|
B B S T r a n s c r i p t
"Are You Being Consistent?"
By Karl Keating
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 7/8
 July/August 1994 
|
|
|
Date: 1994-07-04,01:00
From: [seminarian] Jonathan Guidry
To: Karl Keating
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
In a message dated 29 Jun 94 20:57:00, Karl Keating wrote:
KK> I hope you haven't fallen into the trap of thinking little or
nothing
KK> in Scripture is to be taken literally. In fact, nearly everything
is,
KK> and the parts that aren't, such as allegory, poetry, and parables,
are
KK> pretty obvious. A grave injustice is done to many seminarians
by
KK> making them think that Scripture is mainly metaphorical.
I believe certain things in Scripture are meant to be taken literally,
and
some are meant as a metaphor (just as the Catholic Church teaches.)
Stuff
like "This is My Body . . . This is My Blood" was meant
literally. Parables and
other things in the Bible were meant to convey a greater meaning than
was
written down. I'm not falling into the trap that thinking little
or nothing
in Scripture is to be taken literally. :-)
KK> The problem with your Fundamentalist friend isn't that he takes
parts
KK> of Scripture literally, but that he takes parts in isolation and
takes
KK> other parts metaphorically when he SHOULD take them literally.
Bingo.
KK> These verses, by themselves, may be susceptible to multiple
KK> interpretations, and Fundamentalists choose just one. But if the
verses
KK> were seen not just in immediate context, but in relation to verses
KK> elsewhere in Scripture, the available interpretations would dwindle,
KK> often to only one and often to one Fundamentalists don't take.
I've done this.. he's thrown Scripture at me, and I've thrown it back
with the
previous/after verses and said "Hey dude . . . look at this .
. . this explains the
thing you quoted. Don't just look at that specific verse. Look at
the ones
around it." That's the one thing he didn't reply back to.
KK> A good example of this is the verses referring to the "brothers"
of
KK> the Lord. In Scripture the word "brothers" is susceptible
to two
KK> chief meanings: uterine brothers or close relatives. (A third
meaning is
KK> used by Fundamentalists in their own churches: Any fellow Christian
is
KK> a "brother," which is why the minister refers to "Brother
Smith" and
KK> "Brother Jones," even though Smith and Jones aren't
related by
KK> blood.)
Yup. He tried to cite an example of that--that Jesus has brothers
(flesh and
blood ones) in a specific verse. I don't remember which one--but
I asked him
to read around the verse to see if it had a greater meaning. That's
an example
of him taking one verse, revolving his whole interest around it, and
taking it
literally.
KK> The Fundamentalist takes these "brothers" verses in
the first sense and
KK> lets it go at that. But if he investigated other verses concerning
Mary's
KK> perpetual virginity (or alleged lack of it), he would see that
"brothers"
KK> in the narrow, uterine sense is an interpretation that won't work.
That's what I basically told him. We're all "brothers"
in Christ. Just being
a "brother" in Christ doesn't mean I'm related to him by
any means.
KK> Jonathan, it sounds to me that you might be falling into a trap.
By
KK> distancing yourself from your Fundamentalist friend's position,
you
KK> might be tempted to adopt a position popular among Catholics,
KK> position of effective skepticism regarding the historicity of
Scripture.
I'm not distancing myself. I believe in Scripture and take certain
things
literally and certain things metaphorically (that convey a greater
meaning),
like any devout Catholic should do. I'm not doubting the historicity
of
Scripture by any means. I just don't know how to express myself sometimes,
and it came out wrong. :-)
KK> The hitch is that both positions are wrong, but you may have to
KK> discover this for yourself. It might be the case that you will
not
KK> find trustworthy exegesis in your seminary. (I know of many seminaries
KK> in which this is so.) This means you will have to search on your
own.
I know . . . Just like you stated, I think some things are metaphors
(parables,
etc.) and some things were meant to be taken literally. I'm sorry
I expressed
myself wrong. Things like that happen when you get distracted and
tired. :)
But, I still don't like his position: "If it's in the Bible,
you have to take
it literally, or you will go to hell." You need to take things
in the context
they were written. If it's literal by the Church's belief, take it
literally.
If it's a metaphor of faith, take it as such, as it conveys a greater
meaning.
I've gotten to a point where all I do is pray for him. Personally,
though I'm
not supposed to judge; his new girlfriend got him involved.
KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist friend's viewpoint
and
KK> the proper Catholic response to it--including the question
of Mary's
KK> perpetual virginity--I can refer you to my "Catholicism
and
KK> Fundamentalism" (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole
field.
I'll go to the Rosary House and see if they can get it for me.
Thanks!
Jonathan
Date: 1994-07-09,16:33
From: Karl Keating
To: Jonathan Guidry
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
Jonathan:
You said of your Fundamentalist friend,
JG> I've done this . . . He's thrown Scripture at me, and I've thrown
it back with the
JG> previous/after verses and said "Hey dude . . . look at this
. . . This explains the
JG> thing you quoted. Don't just look at that specific verse. Look
at the ones
JG> around it." That's the one thing he didn't reply back to.
Actually, to understand the import of a verse we need to examine not
just those around it (the immediate context), but perhaps verses far
removed that don't seem to have anything to do with the issue.
For instance, in pondering the relation of the "brethren of the
Lord" to
Mary (were they her sons and daughters or more distant relatives?),
we
need to be able to stand far enough back to see that while the sacred
writers refer to Jesus as the "son of Mary," never once
are these
"brethren" referred to as the sons or daughters of Mary.
This bifurcation is striking because it is abnormal. Writers tend
to
keep the same style throughout a work. Why refer to only one child in a
family as the son of the mother?
Why not refer to all of the children as the sons and daughters of
the
mother? Why relegate the other children to a status in which they
are
not ever referred to as Mary's children, but only as brothers and
sisters of Jesus? (And, no, it's no answer to say, "Because Jesus
is
more important than Mary"--which is true, but irrelevant
to the issue.)
As I mention in my lectures and writings, this odd usage by the sacred
writers, taken by itself, does not argue toward the fact that these
"brethren" are Mary's children, but to the opposite. (A
little thought
will show this, I think.)
But these verses do not appear in the immediate context of the "brethren
of the Lord" verses, which means that if you stick only to the
immediate
context, even if it is extended to include the ten verses before and
after the verse in question, you'll still miss a fact that needs to
be
considered. Context is important, but it's not necessarily enough.
Karl
Date: 1994-07-01,10:53
From: James White [director of Alpha and Omega Ministries]
To: Karl Keating
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
Karl was saying to Jonathan on 29 Jun 94 20:57:19:
KK> These verses, by themselves, may be susceptible to multiple
KK> interpretations, and Fundamentalists choose just one. But if the
verses
KK> were seen not just in immediate context, but in relation to verses
KK> elsewhere in Scripture, the available interpretations would dwindle,
KK> often to only one and often to one Fundamentalists don't take.
KK> A good example of this is those verses referring to the "brothers"
of
KK> the Lord. In Scripture the word "brothers" is susceptible
to two chief
KK> meanings: uterine brothers or close relatives. (A third meaning
is used
KK> by Fundamentalists in their own churches: Any fellow Christian
is a
KK> "brother," which is why the minister refers to "Brother
Smith" and
KK> "Brother Jones," even though Smith and Jones aren't
related by blood.)
KK> The Fundamentalist takes these "brothers" verses in
the first sense and
KK> lets it go at that. But if he investigated other verses concerning
KK> Mary's perpetual virginity (or alleged lack of it), he would see
that
KK> "brothers" in the narrow, uterine sense is an interpretation
that won't
KK> work.
Why won't it work, Karl?
And could not the same thing be said to you with reference to your
interpretation of passages regarding the flesh and blood of Christ?
KK> I said that Fundamentalists also err in not being literal ENOUGH.
Take
KK> John 6 for example. Catholics take it literally, so we believe
in the
KK> Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But Fundamentalists
take this
KK> chapter metaphorically. WE are the literalists, and THEY are the
KK> non-literalists.
You said that taking adelphos in its normal meaning in the NT doesn't
"work." And yet taking your viewpoint of John 6 creates
numerous
contradictions, as I pointed out in debating Dr. Pacwa on the topic
of the
Mass in San Diego in January of 1991. Are you being consistent, Karl?
KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist's friend viewpoint
and the
KK> proper Catholic response to it--including the question of
Mary's
KK> perpetual virginity--I can refer you to my "Catholicism
and
KK> Fundamentalism" (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole
field.
The whole field, Karl? If I were to tell someone that "to understand
the
Roman Catholic viewpoint, see my book . . ." I would most certainly
be
reminded that it would be best to read a Roman Catholic as well as
my own
works.
For example, I would find it rather strange for someone to say, "To
understand the Reformed perspective, read James Akin's article in
"This Rock . . ." Be that as it may, do you really feel
your work covers "the whole field," since, I would allege,
it ignores the best historical Protestant apologetics (Calvin, Salmon,
etc.), and responds
almost exclusively to an Arminian viewpoint?
James
Date: 1994-07-09,16:23
From: Karl Keating
To: James White
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
JW> You said that taking adelphos in its normal meaning in the NT
doesn't
JW> "work." And yet taking your viewpoint of John 6 creates
numerous
JW> contradictions, as I pointed out in debating Dr. Pacwa on the
topic of the
JW> Mass in San Diego in January of 1991. Are you being consistent,
Karl?
Yes, I am, James. As you know, when the Jews referred to "brother,"
the
use of the term was ambiguous because of the limitations of Hebrew
and
Aramaic (each deficient in words for close relations, "brother"
being used
instead).
My point in "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" is that we
can't draw any conclusion, one way or the other, about the relation
of the "brothers" to Christ if we restrict ourselves to
the "brothers" verses.
We must act as detectives and see if there are other verses, often
far
removed from these, that indicate something about Mary's relation
to
these people.
My argument is that there are multiple verses that are incompatible
with her being their mother. While no one verse is adequate to prove
the matter, all of them taken together provide a high level of confidence,
approaching certainty, I think.
Beyond that Scripture is silent on the issue. There is no verse that
states explicitly that the "brothers" were or were not Mary's
children,
and we must make do with whatever other evidence we can gather.
(I abstract here, of course, from relying on authority, the Church
having authority to determine this matter, even if Scripture were
to say
nothing about it.)
JW> KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist's friend viewpoint
JW> KK> and the proper Catholic response to it--including the
question of
JW> KK> Mary's perpetual virginity--I can refer you to my "Catholicism
and
JW> KK> Fundamentalism" (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole
field.
JW> The whole field, Karl? If I were to tell someone that "to
understand the
JW> Roman Catholic viewpoint, see my book . . ." I would most
certainly be
JW> reminded that it would be best to read a Roman Catholic as well
as my own
JW> works.
By "the whole field" I was referring to the standard arguments
brought
up by Fundamentalists against Catholics. My book contains all the
chief
ones, or at least enough of them to keep my correspondent busy.
Karl
Date: 1994-07-17,21:47
From: Karl Keating
To: James White
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
[Referring to a lengthy message by James White in which he quoted
numerous scriptural verses in defense of his understanding of "brethren
of the Lord"]:
James:
You're covering ground I've covered at greater length in "Catholicism
and Fundamentalism," and I see no need to retype those paragraphs
for
your benefit. You have my book, so you can look up the argument again.
But I will make one point that you neglect to allude to: You rightly
note that James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are in one verse named as
Jesus' "brothers."
You ignore that two of them are elsewhere named as the sons of Mary,
wife of Cleophas, not of Mary, wife of Joseph. Since they can't have
had two biological mothers, they must not be children of Jesus' mother
and therefore must not be Jesus' blood brothers. I mention this in
my book, plus many other arguments.
I really don't know why you persist in your argument, James, about
the
scope of the term "brother" in the Gospels. Most Protestant
scholars, so
far as I can tell, acknowledge that the term is ambiguous and can't
be used to settle the issue one way or the other.
JW> Yes, but the high level of confidence, approaching certainty,
is
JW> opposed to the doctrine developed centuries later that controls
your
JW> exegesis, Karl. If you had no pre-existing belief in the perpetual
JW> virginity of Mary, you would never come to the conclusions you
do
JW> based solely on the text.
I suppose if I had no pre-existing belief in many Christian doctrines
I
wouldn't come to them solely through a reading of Scripture--and
neither would you. At least I know that many people have been unable
to
do so. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine that pops to
mind.
It's not at all clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is of the
Godhead. (If it
were clear, we would not have seen the pneumatomachian heresies of
the
early centuries.)
One could argue, I suppose--and so people did argue--that
the "clear" sense of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is
God's force or influence, but is not a Person, or at least not a divine
Person.
It's the sola scriptura advocate who, historically, had a problem
with
the Holy Spirit verses. Those recognizing Church authority had no
problem, because they knew how the verses were to be understood.
Karl
Editor's note: These exchanges are taken from the "ecumen" forum on the Catholic Information Service, a bulletin board run by Michael and Sharon Mollerus of San Diego, California. CIN's messages are distributed nightly to many buletin boards throughout the country. |
