Post Debate Analysis

[chief30]

The other night at work I was in a debate that lasted a couple of hours. I truly love defending our faith and for the first time in my life I wasn’t defending the Faith solo. Let me tell you, that was such a nice change for once. I was hoping that if you, the reader, are strong in any of these topics you could help me out and give me some feedback for future reference. I’d appreciate it! I won’t be able to get into too much detail because I want to get this submitted before I have to leave but if you would like more of the conversation on a particular point, let me know. Let’s jump into it.

1. It all started out with me bringing up the movie Paranormal Activity and how I was going to see it. He shook his and said “I don’t watch horror movies because they bring you closer to the devil and make you his pawn.” I laughed in reply and then realized he was serious. I brought up alcohol and how the consumption is not sinful by any means unless you lose control. I continued by saying that it’s a way of entertainment and that I know there is a person behind the mask. This didn’t seem to have any effect.
2. We eventually got into the discussion of the early church. He stated that since in the Bible (assuming Acts 9:2) the first church was called “The Way” and not Catholic, this shows that the Catholic Church was not the first and besides that, Ignatius uses the term Catholic first in 108? AD. I started by saying that Jesus used the phrase “I am the way the truth and the life” is where they got this name from. It was a bunch of different little groups that followed Jesus areas all around. Then I mentioned that Catholic means universal! Those groups were all included in the universal Church.
3. We continued to talk about the pope and apostolic succession and I know I explained those to the best of my abilities. He however claims that he has the same authority as the bishops and the pope because he has the same Holy Spirit in him that they do. I went on to explain that he was not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I more into depth but I concluded that he lacks obedience and he only wants to accept what fits his own lifestyle. Perhaps I’ve made a wrong assumption?
4. Next was the topic of Tradition. This can be skipped because he eventually agreed and accepted that they are not man made traditions. Took about 15 minutes.
5. I finally went on the offensive and asked him about John 6:53 and before he could say anything I really went in depth and compared those followers that said did not believe Him and walked away to him. This offended him and he got really red in the face. He said “That really offends me! If you offend someone with what you believe it is obviously not the Truth!” I said “Well sometimes the Truth hurts.” Maybe this wasn’t the right way of going about things but I had reached my limit and I had to get back to work.

That sums up the major points we talked about. If you are strong in one or more of these areas, I would appreciate any advice you can give and actual conversational responses you could prepare me for in the future when I am put into the same position again.

Thank you very much everyone! And please, feel free to critique me.

 

[MarcoPolo]

1. We eventually got into the discussion of the early church. He stated that since in the Bible (assuming Acts 9:2) the first church was called “The Way” and not Catholic, this shows that the Catholic Church was not the first and besides that, Ignatius uses the term Catholic first in 108? AD. I started by saying that Jesus used the phrase “I am the way the truth and the life” is where they got this name from. It was a bunch of different little groups that followed Jesus areas all around. Then I mentioned that Catholic means universal! Those groups were all included in the universal Church.

The particular monicker is irrelevant if the term is used to refer to the Church Christ built upon the rock (Mt. 16:18). Still, the word Catholic, although first used as a term by Ignatius in 107 or so, I believe is derived from the last two Greek terms in ekklhsia kay olhv (the roots of the latter two words are kata holos) which appear in Acts 9:31. These words are translated as “Church throughout all,” i.e. “universal Church.” Nevertheless, as I said, it’s silly to focus on the existence of a particular monicker in Scripture before we can believe its truth, as your friend may well agree, consider the “Trinity,” “Incarnation,” “Bible,” etc… none of which appear in the text of Scripture. These words are used to identify true things in Scripture regardless if they originated after the texts were written.

1. We continued to talk about the pope and apostolic succession and I know I explained those to the best of my abilities. He however claims that he has the same authority as the bishops and the pope because he has the same Holy Spirit in him that they do. I went on to explain that he was not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I more into depth but I concluded that he lacks obedience and he only wants to accept what fits his own lifestyle. Perhaps I’ve made a wrong assumption?

Paul clearly teaches not all are teachers or Apostles, etc… (1 Cor. 12:28-29) I would compare the “succession” of the ministerial offices in the OT as descending through the Levitical priesthood (i.e. the tribe of Levi over which Aaron was made chief). The term “office” is used in the OT to describe this phenomenon. So too, do we see ministerial “offices” in the NT. And so there is succession for those offices as well. (See post #5 here for examples, and some of the other good posts in that thread.)

If you offend someone with what you believe it is obviously not the Truth!” I said “Well sometimes the Truth hurts.” Maybe this wasn’t the right way of going about things but I had reached my limit and I had to get back to work.

Well, I’d be easy on him then. But surely he realizes the Pharisees were “offended” by Christ. Truth is not measured on the basis of whether or not it offends someone. Ask him if an atheist has ever been offended. His criteria is made up. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6877&stc=1&d=1256842239

Try to stay charitable and polite if you think there will be more debate. Sometimes I try to keep it from getting into a me vs. you (where the goal no longer is to come to the truth but to “win”) by saying, “Ok, do a thought exercise with me…if what you are saying is true, then what about XYZ…” and go into the implications. That way you are trying to walk through his thought from his perspective. And then if you still disagree you can say “Ok, well, the reason I don’t come to the same conclusion is because…XYZ.” And finally, at some point you may find your points falling on deaf ears, so you may have to just desist and let him have the last word. Maybe you planted seeds, or maybe your friend is one of those people beyond reasoning.

 

[pablope]

The other night at work I was in a debate that lasted a couple of hours. I truly love defending our faith and for the first time in my life I wasn’t defending the Faith solo. Let me tell you, that was such a nice change for once.

1. We continued to talk about the pope and apostolic succession and I know I explained those to the best of my abilities. He however claims that he has the same authority as the bishops and the pope because he has the same Holy Spirit in him that they do. I went on to explain that he was not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I more into depth but I concluded that he lacks obedience and he only wants to accept what fits his own lifestyle. Perhaps I’ve made a wrong assumption?

Thank you very much everyone! And please, feel free to critique me.

I would cite here the example of St. Paul. In Gal 2…Peter goes to Jerusalem to submit his gospel for approval.

• 1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. *

And in Acts 13, he actually gets laid hands on, or ordained, prior to going on his missionary journey.

1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, Barnabas, and Symeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

From this account in Acts 13, we can see that nobody appoints themselves bishops or priests…but the HS acts…and it is not even direct on the person…it directed the elders to separate Paul and Barnabas.

Both example show humility and obedience as important requirements for the priestly ministry.