Peter Kreeft & Christian Apologetics

[Humble Disciple]

If you want an example of a good Catholic author, I recommend Peter Kreeft. He writes books on Christian apologetics that Protestants often use, and he's not anti-Protestant.

My campus minister in college was an assistant pastor at a Calvary Chapel church, and he recommended Peter Kreeft's books on Christian apologetics. Calvary Chapel isn't exactly friendly to Catholicism.

Half of Peter Kreeft's books are directed to both Catholics and Protestants. He wants Protestants to be able to defend their Christian faith to unbelievers.

Here are Peter Kreeft's articles on Monergism.com, a very Calvinist website:
Peter Kreeft | Monergism

 

[37818]

@Humble Disciple,
How does or in what ways does Peter Kreeft defend Roman Catholicism? How does He differ with the Orthodox tradition and Protestants and for that matter Baptists aka New Testament Christiantity?

 

[Humble Disciple]

@Humble Disciple,
How does or in what ways does Peter Kreeft defend Roman Catholicism? How does He differ with the Orthodox tradition and Protestants and for that matter Baptists aka New Testament Christiantity?

I avoid reading Peter Kreeft's apologetics for the Catholic faith. Like C.S. Lewis, he writes many books in defense of Christianity in general.

 

[37818]

I avoid reading Peter Kreeft's apologetics for the Catholic faith. Like C.S. Lewis, he writes many books in defense of Christianity in general.

Yeah, my guess is, just like you avoided answering what I had asked.

Ok then.

What specific arguments by Peter Kreeft do you think are the most useful to any Christian in general for definding the faith?

 

[37818]

Peter Kreeft's unstated goal is to bring Protestants back to the one true Church aka the Cathlolic Church.

Peter Kreeft - Wikipedia

As a Baptist aka a New Testament Christian, I find this to be problematic and as such to be untenable.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Yeah, my guess is, just like you avoided answering what I had asked.

Ok then.

What specific arguments by Peter Kreeft do you think are the most useful to any Christian in general for definding the faith?

This isn't pointing to any specific argument that he makes, but if you are bored with the way that apologetics is usually presented, you might like how he presents it in narrative form, as dialogues between historical figures.

 

[Walter]

I avoid reading Peter Kreeft's apologetics for the Catholic faith. Like C.S. Lewis, he writes many books in defense of Christianity in general.

Why?? Much of the reason I became a Catholic and left the Baptist church is because I read Catholic apologetics and also the discussions of this board when Catholics were given allowed to join the board

 

[37818]

Much of the reason I became a Catholic and left the Baptist church is because I read Catholic apologetics and also the discussions of this board when Catholics were given allowed to join the board

I have never understood your reasons. So two questions. What was the main Baptist teaching you came to understand to be false? And what was the main thing that convinced you the Catholic church is true? And if you prefer PM your answers.

 

[Walter]

If you have read my reasoning before, sorry to post this. This is an old testimony and gives some of my reasons. There are since been many added to why I made the decision:

Why I became Catholic:

I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.

Liturgy is definately part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!

I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

It has been a long journey as I have had to overcome much mis-information I was given as a Baptist plus I wanted to be sure my decision was made prayerfully and that Catholic teaching did not contradict scripture. I have had to face judgement and even some shunning from family which has been particularly painful. For the most part, my family (mostly Baptist) has not been willing to discuss this with me and has concluded that I 'must not have ever been really saved to begin with'. I hope this changes over time. Since my decision to worship and practice the Catholic Faith I have grown in my prayer life and have gained victory over some of the habitual sins of my life. I can certainly say that I've come a long way spiritually in the past year.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Why?? Much of the reason I became a Catholic and left the Baptist church is because I read Catholic apologetics and also the discussions of this board when Catholics were given allowed to join the board

I was raised Catholic and now that I actually read the Bible and see the inconsistencies between the Bible and Catholicism, it's unlikely I will ever go back. This doesn't mean I believe Catholics are unsaved.

 

[Walter]

I was raised Catholic and now that I actually read the Bible and see the inconsistencies between the Bible and Catholicism, it's unlikely I will ever go back. This doesn't mean I believe Catholics are unsaved.

I was raised Baptist and now that I actually read the Bible and see the inconsistencies between the Bible and evangelicalism, it's unlikely I will ever go back. This doesn't mean I believe evangelicals are unsaved.

 

[Walter]

 

[Walter]

Easy Christianity: Timothy is a man of good intention and he really means it when he says "the answer to your question is nothing, for Jesus did it all." What he didn't seem to realize is that, in his belief that we do nothing because Jesus does it all, he was citing, not from the Bible, but from his tradition, which makes void the word of God (Mt. 15:6). He had nothing further to say when I brought this to his attention.
Jesus tells us that much is required of us who have been given much "Every one to whom much is given, of him much will be required (Lk. 12:48). Easy Christianity says nothing at all is required.
Real Christianity says that we do something, take up your cross daily and follow me (Lk. 9:23), keep the commandments (Mt. 19: 19:18). We must do good for the resurrection of the life (Jn. 5:28-29). Will you pay attention to your Bible and do good for the resurrection and the life or will you listen to your tradition and do nothing?
Yes, Jesus did it once and for all and for all time. Jesus took up His cross and now it is our turn. Easy Christianity says, Jesus did it all and we do nothing; however, real Christianity listens to Jesus who said, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Lk. 9:23).
Are the commandments truly necessary for eternal life? I asked him a salvation question that is answered by Jesus. His tradition had taught him that we do nothing for our salvation because Jesus does it all for us. In the Bible, Jesus tells us to do something to gain everlasting life; if you wish to enter into life keep the commandments (Mt. 19:18).
This man and many others don’t like the salvation answer given by Jesus because it does not fit with their tradition. This is why they don’t quote these words of Jesus.
Nobody can keep the commandments. I have a friend, who is Lutheran and this is his response to Jesus’ answer “keep the commandments.” He said, “nobody can keep the commandments.” Jesus doesn’t say that; the Apostles do not say that; the Bible does not say that anywhere. He was coming from a tradition that is in violation of the Bible and the very words spoken by Jesus.

 

[Walter]

How can we be sure that we know Jesus? “And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 2:3).
In addition, John the Apostle tells us that those who disobey the commandments are liars. “He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected (1Jn. 2:4-5).
Why don’t they quote these verses? It is because these verses require us to do something when their tradition tells them to do nothing.
The book of 1 John reinforces the commandments even further in chapters 3 and 5. “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 Jn. 3:22).
How do we abide in Christ? “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us (1 Jn. 3:24).
How do we love God? “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1Jn. 5:3).
Timothy’s salvation answer: He got it wrong when he said that we do nothing; however, he got it right when he quoted Paul who said, “We are saved by grace, not works” (Eph. 2:8-9). Paul speaks against works in Ephesians but then he speaks for works in in Romans and ties works into eternal life. "Who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works"
(Rom. 2:6-7).
Why is Paul, in one place speaking against works and for works in another place? Was the Apostle Paul confused? No, he was not confused; however, there are some people, who quote Paul, who are confused.
Grace saved through faith: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of
WORKS: 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
WORKMANSHIP: 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
GOOD WORKS: for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
WORKS OF THE LAW: 11 Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands (Eph. 2:8-12).
The first thing we should notice is that Paul speaks “against works” in verse 9 and “for good works” in verse 10. This is complicated do to the fact that Paul lists the concept “works” three different ways, the last being “works of the law”.
Someone might ask the question, why would I list “works of the law” as circumcision when the language “works of the law” is not in the immediate context? This is true; however, it is in the larger context in a parallel verse in Romans.
For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (Rom. 3:28-29). These are some of the most used and abused Bible verses because people without realizing it, who have the best of intentions are using these verses against “good works” when “good works” are not even mentioned. “Works of law” circumcision is mentioned.
So now we can see that Paul is speaking not against “good works” done in love. He is saying we are justified by faith apart from “works of the law” and specifically names circumcision. He is dealing with the same issue that was dealt with in the Jerusalem council.
So now go back to Ephesians 2:11 notice that Paul lists “circumcision”. If a “work of the law” is circumcision in Romans 3:28, then circumcision is a “work of the law” in Ephesians. This is how parallel verses help us in understanding Scripture.
Let’s say that someone refuses to believe that Paul is speaking “for good works” and they see “good works” as hampering salvation. Then why does Paul speak for good works and tie works directly into eternal life.
"By your stubbornness and your impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation for the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works; eternal life to those who seek Glory, and honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works” (Rom. 2:5-7).
Jerusalem Council: There were people from Judea insisting that you must be circumcised in order to be saved. Peter spoke against circumcision; “Why then are you putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10,11)? And so, the issue was settled once and for all and for all time; Peter had spoken. Circumcision was not necessary.
Yes, it was settled, but the controversy did not go away because there were still Jews who were insisting on it. In fact, so large was the issue that Paul had Timothy circumcised to make it easier to work among the Jews; “On account of the Jews in that region Paul had him circumcised” (Acts 16:3).
Once you see this, then it is very easy to see how Paul was continuing in Romans 3:28-29 and other places to deal with the issue of circumcision. It must be remembered the Church was first of all a Jewish Church. Jesus was a Jew. The original Apostles were Jewish. When someone became A Jew, the first thing they did was to become circumcised. Circumcision was the first major issue facing the Church because many people were insisting on it.
Paul in his frustration says; “Beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3). “Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!” (Gal. 5:12).
The people from Judea were insisting that “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law” (Acts 15:5).
How many people have heard the term “works based religion” and then speak against it? Every time I have heard this phrase, I found that they were not saying what type of “works” they were referring to.
As I would quiz people on this, I would find that they were referring to “good works-based religion”. Where it is clear that the “works” spoken of are in fact “good works” the Bible always affirms good works except in one case and that is where good works are not done in love.
Every time I hear someone speak against works in Romans 3:28, they are using this against good works when “good works” is not mentioned; however, “works of the law” circumcision is mentioned.
FAITH WITHOUT LOVE IS NOTHING: “If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing (Cor. 13:2).
GOOD WORKS WITHOUT LOVE: “I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3).
LOVE NEVER ENDS: “Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away” (1 Cor. 13:8).
IS LOVE GREATER THAN FAITH: ”So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13).
Faith and good works must be with love otherwise they are nothing. "Faith alone" is in Scripture in James 2; however it is preceded by two words "NOT BY faith alone". In Galatians "faith alone" does not exist, however "faith working through love" does exist. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [work of the law] nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).
One final thing, this also settles the so-called fight between Paul and James with Paul speaking against “works” and James speaking for works. James was speaking for “good works” in chapter 2 and Paul was speaking against “works of the law” circumcision, in Romans 3:28 so there is no disagreement. They are speaking about two different things.