Apologetics

[MoreCoffee]

Apologetics is intended to give a reasoned defence of the Christian faith to people who oppose it. The real target readership & audience is non-Christian people who are willing to read or listen to arguments in favour of Christianity. But apologetics is also the name some people give to one branch of Christianity attacking another - technically that is really polemics but 'apologetics' sounds more respectable so people use that word rather than polemics - with a set of allegations about the attacked branch of Christianity and a set of reasons for favouring the attacking branch. In CH we have quite a lot of polemics but not so much apologetics.


It's interesting.

 

[Arsenios]

One of the drivers in favor of polemics is the tactic of understanding a different point of view as polemical, and even as a personal attack... Dare we say that we are seeing the psychoepistemological roots of the sjw's and the demonization of political opponents on the national scene??

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

One of the drivers in favor of polemics is the tactic of understanding a different point of view as polemical, and even as a personal attack... Dare we say that we are seeing the psychoepistemological roots of the sjw's and the demonization of political opponents on the national scene??

Arsenios

I know anecdotally from people I know in my local Parish that Catholics rarely discuss Protestantism and mostly know only vaguely what a Baptist, for example, is. One comment I have heard when a question was raised by a lady I know who has a relative who became a Baptist was "are they (meaning Baptists) mainly old testament centred?" maybe the question was asked because Baptists sometimes talk about John the Baptist and he was "old testament" ish wasn't he

 

[Josiah]

In discussing theology, I like an interdenominational format.... and it's especially helpful if the participants are diverse, informed and articulate. When "likes" only talk to "likes" - little gets challenged, little is learned, and IMO there is little room for growth.


"Apologetics" (to defend one's position) IMO can be helpful - especially when the "position" is simply the message of Christianity, when it is Christ as Savior that is being defended. It is, in many ways, simply a form of Evangelism.

IMO, when speaking to others who are Christians embracing Christ as the Savior, "apologetics" often takes on a different form. Too often, it's just "sides" trying to defend a denominational stance or claim. I think what is often more helpful is to EXPLAIN that denomination's unique position or claim - too often that's not done; the "goal" rarely is to advance mutual understanding but to WIN THE WAR regardless of who is right and who is wrong, just as long as the denomination wins to fight. IMO, a forum like CH can present a great opportunity to hear from each other (even if we're mainly laity, even if perhaps our positions are best expressed as what I believe/think/feel/trust).


Personally, while I think apologetics is noble, I tend to avoid it. I DO engage in evangelism but I have a completely different approach to that (and RARELY engage in that here since virtually all here are already Christians). I don't care what denomination "wins the war" via tricks of argument and skills at debate. I'm pleased if - at the end of the day - I can say I learned something.... and maybe returned the favor. I'm not here to make ANYONE a Lutheran or cause ANYONE to think like me (other than that Evangelism point of Jesus is the Savior) - I lack the ego for that. And besides, in heaven, everyone will be Lutheran and will know that I was right all along. And that's soon enough for me.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

In discussing theology, I like an interdenominational format.... and it's especially helpful if the participants are diverse, informed and articulate. When "likes" only talk to "likes"

God asks Can two walk together, except they be agreed? maybe like goes with like well and being alike in faith and good works is a good thing?

- little gets challenged, little is learned, and IMO there is little room for growth.


"Apologetics" (to defend one's position) IMO can be helpful - especially when the "position" is simply the message of Christianity, when it is Christ as Savior that is being defended. It is, in many ways, simply a form of Evangelism.

IMO, when speaking to others who are Christians embracing Christ as the Savior, "apologetics" often takes on a different form. Too often, it's just "sides" trying to defend a denominational stance or claim. I think what is often more helpful is to EXPLAIN that denomination's unique position or claim - too often that's not done; the "goal" rarely is to advance mutual understanding but to WIN THE WAR regardless of who is right and who is wrong, just as long as the denomination wins to fight. IMO, a forum like CH can present a great opportunity to hear from each other (even if we're mainly laity, even if perhaps our positions are best expressed as what I believe/think/feel/trust).


Personally, while I think apologetics is noble, I tend to avoid it. I DO engage in evangelism but I have a completely different approach to that (and RARELY engage in that here since virtually all here are already Christians). I don't care what denomination "wins the war" via tricks of argument and skills at debate. I'm pleased if - at the end of the day - I can say I learned something.... and maybe returned the favor. I'm not here to make ANYONE a Lutheran or cause ANYONE to think like me (other than that Evangelism point of Jesus is the Savior) - I lack the ego for that. And besides, in heaven, everyone will be Lutheran and will know that I was right all along. And that's soon enough for me.
- Josiah

 

[Arsenios]

To the best of my knowledge there is no Catholic systematic theology. The Catechism is really an elaboration on the Apostles' creed. It is intended for baptismal preparation. But it does cover a good amount of theology and hence is used to answer numerous questions raised by interested people and not-very-interested people too

My sense of the RC is that when the Schism occurred, they understood the Latin Pope to be the Head of the Church Militant sitting in the Chair of Peter, and for that reason, needed to have the Faith systematized for the sake of giving Papal rulings on all possible manner of disputes or issues that might arise, so that the Faith of Christ should be One Faith, and their's was the responsibility of adjudicating all matters of Faith... So that their Canon Law became the Law, rather than the yardstick/norm/guide that it is in Orthodoxy...

So that it was necessary to systematize the Faith in order to carry out its mandate, and the Scholastic approach to the Faith in the human intellect in the reading of Scripture became the vehicle for the attainment of this purpose...

I do not know if the above is true... It is just a guess on my part... It seemed logical...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

My sense of the RC is that when the Schism occurred, they understood the Latin Pope to be the Head of the Church Militant sitting in the Chair of Peter, and for that reason, needed to have the Faith systematized for the sake of giving Papal rulings on all possible manner of disputes or issues that might arise, so that the Faith of Christ should be One Faith, and their's was the responsibility of adjudicating all matters of Faith... So that their Canon Law became the Law, rather than the yardstick/norm/guide that it is in Orthodoxy...

So that it was necessary to systematize the Faith in order to carry out its mandate, and the Scholastic approach to the Faith in the human intellect in the reading of Scripture became the vehicle for the attainment of this purpose...

I do not know if the above is true... It is just a guess on my part... It seemed logical...

Arsenios

Canon law is subject to change. It is not regarded as dogmatic teaching. The canon law may contain information and statements from dogmatic teaching but it is not itself a source of those things. Dogmatic teaching comes from Church councils that are ratified by the pope (the Holy See and curia really, the pope is advised by the curia and decides matters on the basis of advice as well as his own careful consideration and prayer - some popes were not very prayerful nor very inclined to careful consideration but fortunately they were also disinclined, in the providence of God, to write or proclaim dogma). Neither the Catechism nor the canon law is the source of dogma. There are theologians who have attempted to compile summaries of dogmatic teaching and there are whole libraries of books that record dogma in more or less systematic categories but these are merely theologies that record from the sources and are not themselves the sources of dogma. Systematic theologies first appeared, as far as I know, in Calvinism which is a Protestant movement and perhaps also in Lutheranism. What their status is in those movements is not for me to expound. A Lutheran and a Calvinist would be better qualified for that than I am.

In the broad ages of the Church the following can be said

• It was not the intention of the Fathers to give a systematic treatment of theology (the first 800 years)
• The earliest scholastic scholars collected and listed in more of less encyclopedic form the teachings of the early church fathers (800 to 1200)
• Thomas Aquinas holds the same rank among the theologians as does Augustine among the Fathers of the Church. He is distinguished by wealth of ideas, systematic exposition of them, and versatility. (1200 to 1300)
• In the declining years of scholasticism (1300 to 1500) there arose various philosophic schools disputing about every topic one can think of and producing nothing systematic except compendiums of dogma that were tortured into the philosophical school's images.
• From 1500 to 1900 Protestantism created numerous systematic theologies each created according to the dogma of their own particular and distinctive doctrinal emphases.

Today there are various theologians who have written what they think of as systematic exposition of core dogmatic themes but the Catholic Church herself has not produced a "systematic theology". The compendiums of Dogmatic Teaching compiled (mainly by German and occasional French) theologians still exist and are updated for reference purposes. These are mainly the work of the 20th century.

I do hope that does not clarify matters too much because the truth is that Dogmatic teaching is clear only from its sources which are the 21 Ecumenical Councils recognised by the Catholic Church.

 

[Josiah]

God asks Can two walk together, except they be agreed? maybe like goes with like well and being alike in faith and good works is a good thing?

IMO, there are several "problems" with your approach, MC....


1. A denomination agreeing with IT ITSELF exclusively and currently is entirely unrelated to it being correct. The entire rubric that I was taught in the RCC, namely, that if the RCC itself alone currently and officially agrees with it itself alone currently and officially then it itself alone is correct is... well.... silly. I'm pretty sure that EVERY false teacher and false religion and false church agreed with it itself - at least currently and in those things that it itself alone currently states is good for it itself to agree with it itself concerning. I'm pretty sure Jim Jones agreed with Jim Jones.... I just don't agree that ERGO he was correct.


2. Those in a church, denomination, cult..... who are mandated to agree with the church or denomination or cult.... "preserves" and "protects" the teachings of claims of the church, denomination or cult. But I disagree that ERGO that specific, individual group is correct... Jim Jones agreed with Jim Jones, and yes they drank the koolaid together, but is that something God praises, is that something that glorifies God? IMO, what glorifies God is not lots agreeing with lots on ERROR but rather on truth.


3. As I stated, I think that truth matters. And IMO, any individual church/denomination/cult that simply exempts ONE from accountability because the self same insists that there is exclusively ONE who is INFALLIBLE (officially anyway) and that ONE just happens to be it itself alone, individually and exclusively, is not only circular, evasive and revealing a fear of examination, but is a pretty good indication that that individual church, denomination or cult is quite likely to be wrong.... such an insistence by self for self is IMO a really big yellow light shouting "CAUTION!"


4. Of course, MY point is that sites like this have value because we can learn other perspectives as well as have our own challenged. I don't fear that, I welcome that because IMO truth is what matters.


It seems we disagree .... again.



And I apologize because none of this has anything to do with apologetics. So let's return to the issue at hand: the value and use of apologetics (which is the defense of a position).



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And I apologize because none of this has anything to do with apologetics.

I agree. it has nothing to do with the original post's topic.

 

[Arsenios]

Canon law is subject to change. It is not regarded as dogmatic teaching. The canon law may contain information and statements from dogmatic teaching but it is not itself a source of those things. Dogmatic teaching comes from Church councils that are ratified by the pope (the Holy See and curia really, the pope is advised by the curia and decides matters on the basis of advice as well as his own careful consideration and prayer - some popes were not very prayerful nor very inclined to careful consideration but fortunately they were also disinclined, in the providence of God, to write or proclaim dogma). Neither the Catechism nor the canon law is the source of dogma. There are theologians who have attempted to compile summaries of dogmatic teaching and there are whole libraries of books that record dogma in more or less systematic categories but these are merely theologies that record from the sources and are not themselves the sources of dogma. Systematic theologies first appeared, as far as I know, in Calvinism which is a Protestant movement and perhaps also in Lutheranism. What their status is in those movements is not for me to expound. A Lutheran and a Calvinist would be better qualified for that than I am.

In the broad ages of the Church the following can be said

• It was not the intention of the Fathers to give a systematic treatment of theology (the first 800 years)
• The earliest scholastic scholars collected and listed in more of less encyclopedic form the teachings of the early church fathers (800 to 1200)
• Thomas Aquinas holds the same rank among the theologians as does Augustine among the Fathers of the Church. He is distinguished by wealth of ideas, systematic exposition of them, and versatility. (1200 to 1300)
• In the declining years of scholasticism (1300 to 1500) there arose various philosophic schools disputing about every topic one can think of and producing nothing systematic except compendiums of dogma that were tortured into the philosophical school's images.
• From 1500 to 1900 Protestantism created numerous systematic theologies each created according to the dogma of their own particular and distinctive doctrinal empathises.

Today there are various theologians who have written what they think of as systematic exposition of core dogmatic themes but the Catholic Church herself has not produced a "systematic theology". The compendiums of Dogmatic Teaching compiled (mainly by German and occasional French) theologians still exist and are updated for reference purposes. These are mainly the work of the 20th century.

I do hope that does not clarify matters too much because the truth is that Dogmatic teaching is clear only from its sources which are the 21 Ecumenical Councils recognised by the Catholic Church.

Thank-you for this helpful post...

The Orthodox Church sees two facets of dogma - Those formally affirmed by the Councils, almost always in response to some heresy or another, and then empirical dogmatics, which is the Source of the rulings of the Councils,which is a part of the experience of the Church - eg of those to whom God has given vision... Academic dogmatics and theology are an important yet derivative study of the writings of those who have the empirical experience and have written about it...

I don't think we regard Canon Law as being subject to change... Indeed, I seem to recall a Canon forbidding some addition or subtraction from the Creed, or something else - from the 5th or 6th? My first Priest catechizes with the Symbol of the Faith... One word at a time, one phrase, one sentence... Slow but not pedantic... Acquisition of Grace never far from his thoughts...

I do not think that empirical dogmatics is a feature of the Roman Catholic teachings - I was stunned to see those words as the title of a book by Metropolitn Hierotheos Vlachos... I knew instinctively what it meant... It had the "sound"...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank-you for this helpful post...

The Orthodox Church sees two facets of dogma - Those formally affirmed by the Councils, almost always in response to some heresy or another, and then empirical dogmatics, which is the Source of the rulings of the Councils,which is a part of the experience of the Church - eg of those to whom God has given vision... Academic dogmatics and theology are an important yet derivative study of the writings of those who have the empirical experience and have written about it...

Brother Arsenios, what you wrote is so Catholic that I am almost persuaded that you are a Catholic!

(I do know that you probably call yourself an Orthodox Catholic Church member, I am just being a little playful with you just as you may already know that Catholics call themselves the orthodox Catholic Church contending for the one faith delivered once for all time to the saints).

I don't think we regard Canon Law as being subject to change... Indeed, I seem to recall a Canon forbidding some addition or subtraction from the Creed, or something else - from the 5th or 6th?

The Creed (Nicene I think you mean) is dogma. It does not change. It can be expanded but not subtracted from. That was what transpired between 325 AD and 381 AD. In the two councils 325 and 381 the content of the creed to augmented, clarified, added to.

My first Priest catechizes with the Symbol of the Faith... One word at a time, one phrase, one sentence... Slow but not pedantic... Acquisition of Grace never far from his thoughts...

You know, that is exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is intended to aid. The CCC is a guide and help for those who write and teach Catechumens. The idea is to help bring to mind each word of the Apostle's creed so that the meaning can be expounded and then the Ten commandments are carefully examined and explained so that the Catechist can carefully expound and explain the meaning of each commandment and the words in each of them, and finally the prayers of the Church - her liturgy and especially the Lord's prayer - is presented as a reminder to the Catechist of what depths there are in the living liturgy of the Church so that every Catechumen is well instructed in the sacraments, prayer, and the life of obedience. It is all intended to foster growth in grace and to strengthen graces already present.

There's an unspoken secret that every Catechumen learns by the end of his/her initial period of instruction and that secret is that the learning and growth in grace never ceases and one is in effect God's catechumen for all of one's life and even in the next life. We are God workmanship, says the apostle, created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of doing the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do as our way of life. To that I give my amen.

I do not think that empirical dogmatics is a feature of the Roman Catholic teachings

And here I was wondering how to explain and expand upon the idea of learning by experience - especially experiencing the liturgy and the life that it seeks to foster and encourage - to you and everybody in this thread. Now you've gone and shattered my plans! You already know what the dogmatics of life means.

- I was stunned to see those words as the title of a book by Metropolitn Hierotheos Vlachos... I knew instinctively what it meant... It had the "sound"...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Canon law is subject to change. It is not regarded as dogmatic teaching. The canon law may contain information and statements from dogmatic teaching but it is not itself a source of those things. Dogmatic teaching comes from Church councils that are ratified by the pope (the Holy See and curia really, the pope is advised by the curia and decides matters on the basis of advice as well as his own careful consideration and prayer - some popes were not very prayerful nor very inclined to careful consideration but fortunately they were also disinclined, in the providence of God, to write or proclaim dogma). Neither the Catechism nor the canon law is the source of dogma. There are theologians who have attempted to compile summaries of dogmatic teaching and there are whole libraries of books that record dogma in more or less systematic categories but these are merely theologies that record from the sources and are not themselves the sources of dogma. Systematic theologies first appeared, as far as I know, in Calvinism which is a Protestant movement and perhaps also in Lutheranism. What their status is in those movements is not for me to expound. A Lutheran and a Calvinist would be better qualified for that than I am.

In the broad ages of the Church the following can be said

• It was not the intention of the Fathers to give a systematic treatment of theology (the first 800 years)
• The earliest scholastic scholars collected and listed in more of less encyclopedic form the teachings of the early church fathers (800 to 1200)
• Thomas Aquinas holds the same rank among the theologians as does Augustine among the Fathers of the Church. He is distinguished by wealth of ideas, systematic exposition of them, and versatility. (1200 to 1300)
• In the declining years of scholasticism (1300 to 1500) there arose various philosophic schools disputing about every topic one can think of and producing nothing systematic except compendiums of dogma that were tortured into the philosophical school's images.
• From 1500 to 1900 Protestantism created numerous systematic theologies each created according to the dogma of their own particular and distinctive doctrinal emphases.

Today there are various theologians who have written what they think of as systematic exposition of core dogmatic themes but the Catholic Church herself has not produced a "systematic theology". The compendiums of Dogmatic Teaching compiled (mainly by German and occasional French) theologians still exist and are updated for reference purposes. These are mainly the work of the 20th century.

I do hope that does not clarify matters too much because the truth is that Dogmatic teaching is clear only from its sources which are the 21 Ecumenical Councils recognised by the Catholic Church.

It's pretty clear the RC just makes it up as they go along...

 

[Arsenios]

Brother Arsenios, what you wrote is so Catholic that I am almost persuaded that you are a Catholic!

Do you guys actually believe that the dogmas of the Church can be verified by first hand experience?

The Creed (Nicene I think you mean) is dogma. It does not change.

I'm gonna hold you to that...

It can be expanded but not subtracted from.

To add to or subtract from the Nicene Creed is to CHANGE it...

That was what transpired between 325 AD and 381 AD. In the two councils 325 and 381 the content of the creed to augmented, clarified, added to.

Indeed so, and then in the 5th or 6th Council, it was ruled unchangeable, not to be added to or subtracted from by so much as one word... And has been so ever since...

You know, that is exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is intended to aid. The CCC is a guide and help for those who write and teach Catechumens. The idea is to help bring to mind each word of the Apostle's creed so that the meaning can be expounded and then the Ten commandments are carefully examined and explained so that the Catechist can carefully expound and explain the meaning of each commandment and the words in each of them, and finally the prayers of the Church - her liturgy and especially the Lord's prayer - is presented as a reminder to the Catechist of what depths there are in the living liturgy of the Church so that every Catechumen is well instructed in the sacraments, prayer, and the life of obedience. It is all intended to foster growth in grace and to strengthen graces already present.

There's an unspoken secret that every Catechumen learns by the end of his/her initial period of instruction and that secret is that the learning and growth in grace never ceases and one is in effect God's catechumen for all of one's life and even in the next life. We are God workmanship, says the apostle, created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of doing the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do as our way of life. To that I give my amen.

Well, there are two kinds of works - Those leading to Glorification - eg repentance, and those manifesting God's Goodness - Helping little old ladies across the street and healing the sick and ascending to the third heaven, etc...

And here I was wondering how to explain and expand upon the idea of learning by experience - especially experiencing the liturgy and the life that it seeks to foster and encourage - to you and everybody in this thread. Now you've gone and shattered my plans! You already know what the dogmatics of life means.

The simple entering into and participation in the Life of the Ekklesia is pre-requisite to understanding the meaning of Scripture... And the further along one gets in the purification of his or her heart, the more Scripture opens to one's understanding...

But the Fathers have, many of them, personal experience that God is "Light of Light, True God of True God" etc...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you guys actually believe that the dogmas of the Church can be verified by first hand experience?



I'm gonna hold you to that...



To add to or subtract from the Nicene Creed is to CHANGE it...



Indeed so, and then in the 5th or 6th Council, it was ruled unchangeable, not to be added to or subtracted from by so much as one word... And has been so ever since...



Well, there are two kinds of works - Those leading to Glorification - eg repentance, and those manifesting God's Goodness - Helping little old ladies across the street and healing the sick and ascending to the third heaven, etc...



The simple entering into and participation in the Life of the Ekklesia is pre-requisite to understanding the meaning of Scripture... And the further along one gets in the purification of his or her heart, the more Scripture opens to one's understanding...

But the Fathers have, many of them, personal experience that God is "Light of Light, True God of True God" etc...

Arsenios

I explain the main matter this way. You can know about swimming but you do not know how to swim unless you swim. That is like, but not exactly like, life in Christ. And we say "outside the Church there is no salvation" by which we mean that without the life of God present within the Church you can neither understand properly nor come to know fully the life of Christ. We say it because the Church is the body of Christ as saint Paul teaches and because the Church is where God gives his life for his children, Here I am not so much talking of the holy Eucharist** (which is given within the Church) as I am about the lived life of Christ - the experience of being Christ as his body. The Church gives the holy scriptures and she is the context in which they are understood. Only within the life of the living Church (read body of Christ) is the holy scripture capable of being properly understood and properly lived. I am, of course, not speaking about Church buildings here some readers are inclined to see the word "church" and think of buildings what I am thinking of when I write Church is the Church which is Christ on earth as the body he is giving his life to and for. Anyway, like swimming living has to be an experience to be known.

On the Creed, augmenting it by adding infallible truth to it - not necessarily incorporating the augmentations into its text but coming to know that there is more to know and expressing that in other dogmatic sources or even in the liturgical expression of the creed - is why there were more than two councils and why there is more than one early church father. The body grows and matures adding to both its substance and to its wisdom. Knit together by ligaments and all the parts coming together in harmony and wonderful proportion. Sorry to be a little mystical in language here, I suspect that what is felt in the spirit and in the inner being is sometimes not well fitted to words so analogies and expressions that approximate it are used and those words are never the same thing as the reality that they attempt to describe.

Besides, I am only a man, not so wise, not so skilled, and far from mature yet I press on to the higher calling of my Lord.

** Please read with charity, I know that the holy Eucharist is too tightly and deeply tied to and infiltrated into the life of Christ in the Church to be so easily extracted so if you do not agree or think I have not expressed this thought well then you are right. I looked at what I wrote and thought it needed much augmentation and then I thought of mercy to my readers and decided that I'd rely on charity in them and if there are questions then other posts can be written and a better explanation can be given. Forgive my imposition upon your charity.