This occurred on a public Facebook page of a Facebook friend of mine. The words of my opponent will be in blue.
*****
The inherent problem of apologetics [is that] it has no room for real conversation to exist on theology. Apologetics is the conclusion being presented as proof of the hypothesis, and the conversation ends there. Theology allows for criticism, highlights and disagreements. It allows for not two paths but a multitude of paths for discussion.
The root cause is apologetics. You got people on two sides hellbent [on] arguing [about] something and then turning arguments into personal attacks of characters. As long [as] people are only willing to engage the conversation [on an] apologetics [level] this will continue to happen.
If we have nothing that we accept as true, full stop, that we then go out and defend, how do we apply Jude 3 (“contend earnestly for the faith”) and 1 Peter 3:15 (“stand ready to make a defense”)? There is this thing in the Bible called “the faith” and Jesus and Paul casually assume that there is one “truth” and “tradition” and “message” etc. etc. that exists “out there” to be adhered to and defended, which is so clear that we are to separate from those who continually violate it.
*
You act as if Christians don’t have an existing belief-system and must always be uncertain (this is an outlook that I have called “the quest for uncertainty”).
Thus, the problem isn’t apologetics, which is a biblical command, but rather, those who do it poorly (without love and/or knowledge; confusing it with a stupid quarrel or an arrogant chest-puffing exercise). You throw the baby out with the bath water. It isn’t like people don’t vehemently disagree on theology, too, and often with rancor (see Protestantism and Orthodoxy), so it’s a false dichotomy, too.
*
*
You say that with apologetics “the conversation ends.” It never has to. As an apologist, myself, I always want to have conversation and discussion (because that is how truth is often arrived at), and I do it without bitterness and personal attacks. The problem is that when there is any disagreement, folks only rarely want to continue on with a normal conversation. It takes two. The reluctance to converse is almost never on my end. The only time I refuse to engage is when it is absolutely clear that a person doesn’t have the spirit of dialogue and open-mindedness that goes with it. It becomes evident very quickly, if this is absent (especially in proportion to how experienced one is at dialogue and debate).
*
Truth is not dying on the often exaggerated and reinterpreted narratives that apologetics uses to consequentially present historical and theological points in a system of confession that reflects presupposed beliefs rather than presenting the historical and theological points in contextual presentation and allowing them to drive the hermeneutics. Apologetics is, in the end, the argument of a person who believes [he] is right and who will not budge otherwise. It is the end of conversation and the end of the study of truth. Apologetics is, for a reason, the lower tier of philosophy, theology, and history, often being neither good at presenting truth nor at the study of the things it claims to defend. Disagreeing with theology is a real thing, and should be the issue it is when people turn it into a dichotomy dissection in which splits the idea that one side is fully right and clean and the other is wrong and filthy in their error.
*
So you don’t have a set group of Christian beliefs? Or are you an atheist or simply non-religious? If you have a set of Christian beliefs, then according to the Bible you are obliged to defend it and share it with others, in evangelism. And that is your problem. You can’t “diss” apologetics” within a Christian and biblical paradigm.
*
*
So it comes down to what you believe. As it is, you sound almost relativistic or only nominally Christian. I don’t know unless you tell me what you believe.
But you are just as vehement in an “anti-apologetics” view as you say we apologists are in our view. You make blanket statements and you seem quite sure of your views, which is scarcely indistinguishable from what you critique.
*
*
So in my humble opinion you have insufficiently thought through your own presuppositions. Jesus and Paul and the Church fathers and doctors of the Church all passionately engaged in apologetics, so, again, if you are a Christian, you can’t possibly be dead-set against it, as you are.
*
You also wrongly assume that apologists never change their minds. I was an apologist as a Protestant and massively changed my mind when I became a Catholic. If I am ever persuaded that Orthodoxy is the way to go, I will surely follow that path too. I’ve also changed my mind on big issues as a Catholic (e.g., capital punishment), just as I did on many issues as a Protestant apologist. So the key is to always be willing to follow truth wherever it leads. But in any event, there is such a thing as truth. We’re not here to endlessly speculate and never arrive at it.
*
Lastly, it’s not true that one has to demonize all opponents in dialogue. I don’t do that at all. I take the greatest pains not to do so and note that errors usually come from false premises obtained along the way and not from an evil will or bad faith. Accordingly, I’ve written about how individual atheists could very well be saved, per Romans 2.
Lastly, it’s not true that one has to demonize all opponents in dialogue. I don’t do that at all. I take the greatest pains not to do so and note that errors usually come from false premises obtained along the way and not from an evil will or bad faith. Accordingly, I’ve written about how individual atheists could very well be saved, per Romans 2.
*
You’re the one in effect demonizing a whole field (apologetics) by dismissing it as a “bad” thing. In doing so, you go after Jesus and Paul, etc., and that’s your problem if you are any sort of Christian. Once you tell me what you believe, it’ll become clearer why you feel led to go down this path.
*
[he then put up a “laughing” icon in “response]
*
See, this is why I can’t take y’all seriously. The jumping to non-fundamental conclusionism . . .
*
It’s why you don’t offer a serious critique, unless you further explain yourself and offer any sort of counter-argument to what I have said. We still have no idea what your belief-system is. Instead, you go right to immediately judging and dismissing (and now essentially laughing at; you put a laughing icon in “reply” to one of my posts) an entire group of human beings: Christians who rationally defend what they believe.
*
So far, you have shown zero interest in dialogue, and this is the high irony. You would rather preach and proselytize with your seemingly skeptical outlook. You condemn an alleged widespread attitude among apologists of being dogmatic and unwilling to dialogue. Far too many persons are that way; I agree, but not the whole group as a general description. At the same time, you exhibit precisely the same closed-minded spirit that you have just condemned.
*
I just got through writing that it’s usually the other guy unwilling to dialogue, and then you prove the validity of the generalization (based on long personal experience: 44 years, in fact) before our very eyes.
*
[he again put up a laughing icon in “reply’]
*
If you are serious about the issue, it is with apologetics, not apologists. Apologetics, as a normative practice, often creates a narrative of circular argument that relies on authority and, more often than not, an interpretation of it. Apologetics requires rejecting real evidence that shows changes in doctrines and dogmas, and employing any method to argue for an interpretation that avoids admitting any obvious bias. I find it a lower form of theology, history, philosophy, linguistics, and related disciplines.
*
I adhere to a quasi-apokatastasis system, since I believe everything that exists in creation exists within God and can never exist outside of God. A Christological cosmic narrative differs significantly from concepts of God and the universe as fully separate, with only the acts of God existing in God, not the essence, or just the manifestation of God’s existence operating in the universe. My dislike of the “I am right and you’re wrong” position of apologetics stems not from that, but from the clear textual evidence and archaeological findings regarding changes, reinterpretations, and frameworks. Religion is primarily an aspect of anthropomorphic human institutionalism, subject to change and adaptation like any other institution. I refuse to simply sit down and say otherwise or perform mental gymnastics to be “right” while others are “wrong” and therefore need to convert to be right. The sole sacrament of Christianity is a mystery that every Christian, and even many non-Christians, both have and attain, guiding the movement from the finite to the infinite. I do not need to tell everyone who is right to win arguments or prove my side true. I am always willing to exchange views with people, not to show who is right, but why we believe differently. If I wanted circular reasoning and wasting time, Islam is there to join or argue against never truly making a difference on reality.
*
*
I became a Catholic due to reading St. Cdl. Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and development is my favorite theological topic. But it depends on what we mean by “development.” Newman is very precise as to his own meaning: it is development without losing the kernel or essence of a doctrine from beginning to end (an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing, on a continuum). All Christians who accept biblical inspiration also believe in progressive revelation. Doctrines have indeed changed. But we do deny that what we believe to be the true doctrines have changed in essence.
*
*
You criticize us for feeling certain about Catholic dogmas, while you sit there and by all appearances and perceptions feel absolutely (?) certain that your worldview that you are now describing (thank you!) is correct and ours — at least what you perceive to be ours — is wrong.
*
*
So you absolutely condemn absolute (as opposed to relative) views, and propose an absolute view as a replacement: all the while severely chastising any sort of dogma or certainty. This huge self-contradiction is discussed a lot by C. S. Lewis in his books and articles (e.g., “The Poison of Subjectivism”). You seem quite blissfully unaware of it, and that’s how it usually goes with folks who hold these sorts of views.
*
*
As to one of your many specific criticisms: I, as a professional apologist, do not rely on — and have never relied on — “circular argumentation” at all: nor does any apologist who is even remotely deserving of that title. So, for example, in my last officially published book from Catholic Answers, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible, you can see in the title alone, what my methodology is. I am taking things (secular fields of knowledge) outside of the Bible to offer evidence that it is historically trustworthy to a remarkable degree. I make it clear that I am not claiming that this proves biblical inspiration, but that it does offer a view that is *consistent* with that position.
*
In other words, if the Bible is indeed an inspired revelation, we would expect at a minimum for it to not contain obvious massive errors of fact and self-contradictions, because those things would be counter-evidences of inspiration and guidance from an omniscient God. And that is the purpose of another book of mine (I offer it for free, too): Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. This is literally an answer to actual atheist arguments to the effect that the Bible is ridiculously and relentlessly self-contradictory and nonsensical and anti-scientific. So I give them the respect of seriously considering their arguments, and offering a reply from one who thinks that they are all bum raps. Then my readers can make up their own minds. I give them the atheist argument and also the Christian reply, and may the best argument prevail!
*
That’s not circular, either. It’s applying knowledge of biblical literature and of logic and science and making an argument. Moreover, the Bible is very often critiqued by those who, ironically, usually know very little about either biblical literature (genres) or exegesis. I’ve found that this is almost invariably the case. Many of these atheists with whom I have dialogued were former fundamentalists and they continue to interpret in that same manner, as if the Bible is always to be interpreted with a wooden literalism.
*
*
I never was a fundamentalist. I was a nominal Methodist and then a practical atheist with a fascination for the occult. When I was ready to be a Christian at age 18 I applied reason to it, and all the more four years later when I started doing apologetics in a serious way. But none of what I do is circular reasoning. There are some apologists who at least partially fall into that (it’s my critique of a school called presuppositionalists, who tend to be Calvinists), but my basic category is evidentialist apologetics, which is a very different approach.
*
So now we may perhaps be starting to engage in an actual dialogue. One key to determining that is whether you put a laughing icon underneath my comment for the third straight time. If you do, I’m done with this exchange. If not, then it’s up to you to figure out if I’m sufficiently “serious” for you to spend time engaging in dialogue with. You’re the one who came onto this thread broad-brushing against apologetics and apologists. As one of those, myself, one might expect that I would respond. No one appreciates being massively misrepresented.
*
*
One can’t enter into true dialogue if he or she has utter disdain for the other person’s views or if (as I think is more the case with you) one exhibits a poor understanding in several ways of the view (or caricature of a view) that they are so passionately condemning.
*
*
[more to be added whenever this person “responds” further]
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Summary: I respond to a wholesale attack on Christian apologetics: of the sort that I have observed many times over 44 years. As one can see, this person was utterly unwilling to dialogue.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In