SARE CONSISTENT WITH CHURCH TEACHING I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOUR INDIFFERENTISM (ABOUT PROTESTANTS)IS NOT-- YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ THE COUNCIL OF TRENT–YOU DIDNT FORGET ABOUT THAT COUNCIL DID YOU–I??IT WAS THE ONE IN THE 16 TH CENTURY THAT DEALT WITH THE HERESY OF PROTESTANISM–REMEMBER??
 
I once heard an observation about human nature. It goes something like “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Our Lord Jesus can be said to take the “hard approach” (e.g., Luke 12:40 “I have come to set the earth on fire…”; The Cleansing of the Temple Luke 19:45-48; and, Mt. 16:23 to Peter “Get behind me, Satan!” Also, the same Lord Jesus, in what you might term the “soft approach,” said, e.g., “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28); “Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give” (John 14:27); and, “I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

To me, Jesus, in complete love, has always “approached” in just the way, either “hard” or “soft,” that was for my well-being. The Lord never confuses the two.
 
Marineboy,

As I consider this “hard approach” method you are recommending, it would be very helpful to me if you could describe for us a few of your personal conversion success stories. I’m not asking for names, but perhaps you could describe what a few of the people were like prior to you threatening them with eternal damnation, and then the conversion that resulted from that discussion.

I ask this because, I glean from other people what I call best practices in apologetics. I want to know something works before I implement it. For the time being, all you have described is the potential for benefit to the person using the “hard approach” method (so that he can stand before God and say with pride, “I warned them”). But for me, apologetics is more about the other person than about me, and I need to know that there is potential benefit (namely, the likelihood of a change of heart) for the other person.

For, if this method only has potential benefit to the person utilizing the “hard approach” (when he stands before God) then it misses the whole point of evangelization, in my opinion, and I fear even that person will not actually reap the benefit you describe.

Thx,
Chris W
 
Yours is still the Feenyite position that formal membership in the Catholic Church is absolutely required. If you don’t know this, then you don’t know enough about Father Feeny’s position.

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say. This is the official teaching of the Church, promulgated by the Vicar of Christ. Does it abrogate the teaching that went before? Only sedevacanteists/rad trad schismatics would suggest so. Rather, it explicates and illuminates and clarifies the teachings that went before it. It’s no denial of EENS, but rather clarifies where the boundaries are, surely within the purview of the Vicar of Christ:

**818 **“However, 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.”***272 **819 **"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **

**836 **"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

**837 ** "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. ***Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321 (As an aside, I always think this is worth remembering).*****838 **"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Finally, I’m not lazy, I extremely familiar with the Bible, I’ve been reading it since the age of ten, when I got my first copy for Christmas. I also haven’t forgotten about the great Council of Trent. The edicts and teachings of a council can be clarified, explained, and illuminated by the Teaching Church, in the person of the Vicar of Christ and the living Magisterium. Also, it would be polite of you not to capitalize everything, as that denotes yelling. And as often as you post on this topic, provided that I notice it, I will be there, post for post. Your views do not represent the fullness of Catholic teaching. Perhaps you’d like to stop flogging this dead horse? Or just post links to your prior threads.
 
I still hope no protestant is ever unfortunate enough to encounter marineboy.

I suspect at judgement day some protestants will say

‘Well, we talked to marineboy and he put us right off even looking into the matter.’

God will probably say ‘Fair point’!

Seriously though…

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM

and marineboy, you could do worse than mediate on this…

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church’s riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God’s special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM
 
The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Pope John XXIII

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0261i.htm
 
Jkirk You Are Dishonest I Just Said In My Last Post That I Reject That Formal Membership Is Absolutley Required—why Dont You Get A Life And Stop Maming Up Stuff-----i Think The Moderators Should Issue You A Conduct Warnig For Obviously Lying—at Least When I Deabte On Here I Try To Represent The Other Person’s Position Honestly----you Arent Doing That–further Proff That You Are Not On God’s Side----you Need To Repent–“by Their Fruits You Shall Know Them”
 
40.png
marineboy:
Jkirk You Are Dishonest I Just Said In My Last Post That I Reject That Formal Membership Is Absolutley Required—why Dont You Get A Life And Stop Maming Up Stuff-----i Think The Moderators Should Issue You A Conduct Warnig For Obviously Lying—at Least When I Deabte On Here I Try To Represent The Other Person’s Position Honestly----you Arent Doing That–further Proff That You Are Not On God’s Side----you Need To Repent–“by Their Fruits You Shall Know Them”
Click to expand...
Marineboy Jkirk is reflecting on what your posts do indeed sound like.God himself gives the grace of understanding and conversion.We are to instruct people in what the Church teaches:nope: Look marineboy nobody has accused you of not being on Gods side that is not right for you to say that:tsktsk: Please if you only listen we are trying to tell you that your approach needs some work,please stop judging people it is not right:tsktsk: Yesterday you even went so far as to tell me I should be afraid of my own judgement:nope: We all work out our salvation in fear and trembling ALL of us:nope: Can you just calm your post down,please:confused:
 
Two things I have learned in this thread

One - It is extremely hard to read all caps.

Two - It is extremely hard to read italics which I love

…Caps and intalics together is murder.

I prefer to love people into our faith, rather than condemn them into our faith. Condemning them tends to push them away.
 
I don’t think it is an either or thing. Paul in 1 Cor 4 chastises the community for not taking action on a man who is in a sinful relationship. He says that he has handed the man’s body over to Satan so that his soul might be saved. John says that if someone comes to your door with another teaching do not even welcome him. Jesus called the pharassees a brood of vipers. Believe it or not this was said out of love for their good. So there are times to be hard and times to be soft. Ever heard of toughlove.

Blessings
 
40.png
thessalonian:
I don’t think it is an either or thing. Paul in 1 Cor 4 chastises the community for not taking action on a man who is in a sinful relationship. He says that he has handed the man’s body over to Satan so that his soul might be saved. John says that if someone comes to your door with another teaching do not even welcome him. Jesus called the pharassees a brood of vipers. Believe it or not this was said out of love for their good. So there are times to be hard and times to be soft. Ever heard of toughlove.

Blessings
Click to expand...
You are right but a different approach calls for discernment on the individual:nope: Okay lets say you are a protestant coming here to find out what the Catholic Church teaches:ehh: So you open this thread and read the opening:eek: Would you 1) be open to learning more? 2) Be on the defensive and be closed to anything else and go back to their friends and say well the Catholics say if we don’t become Catholic we a pretty much going to hell:nope: It is hard to learn if someone builds a wall:whistle:
 
I have heard of tough love. And in no way does it mean that we have to be tough, hard, on people. One thing it means is that we have to allow people to be responsible for their actions, and that can appear to be hard on them. Responsibility for our actions is something that it has become much too easy to buy out of.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
You are right but a different approach calls for discernment on the individual:nope: Okay lets say you are a protestant coming here to find out what the Catholic Church teaches:ehh: So you open this thread and read the opening:eek: Would you 1) be open to learning more? 2) Be on the defensive and be closed to anything else and go back to their friends and say well the Catholics say if we don’t become Catholic we a pretty much going to hell:nope: It is hard to learn if someone builds a wall:whistle:
Click to expand...
It definitely depends on the individual. Here’s a bit of a hypothetical (let me know if it’s realisitic): say there is a life long very faithful Protestant who is very involved in his church and who has many good friends at his church. The Spirit has been moving him towards the Catholic faith. He knows if he were to convert, it would mean leaving such a huge part of his life. He sees that the Church says that the protestant churches can be used as a means to salvation. He figures that if he can be saved without deviating from the status quo, why convert? So he remains protestant.

I would think someone like this would need to be reminded of the severity of that decision to remain protestant. Am I out of line here? Maybe this kind of thing just doesn’t happen. Any thoughts?
 
40.png
Genesis315:
It definitely depends on the individual. Here’s a bit of a hypothetical (let me know if it’s realisitic): say there is a life long very faithful Protestant who is very involved in his church and who has many good friends at his church. The Spirit has been moving him towards the Catholic faith. He knows if he were to convert, it would mean leaving such a huge part of his life. He sees that the Church says that the protestant churches can be used as a means to salvation. He figures that if he can be saved without deviating from the status quo, why convert? So he remains protestant.

I would think someone like this would need to be reminded of the severity of that decision to remain protestant. Am I out of line here? Maybe this kind of thing just doesn’t happen. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
🙂 Absolutely he would have to be reminded of the severity.In you scenerio his heart is convicted of truth he has been given the grace.The approach is in another realm at this point.We have people that come here that have not received that grace so in that case this is a terrible barrier to the Holy Spirit because of the nature of the approach.
 
I would still like to hear some success stories from the proponents of this “Hard Approach” method, where conversions have resulted from threatening eternal damnation.

I’ve been told that I am most certainly going to hell, by some radical Protestants in the past, and I can attest from personal experience that it is NOT a persuasive argument in the least. If in fact it is not persuasive, as I believe to be the case, then what is the point of using that method (at least with regard to apologetics)?

If it IS persuasive, then I should expect to see some wonderful conversion stories that have resulted from someone being told “repent or you are going to hell !”

…just my opinion though I guess.
 
40.png
marineboy:
Jkirk You Are Dishonest I Just Said In My Last Post That I Reject That Formal Membership Is Absolutley Required—why Dont You Get A Life And Stop Maming Up Stuff-----i Think The Moderators Should Issue You A Conduct Warnig For Obviously Lying—at Least When I Deabte On Here I Try To Represent The Other Person’s Position Honestly----you Arent Doing That–further Proff That You Are Not On God’s Side----you Need To Repent–“by Their Fruits You Shall Know Them”
Click to expand...
For pity’s sake, please, please, learn to type! Look, Feeny’s position encompassed MORE than a rigid insistence on water baptism and explicit faith!!! You are expressing the REST of it! I’m NOT being dishonest. I’m NOT “Maming” anything up! You are not representing my “position” honestly, because all I’ve done is quote the Catechsim! I think you are very presumptuous to say that I’m not on “God’s side.” You are misrepresenting the teachings of the Church.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
It definitely depends on the individual. Here’s a bit of a hypothetical (let me know if it’s realisitic): say there is a life long very faithful Protestant who is very involved in his church and who has many good friends at his church. The Spirit has been moving him towards the Catholic faith. He knows if he were to convert, it would mean leaving such a huge part of his life. He sees that the Church says that the protestant churches can be used as a means to salvation. He figures that if he can be saved without deviating from the status quo, why convert? So he remains protestant.

I would think someone like this would need to be reminded of the severity of that decision to remain protestant. Am I out of line here? Maybe this kind of thing just doesn’t happen. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Here’s one: that it is a sin not to be come Catholic if one is convinced in conscience that it is God’s Will for one to do so (this is Catholic doctrine). A Protestant who is as you describe is not likely to think in the rather frivolous way described - surely ? He would be more likely to want to know what God required of him. God does not deny grace to those who do what lies in them to know His will: we do have to be faithful to the light that we receive - and for some, faithfulness to God’s light and grace does not include becoming a member of the CC.​

A Protestant who is granted the grace to become a member of the CC in a visible manner, is granted it when Protestant. Therefore, Protestants can receive grace. Therefore, God can give grace within Protestant surroundings. Many Protestants become Catholics in a visible fashion; so this grace has been granted many times. So - why cannot a Protestant live a whole life lof grace in a Protestant Church ? And if one can, why not many ? God’s grace is not given to Catholics alone - so any form of EENS which denies this is mistaken: for the contrary assertion has been condemned, in 1713, in the Bull “Unigenitus”

One is not obliged to become a member of the visible CC if one not convinced of its claims: it would be dishonest, therefore sinful, to become Catholic under such circumstances. This is why Catholics cannot afford to give a bad example, and why holiness of life matters - because if the Church claims to be holy, and if Catholics give a good impression of being unholy and unChristlike, no amount of reason or apologetics can overcome the gap between what we claim, and how we live. This is one reason why Catholic evildoing is such a big issue to Protestants: they don’t see in these things any evidence of what we insist is true.

Catholics often write as though changing Churches were the easiest thing in the world; as though the religious habits of many years had struck no root, and made no impression. Religion, if it’s worth anything, can’t be put on and taken off like a pair of shoes; so it’s not reasonable to expect people to change their religion. Religions are ways of life - not debating contests or intelligence tests or quizzes.

What is primary, is God’s Will, not being within the visible Church; still less does the corporate ego of the Church matter; for she is Christ’s minister, not the Lord Himself. Which is why all this boasting about mere size is so misplaced. Her boast should be the same as St. Paul’s: it should be in the Cross, not in herself. ##
 
Chris W:
I would still like to hear some success stories from the proponents of this “Hard Approach” method, where conversions have resulted from threatening eternal damnation.

I’ve been told that I am most certainly going to hell, by some radical Protestants in the past, and I can attest from personal experience that it is NOT a persuasive argument in the least. If in fact it is not persuasive, as I believe to be the case, then what is the point of using that method (at least with regard to apologetics)?

If it IS persuasive, then I should expect to see some wonderful conversion stories that have resulted from someone being told “repent or you are going to hell !”

…just my opinion though I guess.
Click to expand...

It’s certainly good for one thing 🙂 - leading people to the conclusion that all Christians are full of bile & self-conceit, and are best avoided: after all, if they speak for God, who wants a God like that ? For people who are supposed to be full of love, they seem to have an awful lot of venom for each other’s beliefs. (See their respective histories.) They can’t even agree on their beliefs - the Orthodox insist they are the One True Church; but so do Catholics: so who’s right ?​

Conclusion: Christianity is for people who have nothing better to do than quarrel. After all, who cares about the intra-Trinitarian processions, or the Divine energies in the teaching of Gregory Palamas, or the propriety of using musical instruments in worship, when there are real problems to deal with, things like keeping a job, looking after the children, getting a flu jab, or paying the bills ?

Some poetry:

“After two thousand years of Mass
We’ve come as far as poison gas”
  • that was going the rounds during WW1. It’s truer today. ##
 
40.png
marineboy:
I Agree We Should Say It In A Respectful Maneer–but Please Say It----you People Will Say You Say It But Do You Really Say It??? Hmmmmmmmmm I Doubt It!!
Click to expand...
Respectful words mixed with disrespectful tone or demeanor equal disrespect. Period.

One would think that with your being a Catholic, you would have been on the receiving end of of this type of treatment and know better than to offer it to someone else “for their own good”.

Even my kids receive this type of treatment from “holier than thou’s” and it burns me up.

Come to think of it, my kids take it in stride. I’m the only one that’s really bothered by it. My kids’ CCD is paying off!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top