Replies for Seminarians on (Mostly) Practical Apologetics

I was invited to participate in an online board discussion with seven or eight Catholic seminarians, who were taking a class on apologetics. Here are the exchanges. The seminarians' words will be in green:

*****

It's an honor and a pleasure to be able to interact with you, and it's nice to fellowship with Catholics in this manner once in a while. I probably spend too much time on the "front lines" of "apologetic battle," so to speak, and I find that it is good to periodically take a rest from that. I don't even visit discussion boards anymore, and restrict myself mainly to discussion on my blog (for several reasons), so this is a nice change.

I'll do my best to answer your questions. Please be forewarned that I am more or less a "jack of all trades / master of none" sort of guy. I have dealt with a lot of subjects, but don't claim to be an expert on any of them (though I feel that I have a pretty good grasp on a few). It's quite likely that as a result of your ongoing education, you know far more than I do in any number of individual areas, as I have no formal theological education.

But I have done a lot of reading and research and interaction with non-Catholics, for sure. Again, I'll do my best, and if I don't know an answer to something, I will say so! You may force me to "go back to the books" myself, in order to be able to answer a question, but that's okay. That helps me learn, too, which is one of the blessings of apologetics: one is always learning, even while passing along a few things, too.



1. Anti-Catholicism and Stressing Biblical Arguments With Protestants

I have been surprised how many people will ask me some question about Catholic doctrine, beliefs, practices, etc. and then distinguish this from the practices of Christianity in general, seeming to believe that Catholics are not Christians. I sometimes find it difficult to be diplomatic in explaining to people that Catholics are indeed Christians, and that, in fact, up until the Reformation, all Christians were Catholic, etc. Any ideas about how to do this "gently" but also with the strength of our faith? It seems to be a common misconception that Catholics are something other than Christian.

Yep, this is a tough one. I deal with it all the time. Of course, the ones who think this (a minority of Protestants but many of the more uneducated ones) are what I call "anti-Catholics": those who deny that the Catholic Church is a Christian institution and that its theology is truly Christian.

There are many ways to tackle this, but I take a Socratic, step-by-step approach (as is my wont generally). One might say this is a variant of the Pauline "be all things to all people" method of sharing.

I would start questioning the person (if he is reasonably able to have a conversation at all: some of these people are not, and it is completely futile).

First, you ask them, "how do you define Christian?" If they say that it is someone who believes what they do (as a Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever they are), then you press them to explain how it is that fellow Protestants such as Lutherans or Methodists are not Christians. Most Protestants won't like that, so this will show them that their position has internal incoherence.

If they say that we aren't Christians because of sacraments or something along those lines, then you make the point that Lutherans and Anglicans are very sacramental; why are they not also ruled out?

Leading anti-Catholic James White has claimed that Catholics weren't Christians because they supposedly replaced grace by sacraments. I went and demonstrated systematically that by his critieria Martin Luther himself wouldn't be a Christian, either (nor would St. Augustine). In other words, it is a reductio ad absurdum of such reasoning. It proves too much, and leads to absurdities, such as the founder of Protestantism not being a Protestant :-), so it must be discarded. See:

"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of "Dr." (?) James White: How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition?

Another way is the historical approach you take:

1) Christianity is inherently historical and continuous.

2) Protestantism began in 1517.

3) Therefore, one has to explain how one gets from the apostolic "point a" to the Protestant "point b." It's not easy.

One quick definition of "Christian" I use is: "one who accepts the Nicene Creed." If they bring up the pope or Mary or whatever, you say "those things are disagreed on, yet the basic definition we all agree on is the Nicene Creed."

Or you can center on people like St. Augustine and other Fathers, whom more historically-minded Protestants try to claim as their own. I've written several papers showing a tension between Protestant and patristic views.

Calvin and Luther both accepted the validity of Catholic baptism, and a minimalistic notion that Catholicism was still Christian (though they seem to contradict themselves in other places - long story).

Those are the some of the ways I go about it. The best thing, though, is to show that we can back up our views from Scripture and critique theirs from the Bible. This is my main emphasis in my apostolate. They will always respect the Bible. We have the love of the Bible in common, so it's always good to stress biblical arguments in any discussion with a Protestant. My website and books can come in handy, there (and Catholic Answers, Scott Hahn, Pat Madrid, Steve Ray, etc.).

Thanks for the tips, I know they will be useful. Also, thanks for the extensive website - I consulted it when working on my homily for last week.

You said to stress biblical arguments, but I was wondering how quickly do you turn to Church history? Do you wait until all your biblical arguments are used or do you try to use Scripture to lead to a Church history argument?

Great question. It depends on the viewpoint of the person I am talking to (as always in my apologetics, per St. Paul's injunction to "be all things to all men"). If they seem like a radical "Bible Only" type (i.e., a position which goes beyond what the founders of Protestantism actually believed, and is "Tradition-denying"), then I stick to the Bible.

But if the person shows an interest in history and the history of doctrine, then I will weave that strain of thought into the discussion, according to how much he seems to want to go in that direction. It's important to get a feel for one's theological opponent: where he is coming from.

For example, I might throw in a line as a sort of friendly (not manipulative) "bait," something like, "I think that the Catholic view is not only supported by Scripture, but by the Fathers." If that is ignored, then I don't pursue the historical argument. But if it is denied, or especially if it is denied and the person devotes considerable energy to a counter-reply, then you know that you have an opportunity to also discuss history.

It's not a matter of denying the historical aspect, or the Tradition / Church component of Catholic belief (what I do is not "sola Scriptura lite"), but rather, of looking for the best common ground you can find, in order for the discussion to be fruitful.

This was an emphasis and urging of Vatican II, and of legitimate, orthodox ecumenism also. We know that appeal to Scripture will always impress Protestants, so it's best (as a rule) to start there until you can determine how the person also views history and any form of Christian tradition.

In fact, I myself was converted due largely to the efforts of an educated Catholic who was applying Vatican II and trying to communicate to Protestants in language that they could understand. This person always treated me with respect, and showed an interest in what my concerns were. Consequently, his arguments became more and more irresistible and my theological curiosity led me down the path to John Henry Cardinal Newman and others, which caused me, by God's grace, to convert.

If this friend of mine had simply appealed to Church rulings and so forth, then I would have dismissed them as irrelevant. That would be putting the cart before the horse. I bring this up not so much to explain the "Bible and History" relationship, but as an example of charity and kindness and meeting people where they are at, as a crucial key to successful evangelism and apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 puts both aspects together. And as always, the Church has great wisdom in applying such biblical injunctions to our efforts at outreach and sharing our faith.

You are so right about meeting them were they are, plus dealing with the others with patience and kindness. It is amazing how some care about the Fathers while others totally dismiss them. Personally, I try to argue of the possibility of the belief using Scripture and when they accept the possibilty, then I will try to put in the Fathers. But that does not work at times, because sometimes they are stubborn or totally dismiss the Fathers.

Good for you!

New question: How do you deal with the stubborn ones?

One can only do so much. As the saying goes: "you can lead a horse to water but you can't get it to drink." If someone doesn't yet understand the crucial place of history, Church history, and history of doctrine in Christianity, then it will be a tough uphill battle to get him to that place. You can only do what you can do at any given time.

And always remember that grace is required, too, for people to fully accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, no matter how well or bad we may present it to them. It's not ultimately up to us how people respond, as long as we have done our best and have exercised charity. Every apologist knows (or should know) this.

When I can't persuade someone then I try to take stock, pause for a moment, and fall back to a position of at least trying to increase mutual understanding, which is itself a good thing. Oftentimes (actually, most of the time), apologetics is seed-planting rather than harvest. You may move a person's opinion just a little bit (not apparent outwardly at all), but this might later prove to have been a crucial turning-point in that person's spiritual journey and theological development. A thousand mile journey starts with one step, as the Chinese say (I feel like Confucius, with all these sayings!).

How well we converts know this. It's fascinating to look back and see how a certain argument or even phrase "hit home" and issued a challenge that led to better things. We mustn't get frustrated with people, because we're all people, too, and we know full well how stubborn and unteachable we often are or have been ourselves.

That said, sometimes no further worthwhile or constructive discussion is possible and we have to calmly, charitably remove ourselves, so as to make the best use of the time that God has given us. St. Paul often forbids engaging in vain conversation and futile arguments. How does one know when this occurs?

Well, that takes a lot of practice and spiritual discernment, I believe. If God grants you that particular spiritual gift, it's pretty easy to determine when to apply it to a failed conversation. But I think that in most cases, that can be determined by plain reason and a prudential judgment. One can tell when things are getting a bit hostile and when both sides are spinning their wheels and talking past each other. If someone is truly interested in dialogue, they will listen and respond to you (i.e., your arguments). If they aren't, they'll do neither, and it is probably time to move on.

In any event, if a person only wants to discuss the Bible, then we can do that in most cases, as Catholics. With some doctrines (such as, e.g., the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary), there is relatively less biblical "hard evidence" and so we can only go so far, and those will prove to be very frustrating dialogues with the deficient "Bible Alone" types.

In those instances, we have to inform them that Catholics believe that all Catholic doctrines are consistent with, or harmonious with Scripture, but not all are equally able to be proven by Scripture Alone (which is a Protestant approach anyway, and - ironically - a biblically-indefensible one, in my opinion).

In other words, we shouldn't have to previously adopt a Protestant distinctive in order to argue in favor of our doctrines. This isn't fair, to put it mildly, and it is circular reasoning on their part. Many Protestants are unaware that sola Scriptura is such a distinctive, which can be disputed in its own right. They're like fish in water: oftentimes they have no idea that whole realms of legitimate thought and Christian approaches exist outside of their own fish tank.

2. Denominations: Good, Better, and Bad / Protestant Traditions and Dialogue

During your time in apologetics, what Protestant denomination / non-denonmnation has been the best and worst to dialogue with?

That comes down to an individual level, really (there are good and bad representatives of all Protestant traditions). Ironically, some of the very best dialogues I have had were with more ecumenical Reformed, while the very worst were definitely with the anti-Catholic wing of the Reformed. There is a wide, almost wild variety within that school of thought.

Some of the best dialogues I have had were with articulate, educated, ecumenical Lutherans and more traditional Anglicans. The main factor is whether one is ecumenical or anti-Catholic. If the former, it will be a good dialogue in proportion to how educated the person is, regarding his own position and ours. If the latter, nothing works, no matter what (which is why I have given up trying to dialogue with anti-Catholics). Our best hope there is to pray for these folks and show them as much kindness as we can. There are huge walls to be broken down before any decent dialogue is even possible.

Also, which one[s] do you admire or not admire for their zeal and openness for God?

Again, it comes down to the more ecumenical and educated within these traditions. I've met anti-Catholic Reformed and Lutherans and Anglicans (generally, the latter are not so much anti-Catholic, as simply liberal). But the ecumenical / evangelical wings of these denominations include some of the finest Christians I have met. I wrote a paper about how much I respect Protestants (singling out the Reformed for particular praise).

I have many friends who are Baptist, and they are wonderful Christians. We have Pentecostal friends, from our old association with Assemblies of God and other connections. The more "evangelical" one is, the more they will tend to evangelize, which I always respect. That was the tradition I came out of. Witnessing and "bringing people to Christ" was stressed. Eventually, I saw apologetics as an extension and necessary part of that. By and large, evangelical Protestants do a better job of that than we do. The Reformed in particular have some great thinking and apologetics, but some of it is anti-Catholic (e.g., R.C. Sproul).

Some of the Protestants I admire most are John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Soren Kierkegaard, Elisabeth Elliot, Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson, and Francis Schaeffer. That covers many traditions right there, but all these people have in common a zeal to share with others by preaching, teaching, apologetics, or individual witness, the truths they have been given by God. Those traits can be found (in individuals) in any denomination, though less so in some than in others.

I guess if I had to choose one group that I enjoy dialoguing with the most, it would be "high-church," traditional Anglicanism. That's where C.S. Lewis (my favorite writer) was, and the environment that John Henry Newman came out of. In many ways, John Wesley [the founder of Methodism] could be classified as that, too, since he never formally left Anglicanism. We tend to like folks who are similar to us (which is somewhat ironic and amusing when you think of it), and traditional Anglicans have much in common with us.

3. General Survey of Broad Differences Amongst Protestants

What are some keys to know about certain Protestants that we would not normally be aware of if having a discussion?

This is a pretty broad question (thus difficult to answer), but I guess I would say that we should be aware of at least the large differences in worldview.

One of these that comes to mind is their very diverse view of sacraments. Quakers and Salvation Army, for example, believe in none. They don't even baptize (!). Baptists are similar, though, of course, they baptize (adults) and have communion. They call these "ordinances." But they don't believe that any grace is conveyed through these sacraments (they think they are merely symbols). Reformed and Methodists and pentecostals are sort of in-between, while Lutherans and (traditional) Anglicans have a rather high sacramentology, which includes baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. This all plays into discussions with them.

Another difference is in how the question of tradition (which in turn ties into one's positions on the Church and history) is approached. The variation is roughly the same as above, with Anglicans and Reformed and Methodists respecting earlier Church tradition much more, and the other groups, relatively less. Protestants discuss amongst themselves how there is a radical "Bible Only" view (which they call SOLO Scriptura), as opposed to the classical Protestant, "Reformation" doctrine of SOLA Scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the only infallible authority, but not the only authority, period.

There are also different approaches to reason. Here the Reformed are particularly interesting because they are thinking people, oftentimes, yet their apologetics tends to be presuppositional, which frowns a bit upon reason and natural theology, and is ultimately circular (even by their own admission).

One can also note differences in opinions on traditional morality. Here, I have found that smaller, non-denominational, evangelical groups often have a higher regard for traditional sexual morality (divorce, sex outside of marriage, issues such as masturbation, even contraception).

There are so many differences that it's always good to simply study the various groups in some fashion before trying to share the Catholic faith. It comes easier to me, of course, because I moved in many of these different Protestant circles from 1977-1990, and thus learned how they approach things and what the differences are.

I liked aspects of many different Protestant traditions and was influenced by many of them (which turns out to have been basically the true state of affairs, from the hindsight of a Catholic standpoint: folks have bits and pieces of a larger truth that Holy Mother Church possesses in fullness).

Without that firsthand experience, some education will be necessary in order to effectively share the truths of Catholicism, because that can best be done by meeting people where they're at. And that requires some knowledge beyond the superficial.

One way to acquaint yourself with denominational differences would be to read some of the series of books by Inter-Varsity Press, entitled, "Four Views On . . . " The different presenters give their positions, and then interact with the other three. That's a great way to learn about the variants, and it is stimulating reading, too. Or take a look at something like Mead's Handbook of Denominations. Or nowadays, just go on the Internet and look for blogs from the different denominations and see how they view themselves.

As Catholics, there is much we can admire in any Protestant tradition. The more we learn about and view Protestants as fellow disciples of Christ, who love the Bible, and seek to love and follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and to live by His precepts, the better dialogue will be, because good, constructive dialogue always starts with some measure of mutual respect and common ground of beliefs, before moving onto disagreements.

4. Priests' Use of Apologetics / Dissent and Catechesis

Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions.

All of you who have stated this are most welcome. It's my pleasure, and a great honor to be with so many future priests. May God bless you with all good things, comfort, wisdom, and strength for the road ahead, as you approach the wonderful sacrament of ordination.

And personally, I hope (as you would expect) that you can include some apologetics once in a while in your homilies and catechetical instruction of your parishioners. It can only reap beneficial results, because a confident, thinking Catholic Christian is a better Catholic, who will be better able to share with others the truths that we all cherish and live by.

Here are a couple of questions from a future priest. Please add any other advice you might have to priests.

I'll do my best!

Pope John Paul II asked for a “New Evangelization” this is to include the people in the pews. How can a priest use apologetic skills to liven up the faithful? Definitely this can be done in the pulpit, but how and where else?

I guess I would say that if he regards this as an important emphasis (as I think he should), that he can repeatedly look for ways to include apologetic motifs into the readings, related to the texts at hand. Almost always this can be done, I think. For example, my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, contains biblical references to about 85% or so (as I recall offhand - I figured it out once) of all the chapters in the New Testament. So there was some tie-in to most of the material there.

Insofar as the homily at Mass is intended to exhort and prepare people not only to better understand the Bible and Catholic truth, and to live a better, holier Christian life, but also to share their faith with others, to that extent apologetics is crucial. As someone said, "our heart cannot rejoice in what our mind regards as false."

Christianity must include a high place for thinking and reason, because our Lord stated, after all: "love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and MIND." This is part and parcel of the Christian life, so I think it is highly important as an emphasis in Catholics' lives, and at church.

As for opportunities outside of the pulpit, that would be, I suppose, within the context of catechism, individual meetings with people; anywhere discussion takes place. If you think apologetics is important, there are various ways to introduce it into conversations, to spark interest. You could do book studies or show videos with apologetic content. I think that if it is done right, curiosity and zeal can be aroused fairly easily.

At least that was very true in my case. Even when I wasn't all that interested in the Bible and theology (back in the late 70s, in my late teens and early 20s), biblical prophecy (a form of apologetics in a way) fascinated me and drew me in to more study and seeking of knowledge.

I think people want to believe that Christianity can be defended reasonably against all challenges, but don't believe this to be the case, so they lack confidence, and even have an inferiority complex in the larger culture, which makes them reluctant to be witnesses for the faith.

So we should look for every opportunity we can to introduce a "thinking man's faith" into discourse. None of this is to suggest, of course, that any other aspects of the Christian life (prayer, spirituality, suffering, service, fasts, liturgy, eucharistic or Marian devotion, cooperative social efforts, charity, family life, etc.) are any less important; only that apologetics has been minimized, which is a great loss and a bad thing.

Continued from above, how do you answer questions from those inside the Church. Questions such as: women ordination, celibacy, contraception and the list could go on… The basic question here is how do we educate our own?

We can only reason with them, in various ways. If we delve into all these "controversial" areas (isn't it interesting how so many different areas of dissent have to do with sexual and gender issues?), we must argue them case-by-case and point-by-point. One can use Scripture, Church Tradition, reason; even things like current sociological data, or (for example) the conceptual and legal tie-in between contraception and abortion.

That's how I approach it (you can read my dialogues on these topics to see specifically how I argue the Catholic position). One must always recognize, too, that those who dissent on such things almost always have a prior deficient notion of how Catholic authority works, or is supposed to work. So we have to take a step back and deal with the false premise, before, or in addition to, dealing with particular issues pro or con. It's a tough nut to crack, but very necessary.

How do we educate our own? Who knows? I think it is a huge problem, which encompasses spiritual revival, cultural context, weak and insufficiently bold and courageous priests and bishops (heaven help us), abominable catechesis over the last forty years, lack of apologetics, moral compromise and laxity which lead to watering down or rejecting Catholic morality, the breakdown of the family and a common cultural ethic, leading to disillusionment and confusion, etc.

The situation can't change overnight. But we can try to affect individuals, "one at a time," as Mother Teresa would say. We can try to positively affect those around us with a hopeful, bright, optimistic, intellectually sound orthodoxy which is appealing and infectious, rather than loathsome and boring and dull and "dry as dust." Again, we can communicate that by knowing the issues, being fair to our opponents, and living out our lives faithfully, without compromise and hypocrisy, by God's grace and through prayer.

It starts in families, where the faith is promulgated and passed down. And it starts in the pulpit, and with how parishioners act upon what they learn in church, enabled by the power of the Holy Eucharist. Whatever causes revival, it seems to be infectious, and people want to be part of it when the wheels are set in motion. As future priests, all of you have the opportunity to include this apologetic emphasis in your calling. I think we've seen that some amazing, encouraging results can come about. Something different has to be tried, in any event. Why not apologetics?

Certainly a thing which includes teaching and subject matter which interested St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis de Sales, Pascal, Chesterton, St. Paul himself, and many other great figures can't be a bad thing.

I feel like I'm being a "cheerleader" for apologetics, or preaching. :-) But perhaps that is a large part of my purpose here. The questions have been fairly broad so I am essentially giving some of my deeper thoughts and motivations for what I do as an apologist: how I view my own purpose and goals, and how they might intersect with your own, as priests.

5. Mel Gibson's Movie, The Passion, and Protestants' Views on the Blessed Virgin Mary

I have heard reports that many Protestants were deeply touched by Mel Gibson's depiction of Mary in his movie, The Passion. Have you found this has had any effect in dialogue with Protestants that in the past have scoffed at our veneration of the Blessed Mother?

I haven't personally, but then again I didn't discuss the movie all that much with Protestants. I sort of co-wrote an article with a Reformed acquaintance of mine, but that didn't touch a whole lot on Mary. Protestants were certainly touched by the movie overall. It was a wonderful and highly moving piece of dramatic art.

That being the case, I have no answer for your question, but I would highly suspect that if someone were previously hostile to Catholic Mariology, that the movie would have little effect. If they were more open or "neutral" in that regard before the movie, then I suspect that it would be helpful to move them along a bit in our direction (but not necessarily). Protestants are so Bible-oriented that it usually takes some strenuous biblical argumentation to get them to accept any aspect of Mariology that they have previously rejected.

I think Christmas does more than anything else to lead Protestants to respect (if not revere) the Blessed Virgin. When you think of it, it's somewhat humorous: this is the only time all year that they have a "statue" of Mary in their homes or on their lawn. :-) Also, many icons of Mary are hung in Protestant homes, on their Christmas cards received.

Something like Silent Night vividly captures the holiness and special nature of the relationship of Jesus and Mary. Of course, that was written by an Austrian Catholic priest - while Beethoven and Schubert were still alive and living in Vienna - (it is no coincidence that it is the most beloved of all Christmas carols).

As another semi-humorous aside, when I am asked why I want to have a crucifix with Jesus still on it, rather than resurrected, and glorified in heaven (as if this somehow indicates that I deny the latter), I respond, "for the same reason you have a baby Jesus in a manger at Christmas. Does that mean you think He is still a baby?"

6. One of the Classic Skeptical Questions: "Where Did Cain Get His Wife?"

Many Greetings Mr. Armstrong:

First of all I wish to personally thank you for the opportunity given to our class to address questions to you personally. I genuinely appreciate your time and insights.

For several years now I have struggled to give a sufficient answer to young people who sometimes ask me about what they refer to simply as "the Cain woman." In Genesis 4:17, after Cain kills his brother Abel, receives his mark, and finally settles in the land of Nod, it says simply that "Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she concieved and gave birth to Enoch." I realize that as Catholics we do not read the Bible in a literal way and that, while there are historical elements in Scripture, we do not use it as a historical book per se, but nonetheless I find myself grappling for more of a logical answer to where this mystery woman came from if Cain's mother Eve was in fact the first woman? In the past I have been given the answer again that "we do not look to Scripture to answer logical questions such as these", we look only to the moral message contained therein; however, I find this answer generally insufficient both for myself and for some of the youth that have posed it to me. I would appreciate any other insights you could offer.

Again, I thank you.

Thanks very much for your kind words. This is my "stump question" and I have no quick answer (not having personally thought about it much, though I was aware of the difficulty). When that happens to an apologist, we do what anyone else in such a situation of professed ignorance should do: we go to another source to find some sort of answer. :-)

I recall that the prominent Protestant apologist, Josh McDowell (who was, incidentally, crucial in sparking my own initial interest in historical apologetics back in 1981), dealt with this question. He writes:

Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam had sons and daughters. At first, sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had to marry each other to populate the earth. Cain probably married a sister or niece or grand niece.

Assuming the accuracy of the Genesis account, and considering the length of lives recorded (around 900 years, on the average), a very sizeable population could have
developed very rapidly . . .

Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere indicate at what points in the life of Cain he murdered his brother, married his wife or built his city. Even a few hundred years might have passed before all of the events took place.

(Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith, with Don Stewart, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1980, 98-99)

Actually, I could have figured this out, just reflecting a bit on what we know. The key lies in what one assumes about the text and about the people who write it. Biblical skeptics (even committed Christians who believe in the Bible) are often inclined to think that the early books of the Bible were written by ignorant, nomadic tribesmen who didn't understand logic from a hole in the ground. In fact, they (the critics) are often the illogical ones, not the biblical writers. I've seen it even in philosophy professors, in my own many debates, as an instance of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery."

Logically speaking, we are not forced at all (as McDowell indicates) to face a difficulty of Cain being the only man on earth besides Adam, and Eve being the only woman, at the time that Cain married. One cannot logically infer that with certainty from the text itself. Instead, we have simple statements made, separate from chronology. Critics have simply assumed this, which leads (fallaciously) to much of the resultant "problem."

Modern man often thinks in rigidly literalistic, chronological, hyper-logical terms. Ancient Hebrew thought, however, was practical, pastoral, concrete, non-chronological (often compressing events hundreds of years apart, as in some prophecy), and usually narrative in form. That's not to say that it was illogical; just a different mode from what we are accustomed to in our time.

We often don't understand this (as well as the different forms of Hebraic literature) in interpreting the Bible, superimpose our modern, more "Greek" thinking on the Bible, and conclude that the people were ignoramuses who didn't have a clue.

But in the text itself, we find that Cain shows an awareness that there are other people "out there" when he is exiled:

. . . whoever finds me will slay me.

(Genesis 4:14)

If he hadn't assumed that, why would he even say this or worry about it? Since the time frame of his murder of his brother is not given, we are not required to accept that it happened when there were only four human beings on the earth. We know that Adam and Eve "had other sons and daughters" (Gen 5:4).

I think the more difficult question, then, is the question of how incest was morally neutral at this time, and later forbidden as immoral. One might hold (I think) that there was some "leeway" initially in this matter and that it was not a moral absolute, similar to the way in which concubinage was more accepted in the earlier Old Testament, whereas later on, a single wife was the norm, and what God required.

It has been argued by some that the corruption of the gene pool produced the reults that we now see in incestuous relations, but that this would not have been present initially. I'm no expert on this second question, by any means, but that is how I view the matter, anyway, for what it's worth.

7. Miracles and Apologetics

Hello Dave, thanks so much for volunteering to come online. It’s great to be reading some of your many writings.

One thing that keeps puzzling me is this: some or maybe many Christians, especially among the Protestant fold have lost a deep sense of the genuinely miraculous within the Christian faith. We are blessed in the Catholic Church that officially we still believe that Jesus Christ continues to work miracles through us today.

What apologetic significance and promise do you see in the whole area of miracles, healings and apparitions as a way of promoting the faith?

Thanks for reading my writings, and for your encouragement. I hope they are helpful to you.

I think miracles are a great and promising avenue in the realm of a larger witness, which transcends apologetics and includes things like changed lives, moral reform, the witness of the miraculous, fulfilled prophecy, Marian apparitions, etc.

In my own apologetic, I mainly defend all these supernatural events as possible, and not contrary to logic (as opposed to what some supposedly "scientifc types" often wrongly claim).

Science deals with matter, by definition; therefore science has no say one way or the other, whether miracles exist. It cannot deal in matters of the supernatural, because its purview is the natural. It is as simple as that.

Science and empirical observation and evidence can, however, verify that certain visible changes accompanying a miracle have indeed happened. At that point, the careful but respectful scientist or doctor will honestly admit "we can't explain what has happened here," but will not try to foolishly explain the manifest evidence of the mysterious change away.

This is how I attempt to explain the harmony between empirical science and the supernatural, including the miraculous. Thus, an apologetic for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ starts with the assumption that the supernatural is possible, then it looks at the various historical and psychological evidences which surrounded that event (which we believe in faith to have actually occurred).

We can arrive at a reasonable (supernatural) explanation by this process, but we have assumed its possibility from the outset. Obviously, if one rules out the supernatural, then they can never conclude as we do regarding how to explain the empty tomb. Then, of course, one must engage in a very complicated discussion about miracles and whether they are possible, plausible, and have actually occurred or not (which is a philosophical, not a scientific and/or historical discussion, because it deals with metaphysics and epistemology).

I think providing documentation of some of the more prominent miracles, such as the miracle of Fatima, the Resurrection, the documented healings at Lourdes, various undeniable healings, the incorruptibles, apparitions, the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, supernatural knowledge, such as we saw in Padre Pio and many saints, and so forth, can be very fruitful indeed.

I hope to do much more of that myself, as I have no intention of letting up in my work, and look forward to many more years, defending the Catholic faith and the larger Christian faith, over against skeptics, atheists, and those of other religions.

8. Becoming "Fired Up": Sparking Interest in Catholicism and Apologetics

Hello, Mr. Armstrong,

Thank you for taking the time to engage in this online discussion.

My question is this: how do we get people, especially Catholics who did not have much training in the faith, interested in religion and the questions we deal with in apologetics? I know some relatives who were raised Catholic, but without much religious education, who now have very little interest in religion at all, be it Catholic or Protestant or something else. Some of them go to Mass every week, and are basically decent, law-abiding people, but their eyes glaze over when the topic of religion comes up. I know a lot has to do with our modern, secular, relativistic American culture, where religion is seen as private and usually associated with one's family and/or ethnic heritage. Some even see it is as impolite to talk about religion, let alone to try to convince another person that his or her religion is not as true or good as yours. Any thoughts you might have about getting people interested in religion, and then getting them fired up about the Catholic faith, would be appreciated.

This is a great question, but unfortunately, an extremely difficult one to answer. Why some people become interested at all in spiritual things, and others do not, is ultimately a great mystery, though we know many factors which cause them to go one direction rather than another.

I think (as usual) that the way to solve the problem is very people-specific. If someone doesn't have the slightest interest in theology, spirituality, or (if it even gets to that point), apologetics, chances are we won't drum up such an interest by mere conversation. Perhaps we can spark a flame in there somewhere, however, by charity and the witness of a life lived in devotion to Jesus.

I've often hoped and wished - rather than try to argue with people who don't want to hear about God or "Catholic stuff" -, that I was able to perform some charitable work for them. I sometimes think, after encountering the most frustrating people, "I wonder how different it would be if I was able to save their lives somehow, or had the resources to save their business or home, or donate some part of my body to their dying child. I bet they would listen much more closely to what I said then, and be far more open to it." Jesus said, "they will know that I am the Messiah by your love one for another."

If we are in immediate, personal contact with people, this is what we can do: show them love (in various ways); show an interest in their lives and thoughts and concerns. Just spending any quality time with them at all is a form of love and outreach.

Secondly, I think good, thriving spirituality and Christian discipleship, like most things, spreads and flourishes in a communal atmosphere, where things are "happening" and which draws people into it. Somehow, these sorts of "mini revivals" start small, but then start to pick up momentum, like a snowball rolling down a snowy hillside. Maybe apologetics can play a role in that; maybe not, and it all depends on the particular person and their own life circumstance and place in their own spiritual pilgrimage.

For folks who have an intellectual curiosity and like to discuss competing ideas, then, of course, the way to get them interested is in stimulating their mind, and there is a world of opportunity there and a fair chance of success in many cases. If we meet them where they are at and address their concerns, in ways that they can relate to, then perhaps we can draw them in and start the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes years; other times it can happen quickly.

Our job is not only to witness with thoughts and words, but with our lives. Hopefully, by God's grace, something in our life will be appealing to others, who will then want to be in the place where God has brought us (often screaming and kicking, initially, as in my own case). I sure hope that when people look at my family, they see something different from the usual, American cultural norm. That is certainly our intention and goal. I have no idea if we have met it at all, but we're trying, and hopefully that can play a part in our witness.

Catholic families can have that particular witness againt the prevailing trends in our culture (even by something as elemental as being large rather than small). Single persons and priests have another particular witness or emphasis: that of undistracted service to the Lord and the witness of a life devoted to service of others.

One thing I would strongly urge all of you (as a layman with immense respect for priests) is this: always try to get to know your parishioners as individual people, if at all possible. They will appreciate that; it'll make them feel important, and a part of the Church. And I mean this in a sense beyond all the usual "duties": baptisms, marriages, funerals, etc. We laymen and laywomen will be (in many ways) your "children" - and every child wants as much attention from his father as he or she can get.

This is one thing where I think many Protestants (particularly evangelicals) excel: they are doing much better in terms of making people feel a part of the local church, welcome, and in fellowship with other congregants. Even before I was really committed to Christ at all in any sense, I still remember the big warm handshake and smile that one particular Lutheran pastor would give as you went out the door. He made you feel like a million bucks.

It's a small thing, but I can tell you that it meant a lot to me even then, when I had little interest in spirituality. It mitigates against the "holier than thou" stereotypes and the excessive divide between lay and religious and ordained Catholics.

If all Catholics, but particularly priests and religious, would make much more effort to cultivate this personal sense of caring and sharing, I think a lot more could be accomplished by way of sparking spiritual and theological interest. If people see you as a friendly, loving person, who cares about them personally, then they are far more likely to pay closer attention to your homilies and other instruction.

So, although this is a complicated question in the end (and I don't claim to have any definitive answers at all), in a sense maybe it is very simple: we need to love people into the kingdom and (as a subset of that) into an interest in theology. That applies to everyone. But for those already intellectually curious and active, one can use apologetics as the route to cultivate interest: attempt to reach those who emphasize the mind and reason, with those aspects of Christian faith; meet them where they are at, and where they will most likely respond to us, and make the faith appealing and exciting and inviting to them.

I hope this has been helpful. Again, I feel more like I am exhorting or leading a pep rally than doing my usual, more abstract, logic-based apologetics, but it's also a part of me and there is a time and a place for it. I trust that this is one of those.

9. Bible Hermeneutics and Prior Dispositions / Bible and Science

First I want to thank you for taking the time to enrich our educational experiences toward becoming knowledgeable priests by answering our questions.

You're welcome.

My question is:

What criteria (hermaneutic method) do fundamentalists use for determining what part of Scripture they take literally? Most Protestants take a symbolic interpretation of John 6:22-59 as well as the words of our Lord at the Last Supper when he proclaims "This is my body". But the Genesis creation account is taken literally to the point of of establishing the creationist vs. evolutionist dichotomy.

On the lay level, the denominational bias is much more influential than any conscious method of consistent interpretation. But it is true that Jesus often uses parables to explain things, so the Protestant who thinks the Eucharist is symbolic, by prior disposition, will tend to read that into the text.

The creation-evolution controversy is similar. Apart from their denominational predisposition, they look and see that evolutionary scientists are often hostile to Christianity, or at least their form of it, to the supernatural, and to the Bible. They then conclude that such a view must be wrong because the "wrong" people believe it. It's uually based on something other than a self-aware, consistent method of hermeneutics and exegesis.

Both sides in that scenario are creating unnecessary, harmful dichtomies. The fundamentalist who believes that the Bible requires a literal six day creation or a 10,000 year-old earth, or the "traditionalist" Catholic apologist who accepts geocentrism and a non-rotating earth, are just as bad as the scientist who thinks that evolution disproves the existence or necessity of God, or some such silly thing. We need to have an intelligent perspective on the relationship of religion and science. Both express truths, and they are harmonious, not at odds.

(Another question might be what exactly our Protestant brethen think of the Catholic view that God could have used evolution to create the world.) Literal interpretation of parts of the Book of Revelation have lead to the Left Behind heresy.

This is a mixed bag, because Protestants differ too much amongst themselves to make a general statement on it. Those who interpret the Bible more literally will tend to adopt special creationism. Those who have relatively more appreciation for different types of biblical literature will tend to have a wider latitude of beliefs.

The main problem with academic Protestant biblical interpretation (which fully understands different types of biblical literature, as far as that goes) is its unfamiliarity with the historic fourfold method of interpretation (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical). It has substituted the historico-grammatical method, which has its high points, but also, unfortunately, elements of a post-Enlightenment rationalism that have led to a destructive higher criticism of the Bible and theological liberalism.

10. How to Approach Fallen-Away Catholics

Most of what we have beeen discussing applies to those who actively profess Christianity, but not Catholicism and how to converse with them. But what of all the fallen away Catholics who now practice no religion and and may even be hostile to organized religion of any kind; what would be a good starting place or way to broach the subject?

I will basically appeal to other comments I have made above which mostly cover this situation. All we can do in this case, on a purely intellectual level, is to find some common ground and the areas that the person struggles with, and then give the best answers we can, which incorporate shared premises, as much as possible.

I find that just being friends with people and listening to them and not coming on too strong, offers opportunities in the long run to address the concerns they have. More often than not, I believe, it is either pet sins or events in their lives which have colored their present skepticism (neither being a theological rationale, and both often used as evasion tactics for facing up to their apostasy and rebellion against what they may very well know down deep to be true).

Be there when the person falls, and offer compassion rather than undue harshness and judgment. My wife Judy's best friend has gone morally crazy, in an affair, which has devastated her family. She tried to reason with her and was very firm that her friend was wrong. It wasn't accepted, but my wife has chosen to remain friends with this person (also with the husband), whereas most of her other friends have forsaken her.

This shows love and commitment, so that when (one fervently hopes and prays) the affair goes to pot two, three years down the line, and the friend hits bottom and comes to her senses, my wife will be there to support her and help her rebuild her life. She will have proven her commitment and love by remaining firm in the friendship despite all.

I think this can also apply to heretics and apostates. There is something special in treating people respectfully and charitably, despite strong disagreements. Actions often speak louder than words. And when we do this (like parents who pray for years concerning their children's conversion), it will reap good fruit in due course.

In cases where the person retains any interest at all in religious matters, we can always try to reach them through the ordinary means of persuasion.