William Lane Craig...Catholic apologists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bonarges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bonarges

Guest
I’ve recently listened to some debates between Evan-Protestant Dr. Craig, and various atheists/secular humanists. He seems to be deeply immersed in philosophy, and is impressive in the debates that I’ve heard. Are there any Catholic apologists in his league?

On another note, who are/is the best Catholic apologist(s)? I’ve been underwhelmed recently at the attempts of some Catholic apologists who get trapped into trying to prove certain Catholic doctrines based on the Bible alone. Frequently, they get their heads handed back to them on a platter. I attribute this to the fact that many of them come from Protestant backgrounds where their main focus was the Bible, and much less so on philosophy and theology. So, they tend to revert back to their prior “sola scriptura” framework. Consequently, they embarrass themselves and Catholicism in general. Where is the Catholic apologist with the well rounded education that encompasses Scripture, philosophy, dogmatic theology…Where are the Phd’s, and double Phd’s?
 
Most Catholic philosophers aren’t apologists – they’re busy doing philosophy. Same with Catholic theologians; they’re busy with academic theology, which is not apologetics. (If you cornered them, I suppose, they would likely wipe the floor with the folks William Lane Craig debates with.)

There are, however, people like Peter Kreeft, who is a professional philosopher and a popular apologist. Ralph McInerny is another.
 
I knew Bill Craig when he was on staff for Campus Crusade for Christ at NIU in DeKalb, Ill. I am glad that God is using him in a great way.

But if I was to meet Bill today, I would point out that the full apologetics for the Christiam faith is found in Catholicism.

Traditionally, Protestantism has been against reason. Martin Luther called Reason the great Harlot. This makes sense given their sola scriptura presupposition; we cannot know anything about God apart from scripture - even using reason. So the most we can do with non-Christians is to throw Bible verses at them, and if they are predestined, they will come to Christ. Argument from reason is totally unnecessary. This is followed by other German theologians such as Kirkegaard, Bonhofer, and Barth. The Protestant tradition talks about the “blind leap of faith”. Protestants view of “justification by faith alone” exalted faith on such a mystical level that they could not see how reason can bring about faith. Also, the Reformers saw that the Catholic tradition was deep with the blending of philosophy and theology, and the Reformers rebelled against that.

Although the Catholic Church taught that there were some doctrines (such as the Trinity or the Incarnation) could not be arrived at by reason, there are other things (natural law, the attrbutes of God) that can be arrived at by reason. With Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Aquinas, there was the blending of philosophy with theology.

Modern Protestant Evanglicalism, at least as I see it, is Protestantism drifting back toward Rome. It is in Protestant Evanglicalism that we first see the grace of God being infused in our hearts by “asking Christ in our hearts”. It is in Protestant Evanglicalism that we first hear that we must accept Jesus as Saviour AND Lord, which comes very close to the Catholic dogma that we are saved by faith and works.

And it is modern Protestant Evanglicalism that has drifted back to Catholicsm’s blending of theology and philosophy. Norm Geisler’s and Bill Craig’s argument for the existence of God is basically the cosmological argument first given by Thomas Aquinas.

Unfortunately, back in the 60’s, while Protestant Evangelicalism has becoming more Catholic, Catholics were become more Protestant. So Catholics for a while were not using apologetics. Recently, though, this has changed in the last two decades, with Scott Hahn, Jimmy Aiken, Kark Keating, Catholics have started to get back to their Catholic roots of using reason to defend the faith.
 
(Continued)

As I wrote previously, Catholicism, would deep enrich apologetics.

For instance, the main apologetics used by Bill Craig to defend that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is His resurrection from the dead actually taking place in history. And that is all well and good, but, usng his same arguments, what of the appearance of the Blessed Virgin mary at Fatima? Bill Craig made a big point that Jesus appeared to the apostles He appeared to the apostles, and then to 500 people at one time. This is impressive, but how much more impressive is the sun dancing in the sky in front 70,000 witnesses by the mother of God. This was event was in the nonCatholic newpapers!
 
Bonarges said:
Where are the Phd’s, and double Phd’s?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call him a Catholic apologist (He’s Catholic, but it just doesn’t fit his bill), but I’ve been impressed with Dinesh D’Souza. I didn’t expect to be at first, since his writing style is overly aggressive. But when I’ve seen him in action on religious subjects, I have to admit I’ve been impressed.
 
Nullasalus said:
I wouldn’t call him a Catholic apologist (He’s Catholic, but it just doesn’t fit his bill), but I’ve been impressed with Dinesh D’Souza. I didn’t expect to be at first, since his writing style is overly aggressive. But when I’ve seen him in action on religious subjects, I have to admit I’ve been impressed.
Click to expand...
I’ll check him out. Some of his debates are on-line. Thanks.

Now for another question. I realize that the Catholic Church can’t respond to every anti-Catholic kook, but when the individual is well known and public, as in the case of James White, does the Church mandate anyone to defend the Faith against people like White? What I mean is, whose job is it? Bishops? Priests? Laymen? Anyone?? Or do we ignore people like White, and leave them unanswered?
 
packermann said:
Traditionally, Protestantism has been against reason. Martin Luther called Reason the great Harlot.
Click to expand...
In a sense Luther was correct; the man who values reason over faith has been misguided.

However, the human faculty of reason itself cannot be to blame (ultimately, the blame goes to Satan). Reason is good, a gift from God. Human beings would be on par with lower species without reason. Faith, in fact, is not possible without reason, let alone theological speculation. Faith rests upon reason.
 
Bonarges said:
I’ve recently listened to some debates between Evan-Protestant Dr. Craig, and various atheists/secular humanists. He seems to be deeply immersed in philosophy, and is impressive in the debates that I’ve heard. Are there any Catholic apologists in his league?

On another note, who are/is the best Catholic apologist(s)? I’ve been underwhelmed recently at the attempts of some Catholic apologists who get trapped into trying to prove certain Catholic doctrines based on the Bible alone. Frequently, they get their heads handed back to them on a platter. I attribute this to the fact that many of them come from Protestant backgrounds where their main focus was the Bible, and much less so on philosophy and theology. So, they tend to revert back to their prior “sola scriptura” framework. Consequently, they embarrass themselves and Catholicism in general. Where is the Catholic apologist with the well rounded education that encompasses Scripture, philosophy, dogmatic theology…Where are the Phd’s, and double Phd’s?
Click to expand...
It depends on who they are debating. Use the Bible when debating sola Scripturists; use philosophy when debating atheists/agnostics/secularists.
 
As noted, Peter Kreeft is a great Catholic philosopher. He has recently debated Michael Tooley, an atheist who has debated Reformed philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

Another Catholic philosopher you might want to check out is Alasdair MacIntyre. He is not an analytic philosopher, however. He’s certainly an excellent Thomist, though, as is the late Etienne Gilson. Gilson’s book The Christian Philosophy of St.Thomas Aquinas is among the best resources for a contemporary defense of Aristotelian-Thomism.

By the way, James Kidd’s article is a good starting place for traditional Catholic philosophy.
 
Thanks again for the info. But one question still remains unanswered, i,e., whose job is it to address peoplke like James White? Does the Church say anything about who should address heretics like White who publicly attack Christ’s One True Church?
 
Hi Bonarges,

I wouldn’t go so far as to call White a heretic. His theology is mostly orthodox (i.e. we agree on the essentials), but yes, I agree that claims contrary to Church teaching ought to be answered in some manner. The Apostle Peter instructs everyone (not just professional philosophers) to be ready to defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15). On areas where White does not agree with Church teaching, then anyone is allowed to point that out. Granted, most (including myself) are not familiar enough with the original Biblical languages to be able to withstand a debate on certain topics with someone with White’s credentials, but that is where it is helpful to refer to those who do (i.e. Sungenis, Pacwa, etc.).

Blessings
 
Cajetan said:
In a sense Luther was correct; the man who values reason over faith has been misguided.

.
Click to expand...
That is precisely what Luther did. Who misguided him?

He used his individual reason to develop arguments that led him to reject the faith of the Church that had existed from the beginning. On another thread he is quoted as trying to find a way to reason that the Eucharist was false and therefore a fantasy of popery. His intent, his desire was that he be able to find a way to prove the Eucharist false, to overturn the ancient faith in the Eucharist, but he said he could not accomplish his desire there. He modified the doctrine to suit his reason. In his religion each individual uses his personal reason to determine truth for himself based on his personal interpretation of the Bible. Luther had his own interpretation of scripture he expected to hold up in the religion he founded, but that outcome was impossible. He unleashed the demon of denominationalism, the enigine of chaos, that many headed monster that tells the indivudal to use his personal reason to develop a personal faith and reject the common faith.
 
punkforchrist said:
Hi Bonarges,

I*** wouldn’t go so far as to call White a heretic. His theology is mostly orthodox (i.e. we agree on the essentials***), but yes, I agree that claims contrary to Church teaching ought to be answered in some manner. The Apostle Peter instructs everyone (not just professional philosophers) to be ready to defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15). On areas where White does not agree with Church teaching, then anyone is allowed to point that out. Granted, most (including myself) are not familiar enough with the original Biblical languages to be able to withstand a debate on certain topics with someone with White’s credentials, but that is where it is helpful to refer to those who do (i.e. Sungenis, Pacwa, etc.).

Blessings
Click to expand...
Not a heretic? Mostly orthodox theology?? Are you kidding, or just clueless? His theology is Calvinist. He denies the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, The Papacy…Maybe you’d like to recant.
 
Hello Jim,

There is a distinct difference between a heresy and a heretic. Not everyone who holds to a heresy (i.e. denying the Real Presence) is in fact a heretic. Laypersons do not have authority to excommunicate anyone, so the label of heretic is really not germane in this situation.

Although White does deny some important Catholic doctrines, he also agrees with many essentials - for example, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the dual nature of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, the eternity and perfection of the monotheistic God, and so on. He has written extensively on these issues, and even I (a Catholic) have benefited from them. Here’s an article where he deals with the subject of Jesus’ divinity and ‘Grandville Sharp’s Rule’. Mitch Pacwa recommends White’s work on the Trinity, as well.

Blessings
 
punkforchrist said:
Hello Jim,

There is a distinct difference between a heresy and a heretic. Not everyone who holds to a heresy (i.e. denying the Real Presence) is in fact a heretic. Laypersons do not have authority to excommunicate anyone, so the label of heretic is really not germane in this situation.
Blessings
Click to expand...
You are correct that laity can not determine who is a heretic and who is not. The Church does that and has done that concerning those who hold the heretical doctrines in question. A heretic is someone who believes and or promotes heresy.

There is a distinction between formal and material heretics, but both are heretics.

Catholics do not agree on essentials with this man. If the Eucharist is not essential, what is? Good grief!
 
Hi grandfather,
40.png
grandfather:
There is a distinction between formal and material heretics, but both are heretics.
Click to expand...
Yes, but even then, the term is used to describe someone in the Catholic communion who opposes Church teaching. ‘Heretic’ is not a term used for those who grew up, and are currently, non-Catholic.
Catholics do not agree on essentials with this man. If the Eucharist is not essential, what is?
Click to expand...
I think it would be safer to say that he doesn’t agree on some distinctively Catholic essentials. White denies the Real Presence, but affirms orthodox Christology, for example. Under Vatican II, White would be considered a validly baptized Christian. Since he was never a part of the Catholic communion in any formal way, then he is not a heretic strictly speaking.

In any case, I just don’t think that terms like ‘heretic’ ought to be thrown around in general. It simply isn’t conducive to an advance of dialogue. However, I appreciate the fervor in which you both want to defend the Church’s teachings.

Blessings
 
William Lane Craig gets his arguments for God from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm, his arguments for predestination from Fr. Luis Molina, S.J., when he starts getting his spirituality from St. Ignatius of Loyola, and his doctrine from Pope Benedict XVI, then he’ll be Catholic. I give him to 2010 at the latest. :signofcross:

Just kidding but I do have his 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith, he responds to Dawkins and Dennett (“new atheism”) in the book.

My audio page of course got his best debates, someday I’ll put up an outline summary and review of those. There are probably plenty of Catholic philosophers in the country with his knowledge, but not with his debating/speaking skills.

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top