Where to begin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
 
Probably depends on the state of the other person. If it’s an anti-Catholic, you might not want to begin at all and leave the preaching to the way you live your life. :o If it’s a non-believer, you may have to start with the historicity of Jesus or veracity of miracles that have undergone scientific scrutiny. If it’s a reasonable Protestant, you have the Bible in common so you could begin with a “Catholic” teaching that you feel comfortable giving an apologetic for from Scripture. Just some thoughts. :o
 
MarcoPolo said:
Probably depends on the state of the other person. If it’s an anti-Catholic, you might not want to begin at all and leave the preaching to the way you live your life. :o If it’s a non-believer, you may have to start with the historicity of Jesus or veracity of miracles that have undergone scientific scrutiny. If it’s a reasonable Protestant, you have the Bible in common so you could begin with a “Catholic” teaching that you feel comfortable giving an apologetic for from Scripture. Just some thoughts. :o
Click to expand...
Right.

So, assuming that you are talking with a reasonable Protestant, where would you begin, and how would you develop the argument?

That’s my question.
 
It depends on what subject of the Catholic faith they are challenging . One way to justify that the Catholic church tradition is right is to tell them to take a look at Mathew chapter 16 and 18 . In these two chapters, Jesus gives authority to the first leaders of the church
(twelve apostles ) In chapter 16 he appoints Peter as the leader as he also does in the last chapter in The Gospel of John . He says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it . I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven .Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven " he repeats the last sentence to all of them in chapter 18 . So whatever they decided would be the way it goes . So when a protestant is saying things like "Where is that in the bible?"when speaking of certain practices we have (such as chaplets ) all you would have to do is read those verses in Mathew to them . I have a blog that can be very helpful . www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com .I have many blogs supporting the Catholic church through scripture .I make the connections between Paul’s teachings and the Catholic church. You will find that Paul actually supported taught purgatory and prayers for the dead . I have many blogs that can help a Catholic defend the faith . I also have a special series I call "Atheist blog " This includes the following subjects: Founding fathers of America quotes (Proving this country was founded on Christian morals .)Pagan historians ( who recorded Christ’s presence on earth)
Atheists hypocrites (about the mentality of irrational thought by atheists ) Evolution(the argument against atheists argument for it) And miracle case loads on Lanciano,Lourdes,Shroud of Turin ,and Guadalupe . I have those blogs to help Christians learn betters ways to argue atheists .
 
Folks, read my OP carefully.

I’m posing that YOU want to initiate the discussion about why your non-Catholic Christian friend should seriously consider the claims of the Catholic Church and, ultimately, become Catholic.

How would YOU initiate such a discussion?
 
Randy_Carson said:
When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
Click to expand...
Faith is to be shared, not to be argued about.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Folks, read my OP carefully.

I’m posing that YOU want to initiate the discussion about why your non-Catholic Christian friend should seriously consider the claims of the Catholic Church and, ultimately, become Catholic.

How would YOU initiate such a discussion?
Click to expand...
This is proselytizing. More often than not, it doesn’t work. People who believe in something doesn’t readily want to believe in something else. Also, they don’t want to be proven wrong. Coming up to your protestant friend and starting a conversation wherein you are trying to prove that what he has believed to be true is wrong will not only chase him away from Catholicism, you may also end up losing a friend.

Take a look at yourself and think at what facilitated your own conversion. You have identified yourself as a protestant convert. Were you forced to drop beliefs you held so tightly?
 
Randy_Carson said:
When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
Click to expand...
I would start with “Which Church did Jesus build.” If you can, show him the evidence that the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus and believed in by the Apostles. If any book argued as strongly as the Bible does for (1) the Sacraments, (2) Purgatory, (3) Church infallibility, (4) the Papacy, (5) no remarriage after a divorce, and all the other Catholic doctrines the Bible is explicit about, people would immediately say the book was a Catholic book. So use those things, and their presence in the Bible, to prove that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
 
How about starting by asking them about their denomination – why they chose that particular denomination. From there hopefully the conversation can progress to the importance of truth, what role it should play in selecting a denomination, how to know what is true (with all the varying interpretations), your denomination and why you chose it…
 
Usually, they are the ones that one to speak the most, so I let them talk while I listen to them. I ask them questions to clarify a few points, and I try to let them know that I am engaged. Then, I pick one point from what they said and try to respond. We go from there.
 
Randy_Carson said:
When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
Click to expand...
Matt 16 conversation is one, if not the best.

But we all know the person has to be open and intellectually honest. I told someone I am converting to Catholicism and he got extremely upset and spouted a bunch of anti-catholic propaganda and throughout many conversations, I proved Catholicism, even left him in pause for 10 seconds at a time, but he still denies everything. So unless the person is willing, nothing is going to get through.
 
Randy_Carson said:
When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
Click to expand...
I would most likely start with the Bible, ask them if they know the history of the Bible, the differences between the protestant and catholic bible. Most likely, this is something most protestants are not aware of. If you pique their interest, then you have an opening.
 
I never initiate it. I always start with something he already knows or thinks he knows. How the conversation proceeds depends entirely on the context. Give me a hypothetical setup Randy and I’ll show you what I mean.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Right.

So, assuming that you are talking with a reasonable Protestant, where would you begin, and how would you develop the argument?

That’s my question.
Click to expand...
Me personally…I’m comfortable with defending Purgatory from Scripture. I think that can be good because it gets to the heart of infused vs. imputed righteousness as well as the need for sanctification which many Protestants have trouble recognizing. :o
 
I think you’re putting the burden of proof on the wrong person.

Catholicism was here first; the burden of proof that it is in error is on the person who claims it needed reformation.

I think John Martignoni is right, that the way to engage non-Catholic Christians in conversation is by asking them questions about their own beliefs, and, through the use of further questions, gently point out the errors in Protestantism.

For those unfamiliar with Martignoni’s apologetics, he has a website with free audio downloads. I especially recommend the first one, “Apologetics for the Scripturally Challenged” which, despite the title, is actually about technique in engaging our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in dialogue.

Those audio downloads can be found here: biblechristiansociety.com/download
 
I don’t think I have a set opening, though I disagree with the one person who called this proselytizing. It’s evangelism and faith sharing from a sincere heart. If this is proselytism then according to that, then we need to avoid talking about our faith at all…and that’s not scriptural…nor even intelligent. I don’t see the early church going about it that way. They pretty much told everyone who would listen, which I think is why St. Peter wrote the following in his first epistle. (Emphasis mine)

“13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. **Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
**15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. **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;
**16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.”

Depending upon their level of interest and time constraints, I will sometimes invite them to Mass at our parish, letting them know they can always find me in a certain area near the front. Since I often carry good Catholic Tracts I will sometimes fish out one about salvation, the Bible, or the Eucharist and leave it with them to check out at their leisure. I always pray for that person once we part.

One thing I have always liked were these articles by Fr. John McCloskey.
Winning New Converts
Friendship: The Key to the Evangelization of Men

I think that apologetics knowledge sort of lays a catechetical groundwork for faith sharing and evangelism.
 
Kay_Cee said:
I think you’re putting the burden of proof on the wrong person.

Catholicism was here first; the burden of proof that it is in error is on the person who claims it needed reformation.

I think John Martignoni is right, that the way to engage non-Catholic Christians in conversation is by asking them questions about their own beliefs, and, through the use of further questions, gently point out the errors in Protestantism.

For those unfamiliar with Martignoni’s apologetics, he has a website with free audio downloads. I especially recommend the first one, “Apologetics for the Scripturally Challenged” which, despite the title, is actually about technique in engaging our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in dialogue.

Those audio downloads can be found here: biblechristiansociety.com/download
Click to expand...
One of the best suggestions possible. John has made it his mission to convert half of his home town before he dies. And he’s an incredibly nice guy! (Sometimes even posts here at CAF!)
 
I prefer to start by asking a couple of simple questions that every Christian should be able to answer. These can vary depending on how the conversation starts out. Depending on how things proceed, I prefer to move into questions concerning how the person views “the Lord’s Supper”, and then ask them to consider the Catholic view and launch into John 6. Usually, that is all they can handle or even begin to absorb in the first meeting. I let them know, however, that John 6 is only part of the scriptural evidence for the Catholic position.

Most importantly, I want to leave the person with a clear picture of my own conviction in that holy truth, and my absolute love and enthusiasm for the Eucharist. In my experience, this discussion has never set off the negative reactions that other subjects seem to trigger. The focus is completely on Jesus, and what he is giving us. That is something that is more positive and less likely to cause the person to either shut down or get angry.
 
Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far.

Here’s an example of making the case for Catholicism by Catholic Answers’ own Jimmy Akin:

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough… . We can thus give a limited argument for the [idea that to be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church] by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

From:
The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top