Should we all be doing apologetics?

[EricFilmer]

As others have stated, I think it is the obligation of all Catholics to be knowledgeable of their faith, and be able to make competent responses when asked about Catholicism. Peter instructs us to so, and to do so in a charitable fashion:

Always be prepared to make a defense
to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you,
yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
and keep your conscience clear, so that,
when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ
may be put to shame. (1Peter 3:15-16, RSV).

This could be seen as a very basic form of apologetics, to which we are all expected to engage in. People will, after all, ask us about our beliefs, many of which seem strange in the eyes of others. If we respond with a blank stare, or just quietly mouth off something like, “Um…I don’t know…that’s just stuff the priest tells us” then we are bad representatives of Catholicism and our poor catechetical performance may actually affirm the misconceptions others have about us. Note that one does not need a theology degree to properly express the fundamental beliefs of the Catholic Faith.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, when we use the term “apologist”, we tend to think of a person who goes a step beyond this to be a “defender of the faith”, usually in public or in the media. Such people are generally expected to be representatives of Catholicism in a very special way (such as in televised debates, through radio programs, etc.). I think that this proficiency in apologetics can be acquired to a degree through knowledge and skill, but that there are those in the Church who also have it as a gift of the Holy Spirit. I think we’re better off when those who are gifted as such step forward to do the “heavy lifting” in the world of apologetics. It’s more than just knowing Greek, Bible passages, ECF quotes, Church history and such. It also involves a talents involving articulation, comprehension, logic and rhetoric (in the classical, positive definition of the term). It also involves (in many cases) getting the sense of where someone is coming from and what their real issue with Catholicism is.

Once we acknowledge that there is can be an actual talent associated with apologetics (rather than thinking of it as simply a kind of skill) then we realize that the Holy Spirit is responsible for this talent, and not everyone receives the same gifts of the Holy Spirit for the sake of ministry in the Church. My comment here should be understood in light of 1Corinthians 12:4-11…

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
and there are varieties of working,
but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom,
and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits,
to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit,
who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

(as a side note I’m editing in, while I was working on this, Della’s above post was added to the thread, and I noticed it after I posted mine. I think it’s cool how the thread’s topic inspired us to post a number of the same basic points within a very similar manner (i.e., “talent from the Holy Spirit”, “calling from God”). Maybe it’s some form of mysterious Inklings phenomenon.)

 

[Apple_0_getic]

Which do you think is better, making an apologetic blog, give out reading materials or simply explain it first hand to them.

Catholic apologetic blogs are mushrooming all over the world nowadays. Giving out free reading materials sounds so JW. Explaining to them first hand, they might forget it afterwards.

Which one would you prefer?

And also, is there ethics in apologetics? Is it ethical to call out someone for a debate? especially if the other person has been consistently bashing you everyday all the time? (like born again
Christians here in the Philippines and also Iglesia Ni Cristo)

 

[figs]

We need to remember what the definition of apologetics actually is… “to explain and defend the Catholic faith.”

I began my own journey into apologetics simply because I had a need to know why I believed what I did, and only as time went on did I really begin to even think of it as apologetics. In finding the answers many of my own questions, I also found them for others who talked with me. Some were genuinely curious and respectful, while others were less so.

The “intarwebz”, as my sons sometimes call it, is another area again. It can be great for learning our faith, but it can also be something of a war zone of debate and polemics. It’s hard sometimes not to be drawn into those places. (A sense of humor is mandatory!)

Furthermore, the study of good (and inexpensive!) apologetics sources like
shop.catholic.com/images/T/B0279t.gif
See details Beginning Apologetics Vol. 1
SKU: B0279

Volume I deals with defending Catholicism. Prepare yourself to answer challenges to the Catholic faith.

Our price: US$5.95
can prepare us to to both share the faith and pass it on through RCIA and other religious education opportunities.

Ultimately, I suspect that all of us will encounter some apologetics opportunities in the course of our lives and our ability to rise to those challenges will depend on how well we know why we believe what we do.

I agree whole heartedly! There will be times we will be called to defend.
I am often saddened whenever I hear that a catholic “didn’t know why” on the most basic of beliefs.
While we’re all not going to be little Scott Hahns we can at least encourage those that have an interest in being defenders no matter what level of expertise they achieve.

After all not all pysicians are brain surgeons and brain surgeons aren’t always what is needed.

just my :twocents:

 

[Apple_0_getic]

In apologetic debates, do apologist hold and read a bible or they have everything in their minds already? I mean they memorize everything like the chapters and verses, do they?


And in most debates, what bible version do they use?

 

[Apple_0_getic]

Can we actually compare apologetic debaters to lawyers? You know, lawyers studies similar previous cases before going to any any hearing or debates.
And if they are, it means that “Apologetics” is a never ending career of study of our Faith.

I am correct, can we compare apologetic debaters to lawyers? You know, lawyers of our faith.

 

[figs]

Can we actually compare apologetic debaters to lawyers? You know, lawyers studies similar previous cases before going to any any hearing or debates.
And if they are, it means that “Apologetics” is a never ending career of study of our Faith.

I am correct, can we compare apologetic debaters to lawyers? You know, lawyers of our faith.

Not really, lawyers are limited to man made laws.

 

[Della]

In apologetic debates, do apologist hold and read a bible or they have everything in their minds already? I mean they memorize everything like the chapters and verses, do they?


And in most debates, what bible version do they use?

Actually, the Bible isn’t always the best apologetics tool unless you are prepared to counter every verse thrown at you by a non-Catholic determined to shove his interpretation down others throats. Tossing Bible verses around is very poor apologetics. Anyone can find a verse to support just about anything, you see.

What is better is to go to the heart of the matter which is authority. Who has the authority to say what Christ taught and is still teaching us? That is a question that opens discussion, rather than instantly shutting it down or having it devolve into a “my verse trumps your verse” kind of debate.

Of course, it’s good to have relevant passages at hand, either by reference or by being able to quote the contents and context accurately. Most of us wouldn’t have that ability on the fly and really shouldn’t worry about it. All we have to say is, "I know there’s a reference to answer your question. Let me get back to you with it’ or words to that effect. After all, no one should feel they have to give an instant answer when asked a question. And if the person asking isn’t patient enough to wait for a good answer, then the onus falls on him for not being reasonable enough to wait.

@ Eric Filmer: Your post confirms, along with others, that apologetics is an apostolate that requires special skills and education just like any other. It differs from some others because at some level every Catholic should have some ability to answer the question: “Why are you a Catholic?” If asked we should at least be able to say it’s because it’s Christ’s Church in which he is ever present in the Eucharist. Or it’s where I encounter Jesus in the most personal way possible–by consuming his body and blood. Or something along those lines. If all Catholics could say at least that much it would go a long way towards helping our non-Catholic brethren understand that there is “something-something” in the Church that they don’t have and should want.

 

[Rekenber]

I might not be the reliable person when it comes to these things. Nevertheless, here are my two cents.

Which do you think is better, making an apologetic blog, give out reading materials or simply explain it first hand to them.

Catholic apologetic blogs are mushrooming all over the world nowadays. Giving out free reading materials sounds so JW. Explaining to them first hand, they might forget it afterwards.

I think it should depend on your target audience. If you think you will be more effective in one way than the other, choose the safer one. Also, it should also be part of the analysis if how much opposition will be present (except the case of reading materials) and what degree they may come.

Which one would you prefer?

Well, in our country’s context, people are more interested in dynamic, visual, and eye-catching media (like in last election campaign’s advertisments and propaganda). In my opinion, short videos using moving typography / imagery will be more suitable, unless you have a different audience in mind.

And also, is there ethics in apologetics? Is it ethical to call out someone for a debate? especially if the other person has been consistently bashing you everyday all the time? (like born again Christians here in the Philippines and also Iglesia Ni Cristo)

I am not sure what to answer, but I think we should not be always on the aggressive side of the argument (in the sense that we should not always start the debate).

In the case of a bullying anti-Catholic (as what I have interpreted in your question), I don’t really know if I will be blunt or what (just telling what I might do if placed in that situation), but I might do refusal to “feed the trolls” because you might “fan the flames of fury” for both sides which may lead to “noise” and “clanging cymbals”. In my case (I am a bit short on temperance, God I pray for more patience), I might as well quote a verse to rebuke the other person to stop taunting me…

If he begins your conversation with arguments, start your rebuttal

You may read on this article by Karl Keating on his first-hand experience on a debate against an INC minister.

I have two friends who are both born-again Christians. Both of them talked to me (in separate encounters), trying to win me by giving their views on Mary and the saints (I vaguely remember what are their reasonings). I gave my stance, which is that I related the saints to the Christian’s best role models on Faith (his body language told me he’s “offended” and “irritated” with me calling Our Lady as Queen of Heaven). We’re on good terms in matters of friendship, I think.

I commend you for your fire and passion to share and defend the faith I hope many more Catholics in our country be more educated and aware of what and why do we believe, and how we should respond…

 

[EviPolevhia]

Which do you think is better, making an apologetic blog, give out reading materials or simply explain it first hand to them.

Catholic apologetic blogs are mushrooming all over the world nowadays. Giving out free reading materials sounds so JW. Explaining to them first hand, they might forget it afterwards.

I’m an atheist so take this with however many grains of salt you wish.

Personally I think the best way to reach out your message. would be blogs. Giving out reading material may make some people defensive. With a blog, they are the ones who chose when to read it and whether or not to access it. And simply explaining it to people, well, isn’t that what the blog is doing? Also reading materials may not always be worded how you wish to word things. So if someone reads that stuff and has questions it may throw you a little. The blog and explaining directly have the strength of those are your own words, you are best out of anyone to answer questions about your own words.

I think there are too many people out there who try to spread the word of their Religion and lose the fight before they begin because of errors in presentation. I wish you luck.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m an atheist so take this with however many grains of salt you wish.

Personally I think the best way to reach out your message. would be blogs. Giving out reading material may make some people defensive. With a blog, they are the ones who chose when to read it and whether or not to access it. And simply explaining it to people, well, isn’t that what the blog is doing? Also reading materials may not always be worded how you wish to word things. So if someone reads that stuff and has questions it may throw you a little. The blog and explaining directly have the strength of those are your own words, you are best out of anyone to answer questions about your own words.

I think there are too many people out there who try to spread the word of their Religion and lose the fight before they begin because of errors in presentation. I wish you luck.

You mean like this one? Apocalypsis

 

[DavidFilmer]

In apologetic debates, do apologist hold and read a bible or they have everything in their minds already? I mean they memorize everything like the chapters and verses, do they?

Apologists should be VERY familiar with the Bible, especially the New Testament (and, of course, especially the Gospels). I have never advocated memorizing citations, but some citations come up so often that most experienced apologists will know them by heart (such as Matthew 16:18 (primacy of Peter, the first Pope), John 20:23 (forgiveness of sins) and the entire sixth chapter of John (the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist).

Other citations may be very familiar, but apologists may have no idea where they occur. For example, I had no problem citing those previous passages from memory, but I have no idea where Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” I would need to look it up. But that’s easy to do (especially in this Internet age).

Apologists should also be VERY familiar with passages that are often MISUSED (cited out of context, etc) by anti-Catholics. Such as “Jesus died once for all” when cited to oppose the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And in most debates, what bible version do they use?

It is, in a way, fortunate that I grew up as an Anglican. The Anglican Churches use the “Authorized Version” - commonly called the King James Bible (KJV), named after King James II of England, an Anglican king. The KJV was translated by Anglican scholars. The KJV is an Anglican Bible. I am more familiar with the KJV than any other version.

That’s good (from an apologetic standpoint) for two reasons: First, no protestant will reject the KJV. They might be somewhat enlightened to modern textual sciences and prefer another version (such as the RSV or (better yet) the NRSV or NKJV), but none will outright reject the KJV. Some will outright reject the NAB or the JB because they are “Catholic” Bibles.

Second, there is a large body of Scripture research (which is available at very low or no cost) that is keyed to the text of the KJV (such as Strong’s Concordance and Lexicon, and Young’s Analytical Concordance).

 

[Apple_0_getic]

You may read on this article by Karl Keating on his first-hand experience on a debate against an INC minister.

Ok thanks, I’ve learned so much. By the way, ya I’ve heard of this debate between Jose Ventilacion VS Karl Keating.

And this is so true, especially in some debates happened here in the Philippines. There was a story that after a debate against a pentecostal pastor. When an Iglesia member saw a pentecostal person shooting video of the debate then an INC member started beating the pentecostal person down on the floor and ended up to hospitals emergency room for first aid.
When keating said “it’s a true cult not a mere sect”, here in the Philippines “it’s more than just that”. I would call them a "“Religious mafia”. Here in the Philippines, they have even penetrated government positions. There are some politicians here who are members of Iglesia who would definitely do their best to reach the summit,“The Presidential throne”.
(Pray for us here in the Philippines that there won’t be an Iglesia President)

Let me share, I was a presbyterian converted to Catholic. My father is a presbyterian pastor. According to my mom and some aunts, my father had a debate with an Iglesia pastor and the skirmished of bible citation and commentaries was like Joe Frazer Vs. Mohammad Ali. And nobody could stop them and they needed to call for someone to stop them, a Village office chairman.
Now I am passionately studying my faith sharing it in facebook fan pages and thinking of more creative ways to educate more people here in the Philippines.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts, it really helps me a lot.

 

[Della]

I’m an atheist so take this with however many grains of salt you wish.

Personally I think the best way to reach out your message. would be blogs. Giving out reading material may make some people defensive. With a blog, they are the ones who chose when to read it and whether or not to access it. And simply explaining it to people, well, isn’t that what the blog is doing? Also reading materials may not always be worded how you wish to word things. So if someone reads that stuff and has questions it may throw you a little. The blog and explaining directly have the strength of those are your own words, you are best out of anyone to answer questions about your own words.

I think there are too many people out there who try to spread the word of their Religion and lose the fight before they begin because of errors in presentation. I wish you luck.

This is true. I was quite offended when a couple of women from one of the larger sects appeared at my door with a little girl around age 3, who they had hold out their materials, as if no one could refuse it from a child. I did refuse. No one should be coerced by means fair or foul–it’s unethical and violates God’s command that we ensure each man’s dignity.

The reason Karl Keating started Catholic Answers is because a local Baptist group put anti-Catholic leaflets on the cars in his parish’s parking lot during Mass. (My parish had the same thing happen but when our priest called the pastor of the Baptist church it never happened again). Mr. Keating’s way of dealing with it was to come up with his own leaflets which grew into a book and then this website–answering fire with fire. He started before there was an internet, eons ago, though.

Evangelization is a delicate apostolate because in order to get a message across you can’t start by offending those you wish to reach. That’s poor marketing. It’s why some of your fellow atheists aren’t making points by putting up billboards offensive to Christians at Christmas time. They forgot that hitting people over the head rarely convinces them of anything except the other person means to hurt them. We all have to be careful how we approach others when we want to present what we believe will benefit their lives. :tiphat:

 

[porthos11]

I think every Catholic should learn apologetics but not everyone is qualified to become apologists. But learning apologetics is a great way to strengthen your own faith and the faith of fellow Catholics by teaching them (preaching to the choir, so to speak), not so much to refute Protestants but to let other Catholics know that there is an answer for common attacks.

 

[Rekenber]

I think every Catholic should learn apologetics but not everyone is qualified to become apologists. But learning apologetics is a great way to strengthen your own faith and the faith of fellow Catholics by teaching them (preaching to the choir, so to speak), not so much to refute Protestants but to let other Catholics know that there is an answer for common attacks.

I see. Hmmm, how can we encourage others to study more?

 

[patrick457]

Just my two cents.

I’ve been here in CAF for about five to six years (started out with a younger version of me, a different username and much more untidy spelling). But to be honest, even though I now tend to frequent the Apologetics forum (and the Sacred Scripture subforum) more that I might as well live in it - back when I was younger and wiser I had the habit of visiting the other fora now and again - I don’t really feel too enthusiastic now about doing ‘proper’, hard-line apologetics. While a younger me was very eager to jump on a debate thread, now on such threads I only leave some side comment or two, taking no sides in the discussion but just dropping two cents of my own.

Why the change? I’m not sure myself. Though, sometimes I’m tempted to think that it may be because partly I’ve just gotten tired of seeing the same canard repeated again and again and again and again (hence why I really admire and envy those who have very long patience), as well as an unfortunate tendency for some debates to end up being about who could silence and defeat the other side first, to the point that sometimes both sides would even play fast and loose with fact and truth just to have an arsenal of arguments and counter-arguments. You can say that it has kind of made me slightly cynical: I try not to take any sides in discussions whenever possible but content myself with relating facts and theories and everything else in between and letting people form their own conclusions.

For the record, I agree with other posters BTW.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Correct me if there is anything un-Christian with both my intentions and my questions. Thanks and God Bless.

Are there only specific Catholics / Christians who can fully be an apologist? Should we all be studying this discipline? If the latter’s answer is yes, how can we encourage other to defend our faith?

No, we should NOT all be doing apologetics. As Saint Paul writes in his epistle, not all of us should be teachers.

 

[EviPolevhia]

No, we should NOT all be doing apologetics. As Saint Paul writes in his epistle, not all of us should be teachers.

And yet Peter says to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” So unless the Church specifically has an opinion on who should do apologetics, which if there is a stance on that I am unaware of I am sorry that I’m ignorant of it, it is up to your interpretation over what it means to be a teacher. And what it means to supply the reason of that hope which is in you.

 

[kkollwitz]

Yes. We should be ready to evangelize in the sense Peter describes. But apologetics is a whole 'nother thing, more akin to debate than dialogue.

 

[livingwordunity]

Correct me if there is anything un-Christian with both my intentions and my questions. Thanks and God Bless.

Are there only specific Catholics / Christians who can fully be an apologist? Should we all be studying this discipline? If the latter’s answer is yes, how can we encourage other to defend our faith?

Some are better equipped than others for defending the faith. But even the least equipped can at least suggest a good orthodox Catholic website such as this one or EWTN.